GOAL Program Total Development

?8:7E@bjbj((4444Hdhjjjjjj$Rhh Ph400$44GOAL Program Total Development Cost LimitsBEDROOM SIZEPer Unit Cost LimitSRO (75% OF ZERO)$104,5410$139,3881$159,7812$194,2923$251,3484 OR MORE$275,902SNHG Program Total Development Cost LimitsBEDROOM SIZEPer Unit Cost LimitSRO (75% OF ZERO)$117,1740$156,2331$179,0932$217,7753$281,7254 OR MORE$309,247+-.=PQRgnopu|}~'./05 CJKLQXYZ_fg??h!1h!15CJ aJ h!1h[h!1CJh!1CJh!1CJaJh!1h!1CJaJh!15CJh!15CJaJh!1h!15CJaJh!15CJh^n5CJh!1h^n5CJ aJ ;+,-./ Lkd$$IfHu0v`L"4Ha$d$Ifa$gd^nd$Ifgd^nd$Ifgd^nLkd8$$IfHf0v`L"4HaLkd$$IfHf0v`L"4Ha$d$Ifa$gd^nd$Ifgd^nd$Ifgd^nLkd$$IfHf0v`L"4Ha$d$Ifa$gd^nd$Ifgd^nd$Ifgd^nLkdy$$IfHf0v`L"4Ha$y$jU$d$Ifa$gd#$d$Ifa$gd#$^a$gd!1Lkd$$IfHf0v`L"4Ha$d$Ifa$gd^nd$Ifgd^nd$Ifgd^nELkd-$$IfHf0v`L"4Ha$dZ$Ifa$gd#$dZ$Ifa$gd#$d$Ifa$gd#7kd$$IfHv8"4Ha%&/0134=|ppd$Ifgd#Lkd$$IfHf0v`L"4Ha$d$Ifa$gd#$d$Ifa$gd#d$Ifgd#d$Ifgd#=?ABKLMLkdn$$IfHf0v`L"4Ha$d$Ifa$gd#d$Ifgd#d$Ifgd#Lkd$$IfHu0v`L"4HaMOPYZ[]^gLkd3$$IfHf0v`L"4Ha$d$Ifa$gd#d$Ifgd#d$Ifgd#ghist}~Lkd$$IfHf0v`L"4Ha$d$Ifa$gd#d$Ifgd#d$Ifgd#Lkd$$IfHf0v`L"4Haghu|}~h!1h!1CJh!1CJaJh!1h!1CJaJh!1CJ~&1h:pQJ0/ =!"#$%q$$If!vh5#v:VH5//44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55/////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHu55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55/////44Haq$$If!vh5#v:VH5//44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55/////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHu55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55//////44Ha$$If!vh55#v#v:VHf55/////44HaD`D^nNormal1$CJ_HhmHsHtHZ@Z[Heading 1$ ?ABKLMOPYZ[]^ghist}~000 @0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00p0@0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @00 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 0gQo=Mg~..=PQRgnopu|}~~mromick[MQJ0!1^n#+-. AKLOYZ]ghs}~@`L"@@UnknownG: Times New Roman5Symbol3&: Arial"hxxxx9F9F!xr4~~3QH)?[*GOAL Program Total Development Cost LimitsmromickmromickOh+'0 ,HT`lt|+GOAL Program Total Development Cost LimitsoOALmromickromromNormalmromick2omMicrosoft Word 10.0@@Ph@Ph9F?.+,04hp#Alaska Housing Finance Corporation~+GOAL Program Total Development Cost LimitsTitle !"#$%&()*+,-.01234569Root EntryF Ph;Data1TableWordDocument((SummaryInformation('DocumentSummaryInformation8/CompObjjFMicrosoft Word DocumentMSWordDocWord.Document.89q

Sales Goal Oct 9,

News APPLIANCEMAGAZINE.COM Home | Subscriptions Search the Site: Advanced Search 2004 New Product Supplement Dell COO Reiterates $60 billion Sales Goal Oct 9, 2003 Dell Inc. Chief Operating Officer Kevin Rollins said that the company intends to reach its goal of U.S. $60 billion in sales in the next few years. Dell, which recently said it would expand its consumer electronics business, can hit that number within its initial 5-year target if it continues to grow at the rate that it has had for the past 2 years, Mr. Rollins said. The No. 1 personal computer maker has branched into other markets, including large computer servers to grow, even as PC sales have been slow industry-wide. Dell will start selling items such as flat-panel televisions and digital audio players in the fourth quarter. Mr. Rollins noted that Dell has been growing at about the 15-percent rate it expected since it gave the $60 billion target 2 years ago when it had around $30 billion in revenue. "We're on track for that growth rate ... which gives us some hope that we can hit that number in the (next three years)," he said during a conference call with analysts, noting that Dell's growth has been achieved in a down economy. "But I think we still believe that there needs to be a little bit of a turnaround as these numbers get bigger and bigger every year," he said. Technology spending has been in a downturn for three years, although the most recent quarter saw some growth in sales of both personal computers and server computers. For fiscal 2004 ended in January, analysts currently expect its revenues to be more than $40 billion, according to Reuters Research, a unit of Reuters Group Plc. (Reuters) Back to Breaking News BREAKING NEWS Feb 3, 2005: Colorado Appliance Efficiency Standard Passes House Committee Feb 3, 2005: Samsung, LG Rated Among Top Brands in Asia Feb 3, 2005: Top China Retailers Expand Feb 2, 2005: Electrolux India to Launch Built-In Line Feb 2, 2005: Fisher & Paykel Downgrades Fiscal Year Net Profit Breaking News >>> APPLIANCE INDUSTRY TOUR 2004 Read the APPLIANCE Magazine Report Contact Us | About Us Dana Chase Publications, Inc. © 2004 DCP Communications

Goal Achievement

Goal Achievement MindCentre Wikkerland Wikkerwisdom Wikkertemple Being the Best You Can Be The Mind Centre Hypnotherapy, Psychotherapy, NLP, Cognitive Psychology Achieve Your Goal - Four Steps is all it takes Want to stop a bad habit? Or, keep up a new routine that's good for you? Here's a good place to start 1. Whatever it is you've set your mind to achieve, the first step is to Check out your ATTITUDE. You need to know you CAN do it and you WILL do it. Soak up some of our inspirational words of WikkerWisdom to surge those thoughts of success! 2. Next, formulate exactly what it is you want to achieve - and WRITE IT DOWN. 3. Now we come to PLANNING. Plan for all the positive ways you are going to strengthen your chances of success. Think over all the situations which might sabotage your good intentions - and plan for them in advance. PLAN for how you are going to deal with those situations - what you are going to do and what words you are going to say. Write them down to remind you and to reinforce your intentions. 4. Set aside time every day to reaffirm your intentions - read over what you wrote down in step 2 and resolve to achieve it. Go over your positive affirmations from step 3. Focus on your goals. Visualise them happening. See yourself behaving and speaking as the person you want to be. Tell yourself you are that person. When you think and behave like that person you want to be, you cannot help but accomplish your goal. More Inspirational Articles © I & A ELLIS 2002

goal setting theory and

Untitled Document The Effects of Goal Setting Theory on Job Satisfaction By: Goffron, P., Jolly, E., Jones, K., Ruzicka, D. Valparaiso University Gary P. Latham Edwin A. Locke Abstract The relationship between Locke and Latham's goal setting theory and overall job satisfaction was investigated. Ninety six participants (males and females) ranging from 18-67 years of age completed surveys on the goal setting tactics in their place of work along with their overall job satisfaction. Based on Locke and Latham's goal-setting theory it was hypothesized that those subjects who had more difficult goals in the workplace would have higher overall job performance and thus have greater overall job satisfaction. The results, however, did not show a significant correlation between goal difficulty and overall job performance. In addition, the obtained data indicated that goal difficulty was not significantly correlated with job satisfaction either. These results suggest that other aspects of goal setting are more important than difficulty in relation to job satisfaction. Introduction Success, profit, and productivity: these terms are all major concerns of today's leading companies. Firms constantly try to streamline their operations in order to increase performance. Theories have been generated to predict how factors affect an employee's performance, which, in turn, produces more performance for the company. Job satisfaction is one of these factors. There has been much speculation as to how strong the correlation between an employee's job satisfaction and their performance might be. Job satisfaction, while related to performance, may be effected by an enormous amount of variables that range from actual goals of the employee to the environment they are in. In fact, there have been theories that explore the correlation between the goals an employee sets and the performance they deliver. One such theory is Locke & Latham's Goal-Setting Theory. (Locke & Latham, 2002) Goal-Setting Theory examines the relationship of goal difficulty to performance. Locke and Latham have stated that a positive, linear relationship exists between goal difficulty and performance, meaning that the most difficult goals resulted in the highest levels of performance. This being said, however, there is a limit to the difficulty of goals that will result in a related performance. For example, if a person sets a goal that is utterly impossible to achieve, their performance will not correlate. (Locke & Latham, 2002) According to the theory, goals influence performance in four ways. First, the goal focuses the attention and effort of the worker toward actions specific to that goal. This decreases activity targeted toward other things. Next, goal-setting theory declares that goals tend to increase the effort of the worker. High goals will initiate a larger magnitude of effort than lower goals. Third, a goal will increase persistence of goal attainment when the participant is in control of time dedicated toward achieving the goal. Lastly, arousal, discovery, and the use of task-relevant knowledge are affected through the goals introduced, which lead to an effect on performance. In summary, Goal-Setting Theory states that a positive relationship exists between goal difficulty and the performance presented by the subject. (Locke & Latham, 2002) The applications of Goal-Setting Theory pertain to almost any situation in which performance of a worker is evaluated to assess efficiency. However, performance is also correlated with other characteristics. Satisfaction in the person's job is a major component in worker performance. Locke and Latham's Goal Setting Theory may be used to predict job satisfaction. First, Locke and Latham state that the productivity of a worker is significantly increased by a high goal, thus establishing a base relationship for an application to job satisfaction. Goals are a product to strive for and a means of judging satisfaction. When a person puts forth the effort to meet a goal, that person will not be satisfied until their goal is met. (Locke & Latham, 2002) As may be implied, when a subject achieves a higher performance level than is required for a goal to be attained, satisfaction will be increased relative to the amount of performance. Likewise, the further a subject is from meeting the goal, the more dissatisfaction will be experienced. These relationships show that there is a relationship between goal difficulty and job satisfaction. It is this premise that the current study is based. Locke and Latham have also found that the clarity of a goal has some effect on performance. This is logical because if a worker does not understand the goal they are trying to achieve, their performance will suffer. Thus, the clearer a goal is, the more likely a person's performance will reach its full potential. Goal difficulty will be positively correlated with job satisfaction. According to Locke and Latham's theory, when a goal is set at a difficult level a person is required to put forth more effort to meet it. Satisfaction is experienced when a goal is met. This study will show that a higher goal will produce a larger magnitude of satisfaction than a simpler goal because of the amount of effort donated to its achievement. Method Participants Participants were chosen through convenience for this study. There were no specifications as to age, gender, ethnicity or sex. The sample size consisted of 956 adults that ranged in age from 18 to 67. There were 45 males and 50 females. Roughly sixty percent of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 22 Materials This study used simple surveys to study the characteristics of each subject. The survey was split into three separate sections. The first section was a demographic section that enlisted the responses of each participant. These responses consisted of gender, ethnicity, hours worked per week, etc. The second section was compiled of items that explored the participant's job satisfaction. Lastly, the third section examined Locke and Latham's Goal-Setting Theory. See Figure 1 Procedure Subjects were presented with the survey and asked to respond to the items provided. A 7-point Likert scale was used with the survey. The factors measured consisted of goal clarity, goal difficulty, extent to setting own goals, extent to meeting goals, overall performance, satisfaction with work, satisfaction with coworkers, satisfaction with supervisor, satisfaction with promotional opportunities, satisfaction with pay, satisfaction with job, and overall satisfaction. Upon completion by the participants, survey sections were separated and tallied. Results A Pearson's r correlation test was used to compute the correlation matrix shown in Table 1. The sample size, as previously stated, was N = 96. Of the 96 participants, there were slightly more women then men (51 females, 45 males) that completed the questionnaire. With regards to ethnicity, the sample size was very unrepresentative with nearly 80% of the participants being white/non-Hispanic, 15% being black/non-Hispanic, 3% checking "other", and 2% being Asian or Pacific Islander. The mean age of the participants was M = 30.25(14.49), however the great majority were college students between the ages of 18-22. The age distribution of the survey explains why three-fourths of the participants held non-managerial positions at work. The distribution for pay followed that of the distribution for work position held. Again, about 75% of the sample were paid hourly, 15% received salary, and about 10% received other forms of pay. The distribution of weekly hours was fairly evenly distributed with a mean of M = 33.69(17.77) and a mode of 40 hours. Hours worked in a day had a mean of M = 7.16(2.99) with a good number of employees working eight-hour days. The sample of participants was generally pretty satisfied with their jobs, M = 3.97(.85), with over 50% ranking a four on a five point scale. Table 1 indicates that a significant relationship between goal difficulty and overall performance did not exist, r (95) = -.030, p<.05. The data also showed that a significant correlation did not exist between goal difficulty and job satisfaction, r (92) = .069, p<.05. Goal difficulty was, however, significantly correlated with goal specificity/clarity, r (92) = .226, p<.05 and also with the extent of setting own goals r (92) = .263, p<.05. Goal clarity/specificity, unlike goal difficulty, was positively correlated with job performance, r (92) = .204, p<.05, however it was not directly correlated with job satisfaction, r (92) = .151, p<.05. The strongest correlation throughout the matrix was between extent of meeting goals and overall performance, r (92) = .389, p<.01, yet the extent of meeting goals was not significantly correlated with job satisfaction, r (92) = .167, p<.05. Also, as predicted, overall job performance was significantly correlated with job satisfaction, r (92) = .257, p<.05. Overall, there were no signs of a significant correlation between goal difficulty and job performance or job satisfaction. Discussion The results of this correlation study indicate that individuals who have higher, more difficult goals in the workplace will not have greater job satisfaction than individuals with lower, less difficult goals. Due to data findings, the experimenters were unable to reject the null hypothesis. However, there were other factors that did influence overall performance and job satisfaction. Goal specificity/clarity was significantly correlated with job performance, which indirectly increases job satisfaction. Also, the data shows that when workers meet their goals their performance levels increase. From the correlation matrix one can also see that as goal difficulty goes up the likelihood of the goals being clear/specific also increases. These findings state that supervisors are doing a good job of clarifying the objectives of difficult goals to their subordinates. The data also support Locke and Latham's notion that it is not important who sets the goals in the workplace. Of the entire goal setting data, the only category that was directly related to job satisfaction was overall job performance. However, if one looks close enough at the data, they will recognize the indirect relationships that exist. For example, as goal clarity increases so does overall performance and as overall performance increases job satisfaction increases. Therefore, one can conclude that an indirect relationship exists between goal clarity/specificity and job satisfaction. Correlation data, since it is not causal, can be greatly influenced by outside confounds. The current goal setting questionnaire is no exception. One confound can be the fact that the participants were not randomly chosen. Since this wasn't a laboratory experiment, the convenience sample was a possible option, however, the experimenters chose who filled out the survey. Therefore, if they knew anything about the subjects they could have an idea of what their job is and how satisfied they are at their job. Another problem with the sample was how it was a poor representation of the general population. Jobs, along with attitudes about jobs, may differ along the lines of race and ethnicity. Therefore, when a subject sample is 80% white/non-Hispanic and the general population is not, the study will have poor external validity. Another confound with the demographic information is the age group of the participants. Since the experimenters are college students, they had a large pool of possible volunteers on the college campus. Therefore, the majority of the participants were age 18-22 and the jobs were mainly part-time or temporary summer employment. This also does not properly represent the general population. Furthermore, since the survey was created and used for the first time, the experimenters didn't have past research to help them determine whether or not the questionnaire would be valid or reliable. Therefore, even though the data in this current study does not significantly correlate goal difficulty and job satisfaction it doesn't mean that different results cannot be obtained. Thus, for future replication of this study the use of a more valid questionnaire along with a more representative sample would produce results more attuned to Locke and Latham's goal setting theory. The first step a business should take when analyzing its employees and their level of production is to look at employee job satisfaction. If production is down it should be in the employer's best interest, due to the significant relationship between overall production and job satisfaction, to make its workers more satisfied with their job. This process may include interviews, surveys, or other group type discussions, however, the main goal is to make the worker happy. Most of the time this involves getting down to the level of each individual worker because not all incentives are rewarding to all people. Another way to increase employee job satisfaction is to analyze the goal setting tactics used in your organization. Little things such as having supervisors set clearer, more specific goals might be all your company needs. Also making the individual efforts on the job more autonomous, increasing responsibility, giving constructive feedback, and setting more difficult goals might be just what your corporation needs to get ahead of the game. No matter what the question is, job satisfaction is the answer. References Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-year Odyssey[electronic version]. American Psychologist, 57 , 705-717. Survey Other Research that we didn't do Contact Info: Paul.Goffron@valpo.edu Ebone.jolly@valpo.edu katie.jones@valpo.edu derek.ruzicka@valpo.edu

goal setting software Newsletter

single-step goal setting software - Download Shareware software from our Miscellaneous utilities category Search our site: This Site Domains Windows Macintosh Linux Online Services Epoc Newton Palm OS Pocket PC RIM Series 3 Siena Windows CE Advanced options Windows Mac Linux PDA Mobile Online Services Purchase Software Shopping Business Games Internet Multimedia System and utilities Themes Windows > System and utilities > Miscellaneous utilities > single-step goal setting software Newsletter sign-up: single-step goal setting software 1.112 Rating: License: Shareware Price: $39.95 Expires after 20 Days Information: This software will walk you through the goal-setting process one step at a time to help you define what you want out of life. It will help you learn to motivate yourself by identifying what is important to you. It starts by asking you to describe yourself as you currently see yourself. It then fixes this image as a starting point for your personal growth. This starting point is then used to help you define goals for yourself and set reasonable timelines for these goals. Once your goals have been defined, single-step helps you identify what motivates you personally and builds motivational exercises for each of your goals. These exercises include affirmations, visualizations, and contemplations, along with simple tracking of progress. The program also helps you become more aware of the influence of other people in your life by allowing you to track comments and feedback from others. It also allows you to track the help that others provide along the path to reaching your goal so that you can become more aware of the web of relationships around you. Download Win 98 Win 2k Win Me Win XP File details Date: Dec 18, 2004 Size: 6.1MB Estimated download time: 56k ISDN DSL Cable T1 Developer home page View a screen shot ADVERTISEMENT ©2004 Tucows Inc. Choose new mirror | Newsletters | Privacy statement | Site map | Submit feedback | Submit software | Terms and conditions