Goal Setting Theory Overview
Since it was first researched five decades ago, goal-setting theory has been the most researched, utilized, and established theory of work motivation in the field of industrial and organizational psychology (Pennsylvania State University World Campus [PSU WC], 2015, L. 6). The theory began with the early work on levels of aspiration developed by Kurt Lewin and has since been primarily developed by Dr. Edwin Locke, who began goal setting research in the 1960s. The research revealed an inductive relationship between goal setting and improved production performance. A goal is the aim of an action or task that a person consciously desires to achieve or obtain (Locke & Latham, 2002; Locke & Latham, 2006). Goal setting involves the conscious process of establishing levels of performance in order to obtain desirable outcomes. This goal setting theory simply states that the source of motivation is the desire and intention to reach a goal (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). If individuals or teams find that their current performance is not achieving desired goals, they typically become motivated to increase effort or change their strategy (Locke & Latham, 2006).
Dr. Ben Baran discusses Goal-Setting Theory (Baran, Employee Motivation: Goal-Setting Theory.)
Locke and Latham stated that "the goal setting theory was based on the premise that much human action is purposeful, in that it is directed by conscious goals" (O'Neil & Drillings, 1994, p.14). The decision to set a goal results from dissatisfaction with current performance levels. Setting a goal should include setting a structure that directs actions and behaviors which improve the unsatisfactory performance. Setting a goal will change a person's behavior in order to work towards achieving the set goal. Goal-setting theory predicts that people will channel effort toward accomplishing their goals, which will in turn affect performance (Locke & Latham, 1990). Locke and Latham (2002) found a direct linear relationship between goal difficulty, level of performance, and effort involved. This relationship will stay positive, as long as the person is committed to the goal, has the requisite ability to attain it, and doesn't have conflicting goals (Locke & Latham, 2006). Locke and Latham's goal setting theory states that several conditions are particularly important in successful goal achievement. These include goal acceptance and commitment, goal specificity, goal difficulty, and feedback (O'Neil & Drillings, 1994). These conditions have been extended and edited by other researchers, such as Kenneth Blanchard and Spencer Johnson's SMART goals, which are conditions that are necessary to make goals effective.
Goal Setting Theory Mechanisms
Goal mechanisms affect performance by increasing motivation to reach set goals (Latham, 2004). These mechanisms are inputs that affect behavior in groups or individuals, which serve to increase attention to a goal, energy in pursuing a goal, persistence in achieving a goal, and ability to strategize to reach a goal. When an individual or team can focus attention on behaviors that will accomplish a goal, they also divert attention away from behaviors that will not achieve the goal (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). Goals energize people to expend more effort based upon the effort that is required to reach a certain goal (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). Goals also lead to a persistent pursuit of reaching the goal by providing a purpose for that pursuit (Latham, 2004). Lastly, when people are pursuing a goal they will seek effective means for accomplishing it, particularly if the goal is difficult to achieve (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). The following chart briefly describes each of the four goal setting theory mechanisms.
Goals direct attention to behaviors that will accomplish the goal and away from the behaviors that will not achieve the goal.
In trying to become a proficient airline pilot, one would expect to focus his efforts with training long hours in the flight simulator to achieve proficiency.
Inspiration to put out a certain amount of effort based upon the difficulty of achieving one's goal.
An individual who wants to become an airline pilot will train to prepare himself on a high level to accomplish this goal.
The amount of time spent on the behavior to achieve a goal.
The individual that wants to become an airline pilot will study hard and train longer hours.
In wanting to achieve a goal the individual seeks out different ways to achieve it.
In trying to become an airline pilot a person might look for ways or techniques that maximize his training or understanding.
Goal Setting Theory Conditions
There are necessary conditions that must be met to make goals effective in invoking motivation through the above mechanisms: (1) goal acceptance/goal commitment (2) goal specificity (3) goal difficulty, and (4) feedback on progress toward the goal.
Goal Acceptance/Goal Commitment
Before a goal can be motivating to an individual, one must accept the goal. Accepting a goal is the first step in creating motivation (Locke & Latham, 2002). Goal commitment is the degree of determination one uses to achieve an accepted goal. Two primary factors that help to enhance goal commitment are importance and self-efficacy (Locke & Latham, 2002). Importance refers to the factors that make attaining a goal important, including the expected outcomes (Locke & Latham, 2002). Self-efficacy is the belief that one can attain their goal (Locke & Latham, 2002). These factors can be as simple as making a public announcement about the commitment, or as complicated as a formal program of inspirational mentoring and leadership.
Importance and self-efficacy enhance the goal commitment by the individual (Locke & Latham, 2006). The individual must find the goal important and must believe they can achieve it (Locke & Latham, 2006). Making the importance of the goal personal provides the individual with the motivation to move beyond failure and maintain the path toward the goal. Research by Erez, Earley, and Hulin (1985) indicates that participation in setting one’s own goals result in a higher rate of acceptance due to the individual feeling a sense of control over the goal setting process (Erez, Earley, & Hulin, 1985). Locke and Latham determined that when the purpose or rationale of the goal is provided, performance between participative and assigned goals do not differ significantly, as long as the goal is accepted (Locke & Latham, 2002). Their explanation for the discrepancy lies in the way the goal was presented. If the objectives were clearly explained to the participants, motivation increased. Alternatively, if goals were briefly administered with little explanation, motivation was lower. In other words, the goals need to be specific, which leads us to our next condition.
Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, and DeShon (2001), developed a five-item scale for assessing goal commitment. Responses are provided on a five-point Likert scale using "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" end-points.
Goal Commitment Scale
It’s hard to take this goal seriously. ®
Quite frankly, I don’t care if I achieve this goal or not. ®
I am strongly committed to pursuing this goal.
It wouldn’t take much to make me abandon this goal. ®
I think this is a good goal to shoot for.
*Note: Items followed by ® indicate that the item should be reverse-scored before analysis.
Developed by Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, and DeShon (2001).
A goal must be specific and measurable. It should answer the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the expectations of the goal. Specificity and measurability provide an external referent (such as time, space, increment, etc.) to gauge progress, whereas vague “do better” goals are ambiguous and often have little effect on motivation. Removing ambiguity allows one to focus on precise actions and behaviors related to goal achievement. The more specific the goal, the more explicitly performance will be affected. Specific goals lead to higher task performance by employees than do vague or abstract goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). A person can set a general goal to sell more cars per month; however, setting a goal to sell two cars per day for the next thirty days is more specific and therefore more effective. These goals will be more motivating than the broad goals of just doing better. With a clear objective in mind people will be more dedicated to reaching their set goal (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6) Goals without an external referent allow for a wide range of acceptable performance levels (Locke & Latham, 2002). In order for performance to increase, goals must be challenging, specific, and concrete.
Goal specificity does not insure performance at an exceptional level. Specific goals vary in difficulty. The performance of these goals will also depend on the intellect and abilities of each individual. Just because a goal is specific, does not guarantee that an individual will put forth an increased effort to obtain the goal. Management may implement policies that require workers to sell two cars per day. If this is below the actual performance that is normal for an individual, that person may not exert any extra effort to obtain or exceed that goal because the goal required is not difficult to achieve. In fact the individual may lower the performance to remain consistent with other employees. Motivation also plays an important role in goal specificity. The individual must be motivated to obtain the projected goal, or in other words the goal must have a level of importance to that individual in order for them to seek to reach it. If a career selling cars comes secondary to going to school, the individual may not expend the required effort to reach set goals but instead only perform at a level that they view as satisfactory.
|Goals should be...|
|Conceivable||One should conceptualize the goal so that it is understood clearly|
|Believable||One should believe that the goal can be reached and that other people believe in it|
|Achievable||One should ask themselves if given their strengths and weaknesses they can reach their desired goal (Locke & Latham, 2002).|
Goals are proven to be an effective motivation tactic if difficulty is taken into consideration. They should be set high enough to encourage high performance but low enough to be attainable (PSU WC, 2015). When this grey area is achieved, goals are proven to be effective. If goals are set too high or too difficult than motivation and commitment suffers as a result. Integrity is another cost that can ensue from setting high performance goals. A study performed by Ordóñez and Scheitzer (2004) reveals that people have a tendency to be dishonest if they fall short of their goals. Enron’s book cooking, Ford’s combustible Pinto in the 1960s, and Sears, Roebuck and Co.’s dishonorable business practices are all examples of highly publicized scandals that occurred as a result of setting goals too difficult to achieve. In the case of Enron, executives schemed an elaborate cover-up to hide its bankruptcy from stockholders, many of whom were employees of Enron and had their retirements invested in the company. Ford’s goal to gain relevance in the foreign economy car market compelled the company to cut corners to meet product deadlines and release the Pinto, which resulted 53 consumer deaths. Mechanics at Sears, Reobuck and Co. engaged in unfair business practices by overcharging customers and performing unneeded repairs in order to meet sales goals. Here you can see that setting goals that are too high not only jeopardizes motivation and commitment but also can create a culture of corruption, dishonesty, and cutting corners (Bennett, 2009).
Richard Duszczak on goal achievement (Duszczak, One-step-at-a-time - goal achieving cartoon doodle video).
The cost of integrity for difficult goal standards can also be illustrated in the illegal, but commonly practiced, mulligan in the game of golf. A mulligan is an extra stroke allowed after a bad shot, which is not recorded on the scorecard. This practice is highly illegal in competitive settings though common in more relaxed games among friends. The game of golf requires a tremendous amount of skill and concentration, which can prove to be quite daunting through eighteen holes. To speed the game up and appease frustration it is common for amateur players to shave shots off the scorecard.
Figure 1 illustrates how goal difficulty effects performance. As you can see the more challenging the goal, the higher the performance. Performance steadily increases as goal difficulty increases. The highest level of performance is experienced at "A," the peak of difficulty. Performance sharply declines if goal difficulty is too high. Easy goals can easily be achieved therefore there is no incentive to increase performance. Goals that are too difficult are perceived as unattainable, which will either thwart commitment (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6) or lead to dishonest behaviors in order to achieve the goal (Bennett, 2009).
Figure 1: Relationship Between Goal Difficulty and
There's been considerable research on how specific levels or types of goals affect performance. Most of the research is on the role of target goals in general as standards for performance in self-regulation and achievement. There are now some new, more-specific approaches to goal research that focus on a type of target goal. For instance, boundary goals–those that indicate the minimum performance level that an individual must attain to subjectively experience success–have been the considered predictive of achievement outcomes. Setting Lower Limits High: The Role of Boundary Goals in Achievement Motivation (Corker & Donnellan, 2012) explores the relationship among boundary goals, performance avoidance (direct individuals away from negative outcomes) goals, and performance approach (direct individuals toward achieving positive outcomes) goals. The research study showed a positive association between boundary goals and performance approach goals and a negative association between boundary goals and performance avoidance goals. It's possible that implementing the use of boundary goals may assist management with intervention activities aimed at motivating the workforce to higher levels of achievement. Boundary goals provide the worker with a benchmark or self-regulatory guide for goal pursuit and, for individuals with a stronger performance avoidance orientation, they keep their attention on goal-relevant cues and away from goal-irrelevant cues. Consequently, boundary goals may be motivational and regulatory. Boundary goals are unique to each person because they are based on the balance of the individual’s level of internal aspirations–which may be very lofty–with one's avoidance orientation. This balance can change over time (increasing or decreasing in difficulty) in response to success or failure. Those with higher boundary goals exhibit a higher performance than those with lower boundary goals, however, performance is relative to the individual being assessed and those with lower (achievable) boundary goals will be able to experience success when their minimal level of acceptable performance has been achieved. This success will motivate them to raise their boundary goals to new levels, eventually resulting in an improvement in work performance (Corker & Donnellan, 2012).
Goals that are too easy or too difficult negatively affect motivation and performance. You want to set goals that are realistic, attainable, and challenging. The greatest motivation and performance is achieved with moderately difficult goals (somewhere between too easy and too difficult). Goals should be attainable, but at the same time they must be a challenge. Even if a goal is out of reach, a person will work harder to reach that goal as opposed to how hard they will work for an easier goal (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). Having a goal that will push someone to new performance levels but is able to be reached will greatly benefit that person by showing them what they are really capable of.
Feedback is necessary in order for goals to remain effective and retain commitment. Without feedback people are unaware of their progression or regression; it also becomes difficult to gauge the level of effort required to pursue the goal effectively (Sorrentino, 2006). Additionally, feedback allows for individuals and teams to spot any weaknesses in their current goals, which allows modifications to be made (Smith & Hitt, 2005). It is necessary for goals, and the people making the goals, to be flexible (Bennett, 2009). Feedback is most effective when it is directed at setting more challenging goals (Locke & Lantham, 1979). Effort and productivity will increase when performance falls short of goal achievement. For example, if a student receives feedback in the form of a progress report he or she may adjust study habits accordingly to achieve the desired goal. However, without feedback, the student has nothing to gauge performance. Feedback can either be process oriented or outcome oriented. Process feedback provides specific tasks that must be performed to achieve the desired outcome. Outcome feedback is focused on the outcome of the goal and offers no tangible information to utilize in goal attainment. When these types of feedback are combined it will give a clear sense of how someone is performing, and what they can do differently in order to perform better. Similar to goals, feedback must also be specific to offer constructive information on how to meet objectives (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). By receiving feedback, individuals will know that their work is being evaluated and that their contributions are being recognized.
Ed Muzio explains SMART goal-setting (Muzio, Setting SMART Goals).
The above goal conditions for positively affecting motivation and performance have commonly been referred to as SMART goals. Kenneth Blanchard and Spencer Johnson first developed the SMART goal system when branching the concept of goal theory beyond academia into the area of management and leadership (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985). The meanings of Blanchard and Spencer's SMART goals have evolved over time and the modern definitions are represented in the figure below:
The term raising the bar is a common metaphor for setting challenging goals. Therefore, to further explain the elements of SMART goals, an analogy of a track and field high jumper will be used to demonstrate how raising (or lowering) the bar affects motivation and performance. In addition, examples of SMART goals will be generalized in a management situation to demonstrate the various goal essentials and conditions.
In order for goals to translate into motivation and improved performance, goals must be specific.
A management goal to improve profits is too general. This broad goal could include increasing sales, reducing costs, or a combination thereof. A more specific goal would be to increase sales by 8%.
A goal to do better in school is not a specific goal. Setting a goal of improving a GPA by 0.5 is a specific goal.
Goals must be measurable to be able to provide progress feedback and to know when the goal is achieved.
Three inches (and increments below, between, and above) are both measurable and specific in order for the high jumper to be able to gauge his progress and achievement. Therefore, instead of the goal being improve high jump by three inches, the jumpers goal could be to increase high jump from 64 inches to 67 inches.
Similarly, the manager can measure the progress of the sales figures to understand how much focus and resources to dedicate to achieving the goal. Therefore, a goal of increasing sales from $80,000 to $86,400 is more specific and measurable than the ambiguous goal to just increase sales.
Therefore, a goal of increasing GPA from 3.0 to 3.5 is specific and measurable for the student.
A goal must be assignable to an individual or a group.
Because high jumping is an individual goal, the high jumper would assign this goal to himself – or perhaps the high jumper’s coach might assign this goal to the jumper.
In the sales example, the manager must be able to assign the goal to a specific person or department.
This is also an individual goal, the student may assign this goal by themselves, or could have it assigned to them by a potential employer, or adviser.
The goal must be challenging, yet realistic.
Lowering the bar for a high jumper could not realistically increase motivation nor enhance performance. Similarly, setting a goal to raise the bar ten feet is not a realistic or attainable goal and would therefore not positively affect motivation or performance.
Similarly, increase sales by 300% may not be a realistic and attainable goal. By setting goals unrealistically high, the manager may not see increased motivation or performance in the sales team.
For some students achieving a 4.0 GPA may be unrealistic. Setting one a little lower that will still be a challenge will be a better goal.
In order for goals to positively affect motivation and performance, goals must be time-related.
For the high jumper, he may set a time within three months which may provide a realistic time frame to meet his goal. However, a time line of tomorrow may make achieving the goal unrealistic. Similarly, before I’m forty may be a time line that is so far into the future and lacks urgency and motivation.
A realistic time line for our manager might be by the end of next quarter. Increasing sales by 8% by the end of the week may be too aggressive, and before the company goes bankrupt is too vague of a time line.
Since the student wants to improve on his/her GPA, it could be a goal to achieve by the end of the semester.
When originally introduced by Blanchard, SMART goals were denoted as: Specific and Measurable, Motivating, Attainable, Relevant and Track-able (Blanchard, Zigarmi, & Zigarmi, 1985, p. 89-90). Over time, the SMART acronym for goals has evolved into what they are today: Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, and Time-Related.
"Specific" and "Measurable" have been split into two separate categories. The requirement that goals be specific has been enduring in the SMART goal acronym. "Motivating" was dropped from the SMART system, perhaps because it is the overarching theme of goals. If done correctly, goals will be a positive motivator and will enhance performance. The term "attainable" has had alternatives--such as "achievable." However, as stated above, a goal must be accepted and have commitment in order to be achieved. As a result, the A in SMART goals has become "assignable." "Relevant" has widely replaced "Realistic," possibly because irrelevant goals would not be realistic and, while a goal may be relevant, whether a goal is realistic may depend on the time frame for achieving the goal. Track-able is redundant to measurable and has been replaced with time-related because goals with no deadline lack direction and urgency.
SMART goals also may be evolving into SMARTER goals with the E adopting meanings like ethical, exciting, enthusiastic, and evaluate and R adopting terms such as reevaluate, reassess, and rewarding.
Oracle (2012) makes the case that the acronym for “SMART” can be expanded to encompass other topics. For instance, “S” (which stood for “Specific”) could be modified to mean “stretch” depending upon organizational context (Oracle, 2012). Additional meanings that may be more appropriate include:
|S||Simple, Significant, Strategic|
|M||Meaningful, Mission-related, Motivated|
|A||Action-based, Achievable, Advantageous|
|R||Relevant, Rational, Reachable|
|T||Tangible, Thorough, Tactful|
In addition to a SMART goal, another type of goal commonly used is known as a BHAG. This acronym stands for big, hairy, audacious goal (Henricks, 1999). BHAGs are ambitious long-term goals that act to motivate companies and people to achieve lasting success (Buchanan, 2012). While it’s important to set SMART goals which provide you with a fair chance of reaching, it’s also very beneficial to set BHAGs, because these goals really stretch us as individuals and organizations (Gergen and Vanourek, 2009).
This concept was coined by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras while writing their book called Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. It was the result of a six-year long research project at Stanford University Graduate School of Business. Collins and Porras chose eighteen remarkable and long-standing companies and studied each one in comparison to one of their highest competitors. They evaluated these companies from their very beginning to present-day and analyzed their different stages along the way as first start-ups, then as midsize companies, and now as large companies.
Throughout this entire process, Collins and Porras aimed to answer the following: “What makes the truly exceptional companies different from the comparison companies, and what were the common practices these enduringly great companies followed throughout history?” (Collins and Porras, 2004). It was in response to these questions that BHAGs were born. Collins and Porras consistently found one thing that distinguished the successful companies from their less successful counterparts which was that “the more successful companies had one or more very ambitious, clear and inspiring long-term goal” (Henricks, 1999). With that said, they concluded that BHAGs are one of the most effective ways to increase a company’s chance for continuing prosperity and success (Henricks, 1999).
According to Collins and Porras (1996), a great BHAG meets the following three criteria:
- it is consistent with the company’s core values and ideology,
- it includes a timeframe ranging from 10 to 30 years, and
- it is both vivid and engaging.
Jim Collins discusses how you can tell if you have a good BHAG here.
BHAGs have been used by a number of successful companies throughout history. Organizations who have used BHAGs as a tool for motivation and way to achieve long-lasting success include companies like Wal-Mart, Citicorp, Nike, GE Electric and Boeing (Collins and Porras, 1996).
Research on Goal Setting Theory
Goal setting is a general theory that can be applied in a multitude of work situations. Support for the theory comes from individual and group settings, laboratory and field studies, across different cultures and involves many different tasks (Locke & Latham, 2002). The strongest support relates to the relationship between specific, difficult goals and task performance. A meta-analysis performed by Tubbs (1986) supported the concept that specific, difficult goals are positively correlated to improved performance. Other research obtained similar conclusions and further stated that, “If there is ever to be a viable candidate from the organizational sciences for elevation to the lofty status of a scientific law of nature, then the relationships between goal difficulty, specificity/difficulty, and task performance are most worthy of serious consideration” (Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987, p. 74). DeWalt, et al. (2009) found a direct correlation between those who achieve set goals and the motivation to create additional goals or add more challenging aspects to the current goal based on feedback. Parker, Jimmieson, and Amiot (2009) found that autonomy in the workplace improves self-efficacy, which improves performance towards reaching goals. Within this idea is the vision and structure that goal setting provides, which helps to motivate individuals and teams to perform better and do more (Sorrentino, 2006).
Goal setting is not without its critics. Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, and Bazerman (2009) stated that the theory is over-prescribed and can potentially cause harm to an organization. Care should be taken in applying goal setting due to the possible unintended side effects. The arguments levied against the theory are not new and have been discussed by previous researchers. For example, Ordóñez, et al. (2009) argued that unethical behavior can result from motivating employees to meet specific and challenging goals. In an effort to reach a sales quota, salespeople may either fudge numbers or lie to customers. According to the authors, this focus on goal attainment can actually promote unethical behavior by creating a “focus on ends rather than the means” (Ordóñez, et al., 2009, p. 12). Not only was negative behavior addressed by Latham and Locke, but the means to mitigate this issue were offered as well, such as offering progressive awards toward goal attainment, organizational control systems, and an ethical workplace culture (O'Neil & Drillings, 1994).
The preponderance of empirical research supporting goal-setting theory illustrates its utility as a method to motivate individuals and improve organizational outcomes. While some caution may be in order, Locke and Latham (2002) argue that failures resulting from the theory are usually due to errors in its application and can often be prevented. The subject of human motivation is vast and complex. No single theory fully explains every aspect of what motivates individuals to perform better.
1975 Latham and Baldes Study
One of the first studies to depict the practical benefits of goal setting was the 1975 study conducted by Latham and Baldes (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). Management of the timber industry in Oklahoma noticed that employees were not loading trucks to full capacity, which resulted in additional trips and greater associated costs (e.g., gasoline). Subsequently, this particular study focused on the productivity of lumber crews who transported timber from forests to sawmills in Oklahoma with the implementation of a goals program (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). Latham and Baldes hypothesized that setting goals would result in increased performance; they predicted that these benefits would be present after one month (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6).
To test their hypothesis, Latham and Baldes introduced two levels of goals: 1) a “do your best” goal and 2) a goal of loading timber trucks to 94% capacity (as cited in PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). With each trip, drivers weighed their trucks with a loading scale indicating how heavy their loads were. According to their results, Latham and Baldes found that performance improved immediately, with trucks weighing in between 70-90% of their capacities (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). Furthermore, these effects lasted for several years and resulted in the timber company saving approximately $250,000 in the first nine months (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6).
1997 Ludwig and Geller Study
Ludwig and Geller conducted another study that depicts the benefits of goal setting theory; this time with pizza delivery drivers (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). In this particular study, Ludwig and Geller (1997) addressed safety concerns, resulting from high accident rates of pizza deliverers. Ludwig and Geller observed approximately 320 deliverers, from three different restaurants, as they delivered pizza to establish a baseline measure that revealed they failed to come to complete stops less than half of the time (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). Ludwig and Geller then assigned drivers to three participant groups: a control group, a participative goal group, and an assigned goal group. In both goal groups, drivers were given a goal of making complete stops 75% of the time (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). Drivers were given feedback on their stop rate and compared against the goal; the control group was not given a goal. Ludwig and Geller found the process of setting goals and providing feedback was very successful for both the groups, with most drivers stopping approximately 75% of the time. However, once the participants stopped receiving feedback, the pizza deliverers reverted to stopping only 50% of the time (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). This particular study suggests that feedback is crucial to maintaining performance towards goals and that participative and assigned goals generally elicit the same short-term response (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6).
2007 Study by Vigoda-Gadot and Angert
A study conducted in 2007 by researchers Eran Vigoda-Gadot and Larisa Angert at the University of Haifa found connections between the aspects of goal-setting theory, specifically in the realm of feedback and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). This study used the Management by Objectives (MBO) process to study aspects of goal-setting theory beyond the goals themselves, by examining desirable types of behaviors in organizations such as the enhancement of team spirit and job attachment, social support, and bolstering performance overall beyond the goals set by management (Vigoda-Gadot & Angert, 2007, p. 120). Participants in this study were students working in a social service capacity with needy children in Israel.
The study set the independent variables of goal setting, job satisfaction, job commitment, organizational justice, and job feedback against the dependent variables of formal performance and OCB (Vigoda-Gadot & Angert, 2007, p. 123). Since the researchers were already in agreement about Locke and Latham's argument that the setting of specific goals was better than vague ones, their focus was on how behaviors unrelated to goals would be increased by the processes of goal setting. The findings concluded that though the process is important, the key remained in feedback regarding both the formal goals set during the process as well as feedback regarding other informal behaviors. Specifically, that "managers should consider the positive effect of feedback on formal performance, but even more importantly, on informal work behaviors such as altruistic OCB or compliance OCB" (Vigoda-Gadot & Angert, 2007, p. 127). This is important since it is not only results that drive an organization, but the people who fit within it and how they conduct themselves.
Strengths, Benefits, Limitations and Weaknesses of Goal Setting Theory
Strengths and Benefits
Goal-setting theory is one of the most popular theories in use among I/O Psychologists due to wide support provided by extensive empirical research and its relative simplicity as compared to other theories (Locke & Latham, 2002; PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). According to Locke and Latham (2002) using techniques such as correlational, experimental and quasi-experimental design, a plethora of research studies have been conducted over 40 years using close to 40,000 participants in eight countries, over time periods varying from one minute to 25 years (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6).
Smith and Hitt (2005) in their book, Great Minds in Management, reinforced the popularity of this theory with their reference to a 2003 assessment of organizational behavior scholars who rated goal-setting theory first in importance out of seventy-three management theories, validating the claim that goal setting has had tremendous research and practitioner support (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). Its applications within organizations are extensive, so much so that "79 percent of British organizations use some form of goal setting" (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). The success of goal-setting has even lead to the development of even more specific procedures and applications of goal setting, such as Management by Objectives. MBO has shown, through both field experiments and meta-analyses to be astoundingly effective: "97 percent of the 23 studies reviewed found increases in productivity" (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6).
Furthermore, the effectiveness of goal-setting reaches well beyond the work force: Lock and Latham have used their extensive research to determine the high level of generalizability, such that it is valid "not only to individuals, but to groups, organizational units, and entire organizations" (Lock & Latham, 2002, p. 174, within PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). This means that, just as an individual would succeed with his or her goals using these theories, organizations, despite their industry or size, should have just as much success when properly applying the mechanisms and conditions. Ludwig and Geller (1997) found success with pizza delivery drivers, and Latham and Baldes (1975) found success with lumber crews. The implications stretch as far as to say, if there is a goal, there is motivation to reach it.
According to Latham (2004) goal setting has been found to inspire individuals and is a critical key to self-management. In many cases, goal setting creates an alternative purpose for work and provides the challenge that enables individuals to overcome even the most physically exhausting tasks (Latham, 2004). Whether a goal requires cognitive or physical exertion, perhaps even both, studies have shown that the greatest amount of effort is applied to those that are considered more challenging (Latham, 2004). From a psychological standpoint, a sense of pride develops from an individual's improved self-interest; which may lead to better jobs and increased pay over time (Latham, 2004). When making the commitment to set a goal and focus on its accomplishment within a specified period of time, attention is often diverted away from activities that are considered goal-irrelevant. For this reason, people are often motivated to utilize or discover the knowledge necessary for successful completion (Latham, 2004).
In the Gallup Business Journal, researchers found that employees who set goals that were based on their personal strengths, were seven times more likely to be engaged in their work assigned and much more likely to be "high performers" (Asplund & Blacksmith, 2013, para. 9).
Limitations and Weaknesses
When two separate goals are set at the same time, exerting too much focus on one may make it difficult to achieve the other (Latham, 2004). For example, if someone sets quantity and quality goals simultaneously; trying too hard for quantity may cause quality to be neglected (Latham, 2004). However, this can be fixed by prioritizing separate goals or finding a balance between goals directly dealing with each other. It is more important to have well thought out goals than to have too many and not be able to follow through on any one goal (Gergen & Vanourek, 2009).
Another limitation deals with goals and risks. During a computer game study, Knight, Durham, and Locke (2001) found that participants who were given difficult performance goals increased risk strategies to improve performance. Additionally, a limitation that can occur is commonly referred to as tunnel vision. This is when employees focus so intently on their goals that they will ignore other aspects of their job (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). When attention is focused too narrowly on a goal, inattentional bias can occur. This was demonstrated in a study Simons and Chabris. In the study, subjects were asked to measure the number of passes in a basketball game. People became so focused on their task that they didn't notice a man in a gorilla suit on the course. Concentrating too much on a specific task or goal can cause you to miss a major aspect of your environment (Simons & Chabris, 1999). In a case study done with GE goal setting seemed to backfire on the company. "A few management experts began to wonder what sort of price we pay for our goals. Goals, they feared, might actually be taking the place of independent thinking and personal initiative" (Bennett, 2009, para. 14). If people are always having goals set for them it is difficult for them to motivate themselves. Improper management techniques, or the presence of inequity in the workplace (e.g., underpayment), can subvert the effectiveness of the goal setting theory.
Goal Setting Theory also does not account for actions motivated by the subconscious; as the goal-setting theory focuses on cognition with no regard to the subconscious (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). On occasion, an individual can do something without being aware of what is motivating them. This cognitive quality of this theory makes it such that, much like other cognitive motivation theories, it takes for granted the fact that "people can take action without being aware of what is motivating them" (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). More tangible and challenging goals would be much more difficult to pursue subconsciously, largely due to the amount of planning and forethought required to accomplish them. But subtler and more general goals could potentially be striven for and achieved subconsciously.
Finally, goal-setting theory focuses on how goals are related to job performance, but does not take into account the "why" now how this is related to increased job performance (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). This lack of defined translation between goals and job performance calls for future research to refine (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6).
Practical Solutions (Locke, E.A. 2002)
Negative Outcomes of Goal-Setting Theory
When discussing limitations and weaknesses of goal-setting theory, it is important to discuss how the outcomes of set goals can be different than intended: especially if one doesn't use the aspects of SMART in the planning and execution of his/her goal. Without a specific goal that addresses what one is trying to achieve and by how much (i.e. improve running time by 1 minute), an individual can easily get off course and lose site of the goal. This leads into the idea that these specific goals must be measurable in quantity. This allows for process feedback later on and without a measurable, quantitative component, it will be difficult to determine if one has moved toward their goal (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). The A refers to assignable; when a goal is not assignable, no one individual is responsible for achieving the goal, thus no one is accountable and the goal may never be achieved. Goals must be realistic in that they can be achieved within the expected period of achievement. When a goal is unrealistic, an individual will be less likely to work toward it since they know it won't be attainable. Many times it is helpful to setup small, goals along the way to the major achievement. This not only allows for more realistic expectations but provides small achievements along the way to increase motivation. Without these, motivation may drop significantly. Lastly, a goal that is not time-related and lacks a definite end doesn't allow for feedback as there is no date to work toward. When this deadline isn't realistic, motivation goes down and performance may suffer. Overall, all of these components must be present for a goal to be completed. Whilst they all have a tendency to lead to inability to achieve the goal, the bigger problem may lie in where the work leads the individual, if not toward the final desired effect.
While research provides an abundance of support in favor of the effectiveness of goal-setting theory on achieving organizational goals or improving outcomes, a dangerous side of goals has also been identified. With recent large-scale failures of organizations such as GM, Enron, Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac, skeptics find support in their belief, that setting goals can also lead to disastrous outcomes. By recounting the atmosphere at Enron, as hostile, dysfunctional and ultimately criminal, executives were rewarded for meeting revenue targets, which essentially created the atmosphere and it's consequential collapse, the negative outcomes of this theory are apparent. In addition, Sears, Roebuck and Co. started setting sales goals for its auto repair staff, which lead to unethical practices such as making unnecessary repairs, and over charging customers just to hit numbers (Bennett 2009). As utilization of this valuable theory of motivation continues in the workplace, the negative outcomes presented in these examples, can remind us of its potential dangers.
A recent example of goal setting theory going awry is the current Wells Fargo scandal. This scandal showed the consequence of the upper management not foreseeing the dire effects of the corporate goal of 8 accounts per customer. The entire goal of the company was to increase their "cross sale" ratio. This ratio became the standard by which the company based itself on. As this goal made it down the layers in the company, it became a benchmark for employee pay, bonuses, and reviews. Instead of rating an employee by their whole job, the cross sale ratio took on a life of its' own. The cross sale goal became the company's calling card with equity analysts and drove the stock price up. This made the executives millions of dollars and reinforced their belief in the cross sale ratio. It became something that was pushed even harder. In order to make money and not lose their jobs, the front line employees resorted to creating millions of fake accounts with customer knowledge. In the end this scandal ended up costing over 5,000 employees their jobs and A $185 million dollar settlement with federal regulators. (Baker 2016)
Application of Goal Setting Theory in the Workplace
Goal setting is widely used in the workplace as a means to improve and sustain work performance. Goal setting theory is based on the assumption that behavior reflects an employee’s conscious goals and intentions. Consequently, the expectation is that employee efforts and performance within an organization will be influenced by the goals assigned to or selected by these employees. In the workplace, successful managers use the goal setting theory to clarify expectations, improve performance, and develop employees into stronger workers, which in turn makes the company stronger (Fried & Slowik, 2004). Furthermore, goal setting can function as a contract between the employee and employer, creating greater opportunities for accountability and growth (Oracle, 2012). Some of the ways managers use this theory are included in the graphic below:
Some reward systems that are used for employees reaching their goals are:
Management by Objectives
The application of Management By Objectives (MBO) throughout business organizations has become widespread (PSU WC, 2015, L. 6). MBO is an approach to systematically align both employees' goals and the goals of the organization and ensures that everyone is clear about what they are doing and why it is beneficial to the organization (Mindtools, 2012). This provides a mechanism to ensure that the goals of the organization coincide with the goals of the individual(s) within that organization.
MBO focuses on a joint determination by subordinate and superior goals, major areas of responsibility, and result expectations. These are the measures used to determine employee contribution and operations of the organization. While there are notable key steps in MBO, the theory varies between organizations and from theorist to theorist. Some of these differences include: setting objectives, working towards goals, and reviewing performance. MBO is not an individual effort; rather it is an essential collaboration of employees and managers to actively participate in the goal-setting process and the “how to” of reaching their goals. Diversity in decision-making is positive because it allows for decisions that are specific and fit the organization.
The management by objectives has a five step process:
1. Set or Review Organizational Objectives - This step requires defining the clear organizational objectives.
2. Cascading Objectives Down to Employees - Once the objectives are set they need to be clear to every employee. To make sure that the goals are attainable and the employees feel accountable, the SMART method will be used.
3. Encourage Participation in Goal Setting - Everyone needs to understand how personal goals fit within the objectives of the organization and allow sharing and discussion so that everyone understand "why" things are being done. This allows everyone to set goals to align with the organizational goals and also allows for an increase for personal responsibility of their objectives. Self-direction, decision making, and responsibility is an important part of this step and encourages motivation within the employees.
4. Monitor Progress - Since the goals and objectives of SMART are measurable they can be monitored. However, those that are monitoring need to make sure that they are timely with their monitoring in case something is wrong so issues can be adequately dealt with in a timely manner. Make sure every goal has mini goals, and adequately monitor goal performance and accountability.
5. Evaluate and Reward Performance - The MBO is designed specifically to improve performance at all levels of the organization. Employees are evaluated on their performance related to the goal, and retrospectively include rewards such as compensation and provide appropriate feedback.
After the process is completed, the cycle is usually repeated after a review of the previous five-stage process is done and those who were involved in the attainable goals understand the importance to measurable goals and clear performance within the MBO. Management by Objectives is a powerful tool for aligning employees' actions with organization's goals (Mindtools, 2012).
Like any other method, MBO has its positive and negative aspects. A negative aspect of MBO is that the motivating effects of difficult goals are susceptible to dissipation over time, even when individuals are most responsive to them (Miner, 2007). However, even with the negatives, after a review of many studies on MBO, Locke and Latham (1990) conclude that MBO's relative success rate–as observed in a variety of studies–is approximately 90 percent.
Models for organizational management that contain structured goal hierarchies that are similar to MBO include hoshin kanri (Jolayemi, 2008) and strategy deployment (Schlickel, 2013).
Examples of Goal Setting in the Workplace
General Electric (GE) successfully applies goal setting theory in all levels of its organization, not just on the departmental and individual level. GE successfully implements goal setting theory on an organizational level by making the idea behind goal setting part of their vision/mission statement. Throughout their annual Citizenship Report, Our Actions (2005), it refers to the concept of goal setting. They summarize their goal setting initiatives as a recipe for success for all companies and capitalism. GE sets goals for all aspects of organizational life, reviews those goals regularly, putting systems in place to reach those goals, and continually seeking to improve processes and set challenging goals for all employees. For these reasons it is a wonderful example of the goal setting theory in the workplace.
According to Milliman, Zawacki, Chulz, Wiggins, and Norman (1995), Federal Express Company (FedEx) tried a form of goal setting that was called "360 degree goal setting" (p. 136). In this form of goal setting, supervisors are asked to write goals for their subordinates after they receive input from them. The goals are written for each employee after input from internal and external sources. The main objective of this type of goal setting is a more complete understanding of expectations of employees and customers. There is a pledge for 24-hour response to email and phone messages, a two-hour response to emergency calls, a bi-monthly meeting with the employees, and a semi-annual training session on topical subjects. After trying this method with the human resource department, FedEx found that the pros outweighed the cons. The only true con was that it took time to train the employees and managers on this new system. However, the pros that they established from it were greater accountability for the employees' performance, clear expectations for the employees, and precise measurement of and feedback on performance goals. After the trial run, FedEx then began implement this goal setting into other departments (Milliman et al., 1995).
It was explained in the section above, “Application of Goal Setting Theory in the Workplace,” that it is important for managers to implement a reward system for employees because this often increases goal commitment. Often times, it is assumed that monetary rewards are what motivate individuals. In the study "The effects of reward type on employee goal setting, goal commitment, and performance" it was found that not all individuals are motivated by cash rewards (Vance, 2013, p. 1806). Some individuals are motivated by other tangible, non-cash rewards. Examples of non-cash rewards include travel or merchandise. This seems to be somewhat related to Victor Vroom's idea of valence and the expectancy theory. Individuals place a perceived valance on desired outcomes (Vroom, 1964). The importance of having a variety of reward types was explored and proven by Thomas Vance in his study. Managers should consider implementing reward systems, to align with attained goals, to include a variety of reward types. Employees are very likely to increase effort, commitment, and performance to attain a set goal if the employees have a reward available that they find attractive (Vance, 2013).
Teamwork and collaborative assignments have begun to rise within organizational configurations. As a result, managers have changed how they view and practice goal setting. Team goals function similarly to individual goals, although there are unique complications that make goal setting in a team environment more complex. For example, in order for individuals' efforts to be directed toward team performance the team goal must first be accepted by that individual. However, the individual dynamic within team environments can cause personal goals to compete with team goals. This type of competition has the ability to cause discord within the team and misdirect performance. In order to facilitate team goal setting and monitoring of team performance relative to team and organizational goals, managers have begun utilizing electronic dashboards. These applications enable real time performance tracking by the users and also ensure that team goals are aligned with the organization’s forecast. Dashboards also aid in providing feedback to teams, enabling them to easily review their performance compared to the team goal (DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, Milner, & Wiechmann, 2004).
- Asplund, J., & Blacksmith, N. (2013). Strength-Based Goal Setting. Retrieved February 18, 2013, from Gallup Business Journal: http://businessjournal.gallup.com/content/152981/strengths-based-goal-setting.aspx
- Baker, T. H. (2016, September 12). Wells Is Exhibit A of Employee Incentive Failures. Retrieved October 1, 2016, from http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/wells-is-exhibit-a-of-employee-incentive-failures-1091227-1.html
- Baran, B. (2012). Employee Motivation: Goal-Setting Theory [Web Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yj2wsPJEWs
- Bennett, D. (2009). Ready, aim... fail. Why setting goals can backfire. The Boston Globe, C1.
- Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company.
- Buchanan, L. (2012, November 01). How to Achieve Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals. Retrieved February 18, 2016, from http://www.inc.com/leigh-buchanan/big-ideas/jim-collins-big-hairy-audacious-goals.html
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building Your Company's Vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 65-77.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (2004). Built to last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
- Corker, K. S., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). Setting lower limits high: The role of boundary goals in achievement motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 138-149.
- DeWalt, D.A., Davis, T.C., Wallace, A.S., Seligman, H.K., Bryant-Shilliday, B., Arnold, C.L., Freburger, J., & Schillinger, D. (2009). Goal setting in diabetes self-management: Taking the baby steps to success. Patient Education and Counseling, 77, 218-223.
- DeShon, R.P., Kozlowski, W.J., Schmidt, A.M., Milner, K.R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). Multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1035-1056.
- Duszczak, R. (2013). One-step-at-a-time - goal achieving cartoon doodle video [Web Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cCiqbSJ9fg
- Erez, M., Earley, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). The impact of participation on goal acceptance and performance: A two-step model. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 50-66.
- Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching goal-setting theory with time: An integrated approach. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 404-422.
- GE (2005). Our Actions: GE 2005 Citizenship Report. Retrieved from http://www.ge.com/files_citizenship/pdf/GE_2005_citizen_05rep.pdf
- Gergen, C., & Vanourek, G. (2009, January 14). Properly set goals aid success. The Washington Times, B03.
- Jolayemi, J. (2008). Hashin Kanri and Hoshin Process: A Review and Literature Survey. Total Quality Management, 295-320.
- Klein, H.J. Wesson, M.J., Hollenbeck, J.R., Wright, P.M., & DeShon, R.D. (2001) The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 32-55.
- Knight, D., Durham, C.C., & Locke, E.A. (2001). The relationship of team goals, incentives and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 326-338.
- Latham, G. P. (2004). The motivation benefits of goal setting. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 126-129.
- Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Enhancing the benefits and overcoming the pitfalls of goal setting. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), 332-340.
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1979). Goal setting-A motivational technique that works. Organizational Dynamics, 8(2), 68-80.
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268.
- Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1). 52-83.
- Milliman, J. F., Zawacki, R. A., Schulz, B., Wiggins, S., & Norman, C. A. (1995). Customer service drives 360-degree goal setting. Personnel Journal, 74(6), 136-141.
- Mindtools.com (2012). "Management By Objectives." Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMM_94.htm
- Miner, J.B. (2007). Organizational behavior 4: From theory to practice. Armonk, NY: ME Sharp.
- Muzio, E. (2010). Setting SMART Goals [Web Video]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKMrWsjUOZQ
- O'Neil Jr., H.F., & Drillings, M. (Eds.). (1994). Motivation: Theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Oracle (2012). Goal Setting: A Fresh Perspective. Redwood Shores, CA. Retrieved from http://www.oracle.com/us/media1/goal-setting-fresh-perspective-ee-1679275.pdf
- Ordóñez, L., Schweitzer, M., Galinsky, A., & Bazerman, M. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of over-prescribing goal setting. HBS Working Paper, 09-083. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from http://opimweb.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/Goals_Gone_Wild.pdf
- Parker, S.L., Jimmieson, N.L., & Amiot, C.E. (2009). The stress-buffering effects of control on task satisfaction and perceived goal attainment: An experimental study of the moderating influence of desire for control. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58(4), 622-652.
- Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015). PSYCH 484, Lesson 6: Goal-Setting Theory: What am I trying to achieve in my work? Work Attitudes and Motivation.
Schlickel, M. (2013). Strategy Deployment in Business Units: Patterns of Operations Strategy Cascading Across Global Sites in a Manufacturing Firm. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Werlag.
- Simons, D. J., & Chabris , C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059-1074.
- Smith, K.G., & Hitt, M.A. (2005). Great minds in management: the process of theory development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Sorrentino, D.M. (2006). The seek mentoring program: An application of the goal-setting theory. Journal of College Student Retention, 8(2), 241-250.
- Tubbs, M. E. (1986). Goal-Setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 474.
- Vance, T. W. (2013). The effects of reward type on employee goal setting, goal commitment, and performance. The Accounting Review (0001-4826), 88 (5), p. 1805.
- Vigoda-Gadot, E. & Angert, L. (2007). Goal setting theory, job feedback, and OCB: Lessons from a longitudinal study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 119-128.
- Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.