Goals Gone Wild
6
Academy of Management Perspectives
February
E
X
C
H
A
N
G
E
Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting by Lisa D. Ordonez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky, and Max H. Bazerman ´˜
Executive Overview
Goal setting is one of the most replicated and influential paradigms in the management literature. Hundreds of studies conducted in numerous countries and contexts have consistently demonstrated that setting specific, challenging goals can powerfully drive behavior and boost performance. Advocates of goal setting have had a substantial impact on research, management education, and management practice. In this article, we argue that the beneficial effects of goal setting have been overstated and that systematic harm caused by goal setting has been largely ignored. We identify specific side effects associated with goal setting, including a narrow focus that neglects nongoal areas, distorted risk preferences, a rise in unethical behavior, inhibited learning, corrosion of organizational culture, and reduced intrinsic motivation. Rather than dispensing goal setting as a benign, over-the-counter treatment for motivation, managers and scholars need to conceptualize goal setting as a prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, consideration of harmful side effects, and close supervision. We offer a warning label to accompany the practice of setting goals.
F
or decades, goal setting has been promoted as a panacea for improving employee motivation and performance in organizations. Across hundreds of experiments, dozens of tasks, and thousands of participants on four continents, the results are clear (Locke & Latham, 1990): Compared to vague, easy goals (e.g., “Do your best”), specific, challenging goals boost performance. In a review of four decades of goal-setting research, Locke and Latham (2006, p. 265) claimed, “So long as a person is committed to the goal, has the
Academy of Management Perspectives
February
E
X
C
H
A
N
G
E
Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting by Lisa D. Ordonez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky, and Max H. Bazerman ´˜
Executive Overview
Goal setting is one of the most replicated and influential paradigms in the management literature. Hundreds of studies conducted in numerous countries and contexts have consistently demonstrated that setting specific, challenging goals can powerfully drive behavior and boost performance. Advocates of goal setting have had a substantial impact on research, management education, and management practice. In this article, we argue that the beneficial effects of goal setting have been overstated and that systematic harm caused by goal setting has been largely ignored. We identify specific side effects associated with goal setting, including a narrow focus that neglects nongoal areas, distorted risk preferences, a rise in unethical behavior, inhibited learning, corrosion of organizational culture, and reduced intrinsic motivation. Rather than dispensing goal setting as a benign, over-the-counter treatment for motivation, managers and scholars need to conceptualize goal setting as a prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, consideration of harmful side effects, and close supervision. We offer a warning label to accompany the practice of setting goals.
F
or decades, goal setting has been promoted as a panacea for improving employee motivation and performance in organizations. Across hundreds of experiments, dozens of tasks, and thousands of participants on four continents, the results are clear (Locke & Latham, 1990): Compared to vague, easy goals (e.g., “Do your best”), specific, challenging goals boost performance. In a review of four decades of goal-setting research, Locke and Latham (2006, p. 265) claimed, “So long as a person is committed to the goal, has the