case study on goal setting theory of motivation

Having Goal May Not Motivate an Individual – Case Study

International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, Volume- 9, Issue- 2, April 2019

5 Pages Posted: 17 Mar 2020

Yogesh S. Daudkhane

Indira school of business studies - department of management.

Date Written: 2019

Goals are anticipated positive future states or events which a person strives to achieve. The terms aim, objective, and standard are widely used synonymously. Other related concepts, however, like intention, norm, and task can be distinguished from goals because they emphasize the action itself rather than the anticipated future state. The importance of a goal for motivated action is beyond doubt. Action theories, for instance, use goal as the key element for defining action — their object of interest. Many motivation theories also see goals as key elements and illustrate their motivational effect with a metaphor: The goal “pulls” the action. Goals are seen as an effective means for promoting motivation and are therefore used as an instrument for leading and motivating people. Locke and Latham’s (1990) goal-setting theory is based on the assumption that the motivational effects of performance goals mainly determine a person’s performance on work-related tasks. An application of this notion can be seen in Management by Objectives (MBO), a popular leadership method that aims at transforming a company’s strategic goals into individual goals. It is expected that inasmuch as an employee accepts and adopts the negotiated goals, he or she will be better oriented and more motivated than without a goal. Nevertheless, if we are to explain motivation, it is not sufficient to study the goal and its features alone. It is important to additionally consider the characteristics of the person, since the value and motivating power of a given goal depends heavily on the specific needs of the person. Kehr’s (2004b) compensatory model of work motivation and volition, for instance, states that a goal should match the person’s basic needs and motives in order to be motivating. To complicate the issue further, some related approaches emphasize that a goal should also fit in with the other goals for which the person strives. By discussing the aforementioned approaches, this research-paper will highlight the motivating potential of goals but also explain why goals may sometimes also lose their motivating force. To introduce the topic and to bridge the gap between theory and practice, we will begin by presenting a case study. The case starts by introducing Lokesh, the character, who has a goal. We would therefore expect him to be highly motivated to pursue his goal. Alas, Lokesh feels thoroughly demotivated. What could be the reasons for the lack of motivating power of Lokesh’s goal? To develop possible answers to this question, the researcher will scrutinize Lokesh’s situation more closely, and by referring to various theoretical frameworks, the paper will illustrate various conditions under which goals can lose their motivating potential. Our line of argument will proceed as follows: We will begin by focusing on Lokesh’s salient goal and investigate the characteristics of this goal. Next, we will include other pre-existing goals, which will enable us to discuss the potentially complex network into which Lokesh’s prevalent goal may be integrated. We will then examine some specific goal relevant characteristics of the person: motive dispositions and volitional strength. As a final step of our analysis, we intend to broaden the view to include potentially relevant situational aspects. As a tentative solution to Lokesh’s problem, we will present two alternative sources of motivation: incentives that result from performing the activity itself and visions.

Keywords: Management, Goals, Motivation, Demotivation

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Yogesh S. Daudkhane (Contact Author)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, organizations & markets: motivation & incentives ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Social & Personality Psychology eJournal

Industrial & organizational psychology ejournal, engineering education ejournal.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Goal-setting theory: causal relationships, mediators, and moderators.

• Gary P. Latham Gary P. Latham Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.12
• Published online: 09 May 2016

Consciously setting a specific, difficult, challenging goal leads to high performance for four reasons. Specificity results in (1) the choice to focus on goal-relevant activities and to ignore those that are irrelevant. Challenge leads to an increase in (2) effort and (3) persistence to attain the goal. The combination of specificity and difficulty cue (4) the search for strategies to attain the goal. However, for this to occur, an individual or team must have the ability and the situational resources to attain the goal. In addition, the goal must be important; there must be commitment to goal attainment. Finally, feedback must be provided on goal progress so that adjustments can be made, if necessary, regarding effort or strategy for attaining the goal.

• causal relationships
• goal setting methods
• economic benefits
• primed goals
• job performance

Theories in psychology enable predicting, explaining, and influencing behavior. To qualify as a theory, causal relationships must be specified, mediators that explain the causal relationships must be identified, and the boundary conditions within which the theory is applicable must be known. Locke and Latham’s ( 1990 , 2002 , 2013 ; Latham & Locke, 2007 , in press ) goal setting theory of motivation satisfies these three criteria. This article explains the theory, describing the inductive method used to develop that theory, examples of experiments supporting the theory, the perils in ignoring the theory’s moderator variables, the various ways of setting goals, and the economic benefits of setting specific, high goals. It concludes with a discussion of goals that are primed in the subconscious.

Goal Setting Theory

With regard to causal relationships, goal setting theory makes three assertions. First, specific, high goals lead to higher performance than setting no goals or even a vague goal such as the exhortation to “do your best.” Second, the higher the goal, the higher an individual’s performance. Third, such variables as feedback or knowledge of one’s results, participation in the making of decisions, or competition with others have little or no effect on a person’s behavior unless they lead to the setting of a goal that is both specific and difficult.

The mediators that explain why specific, high goals increase an individual’s performance are four-fold. First, consistent with the definition of motivation, a specific goal involves the choice to take action to pursue X to the exclusion of other factors. Thus a goal that is specific enables people to focus, to have a purpose in what they do rather than to meander relatively aimlessly. Second, a goal that is difficult as well as specific engenders effort , a second cornerstone of motivation. Hence, the higher a specific goal, the more effort that is expended. The third mediator is persistence . When a goal that is chosen is specific rather than vague, and difficult rather than easy, people persist in their pursuit of the goal until it is attained. The problem with a vague goal is that it allows multiple interpretations as to whether the goal is attained (e.g., my goal is to lose weight). Thus people may pat themselves on the back undeservedly. A specific goal makes explicit the desired level of performance and hence whether it has been attained (e.g., my goal is to lose 15 pounds). Persistence is a third cornerstone of motivation (Latham, 2012 ). A fourth mediator is relatively cognitive in nature. Setting a specific, high goal cues an individual’s extant strategies necessary to attain it.

Moderator variables specify the boundary conditions within which the above assertions are applicable. A specific, high goal leads to higher performance than an easier goal, a vague goal, or no goal only under four conditions. First, the person must have the ability to attain a high goal or the person is unlikely to commit to attaining it. Goal commitment is a second, and arguably the most important, moderator variable. If an individual is not committed to goal attainment, by definition that individual does not have a goal. Third, people must receive feedback on their performance in relation to the goal they are striving to attain. In the absence of feedback, people lack the information necessary to ascertain whether they should adhere to or change their strategy, a mediator in goal setting theory, for goal attainment. 1 Finally, the requisite resources must be available for goal attainment. Situational constraints can mitigate ability for and commitment to goal attainment, no matter how difficult or easy the goal may be.

Many, if not most, theories in psychology are developed through deduction. The authors of a deductive theory typically begin with plausible statements based on their observations. They then make predictions regarding the relationships between variables, they offer an explanation for the alleged relationships (i.e., mediators), and they state the conditions (e.g., boundary/moderators) under which the relationships should occur. Finally, empirical experiments are conducted to test the predicted causal relationships, mediators, and moderators that the theorist expects to observe. An example of a deductively derived theory in organizational psychology is Vroom’s ( 1964 ) expectancy theory. 2

A major limitation of developing a theory through deduction is that it can lead to what Kahneman ( 2011 , p. 211), the Nobel Prize–winning psychologist, labeled as theory-induced blindness: “Once you have scripted a theory and used it as a tool in your thinking, it is extraordinarily difficult to notice its flaws. If you come upon an observation that does not seem to fit the model, you assume that it must be a perfectly good explanation that you are somehow missing. You give the thought the benefit of the doubt, trusting the community of experts who have accepted it.”

The alternative to deductively developing a theory is to do so inductively. The primary difference between deduction and induction is the time-period or sequential order for conducting empirical experiments. As noted above, the deductive method involves the specification of causal variables, its mediators and moderators, before rather than after conducting empirical experiments to determine whether the deductions can be supported by scientifically obtained evidence. The inductive method requires conducting experiments, accumulating knowledge from these experiments, and then and only then developing a theory.

Empirical research was conducted inductively from the 1960s through the 1980s in both laboratory and field settings before the theory of goal setting was formally developed (Locke & Latham, 1990 ). The theory is based on nearly 400 studies involving close to 40,000 participants from eight different countries who performed one or more of 88 different tasks. The time span of these tasks ranged from 1 minute to three years. A decade later more than 1,000 studies had been conducted (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003 ). These studies show that goal setting theory is not only applicable to the motivation of an individual, it is applicable to groups/teams (Kramer, Thayer, & Salas, 2013 ), departments (Porter & Latham, 2013 ), and organizations as well (Pritchard et al., 2013 ; Saari, 2013 ).

The time span showing the beneficial relationship of goal setting to performance has been shown to be considerably longer than three years. A goal for job promotion at AT&T correlated positively with actual job promotion 25 years later (Howard, 2013 ).

Empirical Research

Field experiments have been conducted with pulpwood crews in the southeastern United States. They were matched on such variables as crew size, type of terrain where they were cutting trees, and the level of mechanization they owned to cut the trees. Then they were randomly assigned to the experimental or control condition. The crews that were assigned a specific, high weekly goal to attain had significantly higher productivity the very first week of the three-month experiment than the crews in the control condition who were urged to do their best. “To do one’s best” was not a meaningless exhortation because all the crews were paid on a piece-rate basis. Yet those with a specific, high goal not only had higher productivity (cords per employee hour) throughout the experiment, they also had higher job attendance than those who were urged to do their best. People were now eagerly coming to work because their job, previously viewed by them as tedious, was now viewed as meaningful. The performance goal became a self-evaluative standard for comparing their current performance with their previous performance. The goal also allowed the employees to assess their personal effectiveness relative to others. Thus, the goal setting initiative engendered competition among the crews, competition that could just as easily have occurred, but did not occur, among the crews in the control condition who had been urged to do their best (Latham & Kinne, 1974 ).

The wood supply of pulp and paper companies sometimes exceeds their processing capacity. Consequently, the companies impose a wood quota where they restrict the number of days they will buy wood to three rather than five. Independently owned logging crews were found to perceive this restriction as a challenging goal. That is, they made the choice to exert the effort necessary and to persist in doing so until they harvested as many trees in three days as they normally did in five (Latham & Locke, 1975 ).

The beneficial effect of goal setting on job performance has also been shown with high level employees, namely, engineers and scientists with masters and doctoral degrees in an R&D department (Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett, 1978 ). There were 10 conditions. Employees (1) were assigned a goal, (2) participated in setting the goal, or (3) were urged to do their best. This latter condition was highly relevant for these employees because an ad hoc task force of line managers was examining ways for the company to reduce costs. Rumors abounded that R&D was likely to be reduced in both funding and manpower. The employees in these three goal conditions received feedback in the form of (1) praise, (2) public recognition, or (3) a monetary bonus. This 3 × 3 experimental design yielded nine conditions. A 10th condition was a true control group consisting of engineers/scientists who were not aware that they were involved in this field experiment.

Consistent with the predictions of goal setting theory, the employees in the do-your-best conditions performed no better than the employees in the control condition, even though those in the control condition did not receive performance feedback in the form of praise, public recognition, or a monetary bonus. Remember, the theory states and research shows that feedback only affects performance positively if it leads to the setting of a specific, high goal.

Consistent with goal setting theory, those engineers/scientists whose goals had been assigned to them performed better than those in the do-best and control conditions. But, the highest performing employees were those who had participated in the goal setting process even though their goal commitment was not significantly higher than their peers with assigned goals. The reason for the higher performance is explained by the theory—they set higher goals. The theory states that the higher the goal, the higher the performance, given the presence of the four moderators.

In all of these studies, money was not necessary for goal commitment. When money is tied to goal setting, it should not be tied to only goal attainment but rather to the attainment of subgoals as well as the final goal.

Perils in Ignoring Moderators

Ignoring the moderators in goal setting theory is done at one’s peril.

In a dynamic environment where what is true in one time period is no longer true at a later point in time, blindly adhering to a strategy for goal attainment will likely prove to be costly. In such circumstances, proximal goals (i.e., subgoals) should be set. Proximal goals are advantageous for two reasons. First, they are motivational for maintaining focus, effort, and persistence until the distal goal is attained. Second, and arguably more important in a dynamic setting, is the informative nature of proximal goals. They provide feedback as to whether the strategy for attaining the distal goal requires modification (Seijts & Latham, 2001 ).

A series of laboratory experiments show that setting performance goals that only 10% of participants can attain sometimes leads to unethical behavior, as defined by overstating one’s performance. What is fascinating is that the exaggeration is only done by people who are close to attaining the goal, especially people who in addition receive a monetary bonus for goal attainment. An even more fascinating finding is that people who exaggerated their performance regarding goal attainment did not take the money even though the experiment was designed to allow them to do so (Schweitzer, Ordonez, & Douma, 2004 ).

Ordonez and colleagues ( 2009 ) concluded from their laboratory findings that performance goals should not be set in the workplace. There are at least two problems with their conclusion. First, by setting goals that only 10% of the participants could attain, they failed to take into account one of the theory’s moderator variables, ability. They did so based on Appendix C of Locke and Latham’s ( 1990 ) book, where this level of difficulty is recommended solely for laboratory settings to ensure variance in the participants’ performance. 3 Second, Ordonez and colleagues failed to realize that the goals set in field settings reflect the values of the leaders and an organization’s culture. Goal setting is both a theory and a technique for increasing performance. As is any technique, goal setting is subject to misuse. Nevertheless, few if any historians blame goal setting for Hitler’s egregious behavior leading to the Holocaust. Rather, they blame his values and the Nazi culture. Few if any management scholars blame goal setting for market penetration into legitimate businesses by the Mafia. Instead, they blame the values of the Mafia leaders and the Mafia culture. Similarly, few if any people in the judiciary blame goal setting for the illegal behavior that took place in the undoing of Enron. The fault has been attributed to the company’s leaders and the values they inculcated throughout the organization.

In the field of education, there are students who set a specific high goal for the grade they want to attain and then cheat to ensure that they attain it. This is particularly true for some students who aspire to attain high grades in order to get into medical school, law school, or any of the graduate departments (e.g., psychology) where the number of acceptances relative to the number of applicants is small. Yet few people argue for the abolishment of grades because they sometimes lead to unethical behavior on the part of students whose values allow them license to engage in it.

As is the case in any endeavor where there are standards, there will likely be people who will lie about or cheat on ways to ensure their attainment. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the fault is not in the goals but in ourselves, that is, the values we hold while pursuing them (Latham & Locke, 2009 ). In short, goal setting theory provides an excellent framework for managers and employees to increase their performance. Yet as is the case with any scientific theory and/or technique, there is no foolproof way of ensuring that it will not be misused.

Situational Resources

During a downturn in the economy, senior management may set performance goals that are perceived by supervisors as too high for them to attain. A correlational study revealed that when supervisors see the goal as exceeding their ability to attain it, when in addition they believe they lack the resources to attain it, they experience “hindrance stress.” This in turn has been shown to correlate with their subsequent abuse of their subordinates (Mawritz, Folger, & Latham, 2014 ). This correlational finding is consistent with a seminal experiment conducted years ago that showed that frustration leads to aggression (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939 ). Hence the importance of taking into account a person or teams resources when setting a goal.

Learning Goals

There are occasions when an individual lacks the ability to attain a performance goal (e.g., generate X new revenue streams; develop Y products that will not be easily copied by competitors) regardless of its specificity or level of difficulty. People may simply lack knowledge of the strategies necessary for goal attainment. When this is the case, urging people to do their best typically leads to higher performance than a specific, high performance goal. This is because the latter often increases anxiety that in turn yields to a mindless scramble to find solutions (Mone & Shalley, 1995 ). The solution is to set a specific, challenging learning goal. A learning goal shifts attention from the desired performance level to be attained to the discovery of X processes, procedures, systems, or strategies. Laboratory experiments show consistently that a specific, high learning goal leads to higher performance than urging people to do their best (e.g., Latham, Seijts, & Crim, 2008 ). A field study revealed that during a turbulent economic cycle, only learning goals correlated positively with a department’s performance (Porter & Latham, 2013 ).

Goal Setting Method

Goal setting theory is silent about the optimum method for setting the goal. Programmatic research involving at least 11 experiments revealed that an assigned goal is as effective a method for increasing task performance as a goal that is set participatively between the employee and the supervisor. However, there are a number of caveats regarding this conclusion. First, the statement is correct as long as there are no significant differences in the level of goal difficulty between the two goal setting methods (Latham & Saari, 1979a ). If the assigned goal is significantly higher than the goal the employee was involved in choosing, consistent with goal setting theory, the higher goal leads to higher performance (Latham, Steele, & Saari, 1982 ). Second, a rationale must accompany an assigned goal; a goal that is assigned curtly is unlikely to increase an individual’s performance (Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988 ).

Latham and Steele ( 1983 ) manipulated independently participative decision-making (PDM) on task strategy versus assigned, PDM, and do-best goals. The results revealed that only setting a specific high goal increased performance. PDM had no effect. However, another caveat is in order. In all the field and laboratory experiments conducted by Latham, the supervisor/experimenter who assigned the goal did so in a supportive manner in interacting with the employee/participant. In the one laboratory experiment where the experimenter deliberately behaved in a nonsupportive manner, the participants set significantly lower goals than those who had been randomly assigned to the supportive condition (Latham & Saari, 1979b ).

These findings are consistent with Dember ( 1974 ), who, after reviewing the literature on motivation, concluded that in the right setting, being told to do something is tantamount to being motivated to do it. It seems that instructions that are deemed appropriate by an individual take on the formation of powerful internally generated drives. Similarly, Salancik and Pfeffer ( 1977 ) concluded that the assignment of a goal implies to an individual that she or he is capable of attaining it. A meta-analysis by Wagner and Gooding ( 1987 ) of the research on this topic revealed no noteworthy relationship between participation in decision-making and either job performance or job satisfaction.

Subsequent research has shown that researchers were going down the wrong path in their attempts to show the beneficial effect of an individual’s participation in deciding on the goal that should be set. When there is a beneficial effect for PDM, the effect is primarily cognitive rather than motivational. When the task is complex, participants ask more questions than do those who are assigned goals. The information gleaned from these questions improve their performance (Latham & Saari, 1979b ). Moreover, participation in decision-making can lead to the development of an effective strategy for attaining the goal; this in turn increases a participant’s self-efficacy that the goal is attainable. Strategy and self-efficacy have been shown to have a reciprocal effect on one another, and both have been shown to mediate the PDM–performance relationship (Latham, Winters, & Locke, 1994 ). Self-efficacy is defined as one’s belief or confidence that the goal is attainable. Self-efficacy influences goal choice and goal commitment (Bandura, 2013 ). That is, people with high self-efficacy choose and commit to high goals. They are resilient in the face of goal setbacks. People with low self-efficacy quickly abandon the goal when they experience difficulties in goal pursuit.

With regard to self-set goals, an experiment conducted in a government agency showed that goal difficulty level, goal acceptance, goal attainment, and task performance were as effective as goals that were assigned or set in a participatory manner (Latham & Marshall, 1982 ). In summary, from a motivational standpoint, one method of goal setting is not necessarily more effective than another. From a motivational standpoint, the critical factor for increasing performance is the level of difficulty of the goal that is set.

There are contexts where only self-set goals are appropriate, especially off-the-job settings. Frayne and Latham ( 1987 ) successfully taught a self-management program to unionized state government employees whose job attendance was low. The core of the program was goal setting and its moderator, feedback, regarding weekly/monthly job attendance. Millman and Latham ( 2001 ) taught displaced managers who had been out of work for 13 months to set a goal for re-employment and to use verbal self-guidance to increase self-efficacy for goal attainment, namely, re-employment. Similarly, Latham and Budworth ( 2006 ) used this approach for enabling Native North Americans to obtain employment, as did Yanar, Budworth, and Latham ( 2009 ) for enabling women in Turkey over the age of 40 to attain their goal of becoming re-employed.

Economic Benefits

Latham and Baldes ( 1975 ) reported that goal setting regarding loading trucks to their maximum legal weight saved a forest-product company a quarter of a million dollars over 9 months. Schmidt ( 2013 ) used utility analysis procedures to estimate the economic value of goal setting to employers in today’s dollars. Specifically, he examined the difference between do-your-best or no-goal conditions and specific, difficult goals. The dollar value figures indicate the increase in revenue from improved performance. His sample is based on four meta-analyses of goal setting experiments. These four meta-analyses included 19,839 data points. The results revealed that the average increase in employee output per year as a result of a goal setting intervention is $9,200. A goal setting intervention that lasts for 5 years, involving only 35 employees, costing $200 per employee yields an organization $1,603,000 due to the increase in production. The percentage increase in employee output is 9.2%.

Priming Goals in the Subconscious

In suggesting directions for future research on motivation, Locke and Latham ( 2004 ) pointed to a limitation of goal setting theory, namely that it is a cognitive theory that ignores the subconscious. This is a limitation because cognitive resources are limited (Miller, 1956 ). In contrast to consciousness, the subconscious is a vast reservoir of information (Vorhauser-Smith, 2011 ).

Bargh’s ( 1990 ) automaticity model focuses on goals that are primed in the subconscious. As is the case with goal setting theory, the model asserts that a goal is a mental representation of a desired state that is pursued through action. The goal can be primed in the subconscious in one of two ways, subliminally or supraliminally. The model further asserts that an external stimulus in the environment can passively, subtly, and unobtrusively activate a goal. If the priming is done subliminally, the stimulus is presented below focal awareness; if the priming is done supraliminally, the individual is aware of the stimulus yet is unaware of its influence on subsequent behavior. In short, the model states that a primed goal guides behavior in the absence of conscious intention. In agreement with goal setting theory, this occurs only if the goal is important to the person.

After reviewing the literature in social psychology on primed goals, Latham, Stajkovic, and Locke ( 2010 ) concluded that this methodology should be examined with regard to organizational behavior. A laboratory experiment involving brainstorming had revealed that making sentences from scrambled achievement-related words (e.g., win) led to higher performance than making sentences from scrambled neutral words (e.g., tree) (Stajkovic, Locke & Blair, 2006 ).

Most social psychology experiments on primed goals involve the presentation of the prime and the measurement of the dependent variable seconds/minutes later (e.g., length of time to walk from a laboratory to an elevator). Thus a field experiment was conducted in a call center to determine whether laboratory findings on primed goals generalize to work settings. 4 As was the case in the preceding laboratory experiment, a supraliminal prime was used to prime the goal for achievement, namely a photograph of a woman winning a race. At the end of the work shift, the employees with the primed goal raised significantly more money from donors than did those in the control group (Shantz & Latham, 2009 ). These results were replicated in two additional call centers (Shantz & Latham, 2011 ). Of further practical significance was the finding that the two goals, consciously set and primed, led to higher productivity than either goal alone (Shantz & Latham, 2009 ).

Consistent with goal setting theory, Latham and Piccolo ( 2012 ) hypothesized that a context-specific goal that is primed leads to higher performance than a more general goal. The results from a fourth call center supported this hypothesis. The employees who were primed with a photograph of call center employees in the work-place raised 16% more money than those who were primed with the photograph of the racer, and 85% more money than the employees in the control group. Those employees who were primed with the racer raised 60% more money than those in the control condition. Of further practical significance is the finding that these results were obtained on the first day and lasted throughout the four-day work week.

What remains to be explored is the time length with which a primed goal influences behavior and the frequency with which the prime should be changed to maintain high performance. The effect of a consciously set specific, high goal on an employee’s behavior has been shown to last for months, if not years (e.g., Latham & Baldes, 1975 ; Howard, 2013 ).

Goal setting theory is among the most valid and useful theories of motivation of organizational behavior (Lee & Earley, 1992 ; Miner, 2003 ; Pinder, 1998 ). The theory is straightforward: set a specific, high goal and the result will be high performance. This is because the specific goal that is chosen focuses an individual’s attention on goal-relevant activities. Individuals exert far more effort for a higher goal than they do for an easier one, and they persist in doing so until the goal is attained. However, the beneficial effect of the goal–performance relationship only occurs if the person has the ability to attain the goal, is committed to goal attainment, receives feedback on goal pursuit, and has the requisite resources to pursue and attain the goal. Dysfunctional behavior is likely to occur if the theory’s moderator variables are ignored.

The theory was developed through induction rather than deduction. Thus it is an open rather than a closed theory; that is, goal setting theory is open to modification through findings from subsequent research (e.g., the discovery of the necessity for setting learning rather than performance goals). A new research frontier is the exploration of the effect of primed goals on organizational behavior and the extent to which their effects on performance are similar to or differ from the effects that have been found with goals that are consciously set.

• Bandura, A. (2013). The role of self-efficacy in goal based motivation. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal and task performance (pp. 51–64). New York: Routledge.
• Bargh, J. A. (1990). Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of thought and behaviour. Multiple affects from multiple stages. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behaviour (Vol. 2, pp. 93–130). New York: Guilford Press.
• Dember, W. N. (1974). Motivation and the cognitive revolution. American Psychologist , 29 (3), 161–168.
• Dollard, J. , Doob, L. W. , Miller, N. E. , Mowrer, O. H. , & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression . New Haven, CT: Yale University Freer.
• Frayne, C.A. & Latham, G.P. (1987). The application of social learning theory to employee self management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 72 , 387–392.
• Howard, A. (2013). The predictive validity of conscious and subconscious motives on career advancement. In E. A., Locke & G. P., Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance . New York: Routledge.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . New York: Farrar, Straus, Garcia.
• Kramer, W. S. , Thayer, A. L. , & Salas, E. (2013). Goal setting in teams. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance . New York: Routledge.
• Latham, G. P. (2012). Work motivation: History, theory, research and practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Latham, G.P. , & Baldes, J.J. (1975). The "practical significance" of Locke's theory of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology , 60 , 122–124.
• Latham, G. P. , & Budworth, M. H. (2006). The effect of training in verbal self-guidance on the self-efficacy and performance of Native North Americans in the selection interview. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 68 , 516–523.
• Latham, G. P. , Erez, M. , & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application of the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph , 73 , 753–772.
• Latham, G. P. , & Kinne, S. B. (1974). Improving job performance through training in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology , 59 , 187–191.
• Latham, G. P. , & Lee, T. W. (1986). Goal setting. In E.A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings: Research findings for industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management , (pp. 101–117). Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington.
• Latham, G. P. , & Locke, E. A. (1975). Increasing productivity with decreasing time limits: A field replication of Parkinson’s law. Journal of Applied Psychology , 60 , 524–526.
• Latham, G. P. , & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting research. European Psychologist , 12 (4), 290–300.
• Latham, G. P. , & Locke, E. A. (2009). Science and ethics: What should count as evidence against the use of goal setting? Academy of Management Perspectives , 23 , 83–91.
• Latham, G. P. , & Locke, E. A. (in press). Goal setting theory: Controversies and resolutions. In D. Ones , N. Anderson , C. Viswesvaran , & H. Sinangil (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology . Vol. 1. SAGE.
• Latham, G. P. , & Marshall, H. A. (1982). The effects of self set, participatively set, and assigned goals on the performance of government employees. Personnel Psychology , 35 , 399–404.
• Latham, G. P. , Mitchell, T. R. , & Dossett, D. L. (1978). The importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 63 , 163–171.
• Latham, G. P. , & Piccolo, R. F. (2012). The effect of context specific versus non-specific subconscious goals on employee performance. Human Resource Management , 51 , 535–538.
• Latham, G. P. , & Saari, L. M. (1979a). The effects of holding goal difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. Academy of Management Journal , 22 , 163–168.
• Latham, G. P. , & Saari, L. M. (1979b). The importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology , 64 , 151–156.
• Latham, G. P. , Seijts, H. , & Crim, D. (2008). The effects of learning goal difficulty level and cognitive ability on strategies and performance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science , 40 , 220–229.
• Latham, G. P. , Stajkovic, A. , & Locke, E. A. (2010). The relevance and viability of subconscious goals in the workplace. Journal of Management , 36 , 234–255.
• Latham, G. P. , & Steele, T. P. (1983). The motivational effects of participation versus goal setting on performance. Academy of Management Journal , 26 , 406–417.
• Latham, G. P. , Steele, T. P. , & Saari, L. M. (1982). The effects of participation and goal difficulty on performance. Personnel Psychology , 35 , 677–686.
• Latham, G. P. , Winters, D. C. , & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 15 , 49–63.
• Lee, C. , & Earley, P. C. (1992). Comparative peer evaluations of organizational behavior thoeries. Organizational Development Journal , 10 , 37–42.
• 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 , 705–717.
• Locke E. A. , & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review , 29 , 388–403.
• Locke E. A. , & Latham, G. P. (2013). New developments in goal setting and task performance . New York: Routledge.
• Mawritz, M. , Folger, R. , & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 35 , 358–372.
• Mealiea, L. W. , & Latham, G. P. (1996). Skills for managerial success: Theory, experience, and practice . Chicago: Irwin.
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review , 63 (2), 81–97.
• Millman, Z. , & Latham, G. P. (2001). Increasing re-employment through training in verbal self-guidance. In M. Erez , U. Kleinbeck , & H. K. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy . London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behaviour theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management Learning and Education , 2 (3), 250–268.
• Mone, M. A. , & Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of task complexity and goal specificity on change in strategy and performance over time. Human Performance , 8 , 243–262.
• Mitchell, T. R. , & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman , D. R. Ilgen , & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 225–254). New York: Wiley.
• Ordonez, L. , Schweitzer, M. E. , Galinsky, A. , & Bazerman, M. (2009). Goals gone wild: How goals systematically harm individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives , 23 , 6–16.
• Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation. Theory, issues, and applications . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Pritchard, R. D. , Young, B. L. , Koenig, N. , Schmerling, D. , & Dixon, N. W. (2013). Long-term effects of goal setting on performance with the productivity measurement and enhancement system (ProMES). In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 233–245) New York: Routledge.
• Porter, R. L. , & Latham, G. P. (2013). The effect of employee learning goals and goal commitment on departmental performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies , 20 , 62–68.
• Saari, L. M. (2013). Goal setting and organizational transformation. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 233–245). New York: Routledge.
• Salancik, G. R. , & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power—and how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics , 5 (3), 2–21.
• Schmidt, F. L. (2013). The economic value of goal setting to employers. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance (pp. 16–20). New York: Routledge.
• Schweitzer, M. E. , Ordóñez, L. , & Douma, B. (2004). The role of goal setting in motivating unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal , 47 , 422–432.
• Seijts, G. H. , & Latham, G. P. (2001). The effect of learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behaviour , 22 , 291–307.
• Shantz, A. , & Latham, G. P. (2009). An exploratory field experiment of the effect of subconscious and conscious goals on employee performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 109 , 9–17.
• Shantz, A. & Latham, G. P. (2011). The effect of primed goals on employee performance: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management , 50 , 289–299.
• Stajkovic, A. D. , Locke, E. A. , & Blair, E. S. (2006). A first examination of the relationships between primed subconscious goals, assigned conscious goals, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 91 (5), 1172–1180.
• Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work motivation . New York: John Wiley.
• Vroom, V. H. (2015). In the origins of expectancy theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), The process of theory development (pp. 239–258). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wagner, J. A., III , & Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influence and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Academy of Management Journal , 30 , 524–541.
• Wood, R. E. , Whelan, J. , Sojo, V. , & Wong M. (2013). Goals, goal orientations, strategies, and performance. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance . New York: Routledge.
• Vorhauser-Smith, S. (2011). The neuroscience of talent management. Employment Relations Today , 28 , 17–22.
• Yanar, B. , Budworth, M. H. , & Latham, G. P. (2009). The effect of verbal self-guidance training for overcoming employment barriers: A study of Turkish women. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 58 , 586–601.

1. Wood et al. ( 2013 ) found that strategy can also moderate, in addition to mediate, the goal–performance relationship.

2. Interestingly, Vroom himself never conducted an empirical experiment to test any aspect of his theory (Vroom, 2015 ).

3. To the author’s knowledge, no field experiment has set goals that only 10% of the participants could attain. Most practitioners adopt the heuristic explained by Mealiea and Latham ( 1996 ), namely, SMART—that is, a goal should be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and have a time frame for its attainment.

4. Findings from laboratory settings regarding consciously set specific, high goals do have external validity for the workplace (Latham & Lee, 1986 ).

Related Articles

• Action Regulation Theory
• Mediator Variables
• Moderator Variables
• Goal Setting in Sport and Performance

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 28 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.151.9]
• 185.80.151.9

Character limit 500 /500

Transform teamwork with Confluence. See why Confluence is the content collaboration hub for all teams.  Get it free

• Strategic planning
• Setting goals
• Goal setting theory

The goal-setting theory of motivation

For when you need a kick in the pants

Browse topics

Your team has ambitious projects they want to achieve. Projects that have spent too much time in the backlog (cough, at least six months). You want to refine the training process for new hires, rewrite your company’s buyer personas, or finally redesign your old blog. 

So, how are you doing on all of your team’s objectives that are gathering dust? Not so great? Yeah, we get it. 

That’s because thinking of things you want to accomplish is the easy part (especially if you’re a dreamer, which we know you are). It’s when you actually need to make some progress or rally the team that the real sweat and hard work starts. 

Well, you ambitious thing you, that’s exactly where the goal-setting theory comes into play. Let’s roll up our sleeves and find out more so you can turn your lofty aspirations into a reality. 

What is the goal-setting theory?

If you’re feeling extra fancy, the formal name is the goal-setting theory of motivation. It was originally outlined and published in 1968 by American psychologist, Dr. Edwin A. Locke . 

In the simplest terms, the theory states that clear, well-defined, and measurable goals improve performance much more than vague objectives do. 

For example, setting a goal for your team like, “Win the company-wide desk decorating contest” will light a fire under all of you much more than an amorphous goal like, “Build a better team reputation.” 

Locke and a fellow psychologist outlined five different principles to help you on your quest for setting effective, motivating goals. So, don’t whip out the crepe paper and silly string quite yet. We’ll cover those principles in detail a little later.

Well-defined, and measurable goals improve performance much more than vague objectives do. 

Worth the effort: the advantages of goal setting

Many people fall into the trap of thinking of the goal-setting process as just a formality. After all, if you already have a rough idea of what you want to achieve, wouldn’t you be better off just jumping right in?

Not quite. Taking the time to think through your goals and check some boxes sets you up for success in a few different ways.

Gain clear direction

Imagine that you were going to set off on a road trip to somewhere specific. Would you head out without a map, GPS, or some idea of how to get where you want to go?

Probably not, because you’d waste a ton of time (and, let’s face it, experience a lot of frustration) aimlessly wandering. 

Goal setting works this same way. Thinking through the nuts and bolts of the finish line you’re trying to cross gives you clear direction so that you can make decisions, prioritize tasks, and manage your effort and energy in a way that serves that ultimate purpose.

Plus, dedicating enough time and thought to goal setting in the beginning keeps you focused on your objective as you move forward, so you don’t get thrown off by tangents and other pressing responsibilities.

Keep an eye on progress

One of Locke’s principles of his goal-setting theory is clarity, meaning you need to get specific about the goal you’re trying to achieve.

Instead of “focus more on team-wide wellness,” maybe you’ll set a goal of your team logging over one million steps on their fitness trackers for the month. Making your goal measurable in this way helps you better monitor your progress and keep yourself on track.

If you get halfway through the month and realize you’re only a quarter of the way there, you have a pretty clear indication that you need to step up your game and get some team-wide walks on the calendar.

Bask in the success

Is there anything more gratifying than the feeling you get when you know you’ve accomplished something that really mattered to you? It’s tough to get those same feels if you don’t actually set yourself up with something to achieve in the first place. 

There’s some science to this as well. When we achieve a goal, our brains release dopamine , aka the “feel good” neurotransmitter.

That doesn’t just have to happen once you’ve officially checked that goal off your list. The Progress Principle explains that taking even small steps or scoring minor wins throughout the process can be both motivating and meaningful.

Locke and Latham’s five principles of goal setting

Now that you’re convinced of the benefits, let’s dig into the details of the goal-setting theory. 

In 1990, years after he published his original article, Locke teamed up with a fellow psychologist, Dr. Gary Latham, to publish the book, A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.

This book supported Locke’s original findings about the power of clear and well-defined goals, which Latham had continued to study on his own. It also took things a step further by outlining five principles of successful goal setting.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: you need to get clear on your goal. 

Maybe you’ve heard of the SMART goal framework . Clarity means nailing the first two letters of the SMART acronym: specific and measurable. 

Let’s look at an example. Perhaps you head up the customer support team for your company, and you’re setting out to improve your customer service. What does that look like? Get specific with a statement like, “Reduce response time on a customer service ticket to 24 hours or less.”

In order for a goal to truly be motivating, it needs to be tough but not totally impossible to achieve. As you’re working on setting your goal, make sure that you’re stretching yourself at least a little bit, but not so far as to set yourself up for failure.

For example, if you take a look at your existing customer service insights and notice that your average wait time for a response is already only 25 hours, you might want to push yourself a little more and revise your goal to 20 hours. 

Also, who says you have to wait until the end to celebrate? With each big step forward, reward yourself and your team to keep the momentum going. ( Science says that you should!)

Maybe once you hit the 22-hour mark, take the team out to happy hour. When you’ve actually reduced wait times to 20 hours? Hand out some bonuses if your budget allows.

If you want it, put a ring on it. In other words, if you want to celebrate nailing your goal, you must commit to it. 

How? Well, the rewards we already touched on can certainly help keep you and your team motivated. For big goals where the finish line and the rewards seem so far away, it might help to break projects down into smaller pieces. That way your wins are more immediate and pride in the work is more frequently felt. This can help you and the team up their dedication and maintain it over the long haul.  

It can also help to involve your team in setting the goal at the beginning. Getting their insights and opinions will not only help you set more targeted and beneficial goals, but will also boost their motivation and sense of commitment to that objective. 

What do they think is a reasonable response time to aim for? Are there other ways that they think your customer service could be improved?

We’re all familiar with projects that have a goal post that keeps moving. People are rarely tight-lipped about shifting priorities, but that doesn’t mean that constructive feedback is a given. 

So plan for it. For your team-wide goals, schedule regular check-in meetings (whether as a group or one-on-one) to provide feedback and praise to your team members.

For your individual goals, set times (maybe it’s when you wrap up those smaller milestones you set) to check in with yourself and evaluate how you’re doing. Use this time to even determine ways you could be making even more meaningful progress.

• Task complexity

Remember what we said about setting yourself up for success? It was about creating goals that help you push your limits but are still achievable. Here’s more advice: don’t muddy the waters. 

Keep your goals simple. Pick one core thing to work toward, such as reducing customer wait time instead of having your team also work on receiving higher customer feedback scores and raising your company reviews to five stars.

While you’re at it, check your timelines. Are they realistic? Do you and your team have the skills and resources to achieve your goal? If not, it might be time to bring in some reinforcements, whether that means hiring, outsourcing some tasks, or offering education and professional development.

Move those goals from “to-do” to “done”

The things you want to achieve will never stop bouncing around in your brain. But, you want to do more than dream up those objectives – you want to make them happen.

That’s exactly why the goal setting theory of motivation exists. It requires that you carefully think through your goal using five key elements:

Work your way through those, and you’ll set a goal that’s motivating instead of disheartening. And the best news of all? Before long, you’ll transform that goal into a reality. Look at you go!

You may also like

Smart goals template.

Use the SMART goals framework to keep your team on track

OKRs template

Set ambitious goals with your team and track how you’ll reach them

Enable faster content collaboration for every team with Confluence

Copyright © 2024 Atlassian

The Science & Psychology Of Goal-Setting 101

How would you feel?

Goal-setting in psychology is an essential tool for self-motivation and self-drivenness – both at personal and professional levels. It gives meaning to our actions and the purpose of achieving something higher.

By setting goals, we get a roadmap of where we are heading to and what is the right way that would lead us there. It is a plan that holds us in perspective – the more effectively we make the plan, the better are our chances of achieving what we aim to. Rick McDaniel (2015) had quoted,

“ Goal-setters see future possibilities and the big picture. ”

Setting goals are linked with higher motivation, self-esteem, self-confidence, and autonomy (Locke & Latham, 2006), and research has established a strong connection between goal-setting and success (Matthews, 2015).

This post is all about understanding the benefits of goal-setting and implementing that knowledge in our day-to-day lives. In the following sections, we will take an in-depth look into how goal-setting influences the mind to change for the better, and contribute to making smarter decisions for ourselves.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques to create lasting behavior change.

This Article Contains:

What is goal setting a psychological definition.

• The Psychology of Goal Setting

How is Goal Setting Used in Psychology?

Goal setting and positive psychology.

• A Look at Goal Setting Theory
• Psychological Studies and Research on Goal Setting

3 Interesting Research Findings

3 goal setting case studies, goal setting and the brain: a look at neuroscience, a take-home message.

Goal setting in psychology refers to a successful plan of action that we set for ourselves. It guides us to choose the right moves, at the right time, and in the right way. In a study conducted on working professionals, Edwin A. Locke, a pioneer in the field of goal-setting, found that individuals who had highly ambitious goals had a better performance and output rate than those who didn’t (Locke, 1996).

Frank L. Smoll , a Ph.D. and a working psychologist at the University of Washington emphasized on three essential features of goal-setting, which he called the A-B-C of goals. Although his studies focused more on athletic and sports-oriented goal-setting, the findings held for peak performers across all professions.

ABC of Goals

Smoll said that effective goals are ones that are:

• A – Achievable
• B – Believable
• C – Committed

Goal-setting as a psychological tool for increasing productivity involves five rules or criterion, known as the S-M-A-R-T rule. George T. Doran coined this rule in 1981 in a management research paper of the Washington Power Company and it is by far one of the most popular propositions of the psychology of goals.

SMART Goals

S-M-A-R-T goals stand for:

• S (Specific) – They target a particular area of functioning and focus on building it.
• M (Measurable) -The results can be gauged quantitatively or at least indicated by some qualitative attributes. This helps in monitoring the progress after executing the plans.
• A (Attainable/Achievable) – The goals are targeted to suitable people and are individualized. They take into account the fact that no single rule suits all, and are flexible in that regard.
• R (Realistic) – They are practical and planned in a way that would be easy to implement in real life. The purpose of a smart goal is not just providing the plan, but also helping the person execute it.
• T (Time-bound) – An element of time makes the goal more focused. It also provides a time frame about task achievement.

SmartER Goals

While this was the golden rule of goal-setting, researchers have also added two more constituents to it, and call it the S-M-A-R-T-E-R rule.

The adjacents include:

• E (Evaluative/ethical) – The interventions and execution follow professional and personal ethics.
• R (Rewarding) – The end-results of the goal-setting comes with a positive reward and brings a feeling of accomplishment to the user.

Cecil Alec Mace was the first person to carry out empirical studies on goal-setting (Carson, Carson, & Heady, 1994). His work emphasized the importance of willingness to work and indicated that the right plans could be a sure shot predictor of professional success (Mace, 1935).

Locke continued his research on goal-setting from there, and in the 1960s, came up with the explanation of the usefulness of goals for a happier and more content life (Locke, 2002).

Today, planning goals is an essential part of educational and organizational psychology. Many organizations encourage employees to undergo screening for goal-setting and use the resources to measure their productivity at work (Kleingeld, van Mierlo, & Arends, 2011).

The Psychology Of Goal Setting

Tony Robbins, a world-famous motivational speaker, and coach had said that “ Setting goals is the first step from turning the invisible to visible. ”

Studies have shown that when we train our mind to think about what we want in life and work towards reaching it, the brain automatically rewires itself to acquire the ideal self-image and makes it an essential part of our identity. If we achieve the goal, we achieve fulfillment, and if we don’t, our brain keeps nudging us until we achieve it.

Psychologists and mental health researchers associate goals with a higher predictability of success, the reasons being:

Goals involve values

Effective goals base themselves on high values and ethics. Just like the S-M-A-R-T-E-R goals, they guide the person to understand his core values before embarking upon setting goals for success. Studies have shown that the more we align our core values and principles, the more likely we are to benefit from our goal plans (Erez, 1986).

Goals bind us to reality

A practical goal plan calls for a reality check. We become aware of our strengths and weaknesses and choose actions that are in line with our potentials. For example, a good orator should set goals to flourish as a speaker, while an expressive writer must aim to succeed as an author.

Realizing our abilities and accepting them is a vital aspect of goal-setting as it makes room for introspection and helps in setting realistic expectations from ourselves.

Goals call for self-evaluation

Download 3 Free Goals Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients create actionable goals and master techniques for lasting behavior change.

Download 3 Free Goals Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

4 Steps To Successful Goal-Setting

To break down goal setting, start with these four steps.

1. Make a plan

The first step to successful goal-setting is a brilliant plan.

Chalking out our goals by our strengths, aspirations, and affinities is an excellent way to build a working program. The plan makes habit formation easier – we know where to focus and how to implement the actions.

2. Explore resources

The more we educate ourselves about goal-setting and its benefits, the easier it becomes for us to stick to it. We can start building our knowledge base by taking expert advice, talking to supervisors at the workplace, or participating in self-assessments.

Assessments and interactions help us realize the knowledge gaps and educate ourselves in the areas concerned.

3. Be accountable

A crucial requisite of goal-setting is accountability. We tend to perform better when someone is watching over us, for example, it is easier to cheat on a diet or skip the gym when we are doing it alone.

But the moment we pair up with others or have a trainer to guide us through the process, there are increased chances of us sticking to the goals and succeeding in them.

4. Use rewards and feedbacks

Rewarding ourselves for our efforts and achievements makes sticking to the plan more comfortable for us. Managers who regularly provide feedback to their employees and teammates have better performance in their teams than ones who don’t interact with employees about their progress.

Setting goals gives our mind the power to imagine our ideal future, the way we want to see ourselves in years to come. By gaining insight into our wants and needs, we become aware of our reality and can set reasonable expectations.

Goal-setting impacts both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and this is why most successful athletes and business professionals rely on a sound plan of action before diving into any work.

There are many instances of how goal-setting is effectively used as a psychological intervention.

For example:

• Popular therapeutic practices like the CBT or Anger Management often use weekly goal planners or charts to record the progress of the clients and help them keep track of the exercises they are supposed to practice at home. Even in child therapies, counselors often use mood charts or set weekly exercises for the kid, and provide positive reinforcements to the child on accomplishing them.
• Almost all educational institutions today agree that setting clear goals makes it easier for the students to realize their strengths and work on building them. It boosts their self-confidence and lets them identify the broader targets in life .
• Goal-setting as a personal habit is also beneficial to hold ourselves in perspective. Personal goal-setting may be as simple as maintaining a daily to-do list or planning our career moves beforehand. As we have a clear vision of the end-goals, it becomes easier for us to advance towards them.

Types of goals

There are three main types of goals in psychology:

• The Process Goals These are the ones involving the execution of plans. For example, going to the gym in the morning or taking the health supplements on time, and repeating the same action every day is a process goal. The focus is to form the habit that will ultimately lead to achievement.
• The Performance Goals These goals help in tracking progress and give us a reason for continuing the hard work. For example, studying for no less than 6 hours a day or working out for at least 30 minutes per day can help us in quantifying our efforts and measuring the progress.
• The Outcome Goals Outcome goals are the successful implementations of process and performance goals. They keep us in perspective and help to stay focused on the bigger picture. Examples of outcome goals may include winning a sport, losing the desired amount of weight, or scoring a top rank in school.

The E-E-E Model Of Goal-Setting

The E-E-E Model of goal-setting was mentioned in a journal published by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2017). It is a person-centered approach that describes the way a successful roadmap contributes to bringing about the change.

Author Nowack (2017). stated that goal-setting ensures success by serving three purposes:

• Enlightening Us Providing meaningful insight into our abilities and weaknesses, and by helping us prioritize our goals depending on our needs.
• Encouraging Us It provides the motivation and courage to implement the goals and execute the plans efficiently.
• Enabling Us Goal-setting enables us to achieve the balance between our real and ideal self. By implementing the goals and succeeding from it, we regain self-confidence, social support, and can evaluate our achievements.

Goals direct our actions and open us to a host of new possibilities. They help us stick to the relevant activities and get rid of what is irrelevant for goal-satisfaction.

Martin Seligman ’s research and findings on positive psychology aimed to shift the focus of psychology from problems to solutions. His works emphasized on interventions that would increase managerial productivity and help leaders enhance their performance holistically (Luthans, 2002).

Positive psychology incorporates the principles of goal-setting in several ways:

• It commits to a specific set of actions for goal-setting.
• It considers individual ethics and core values before setting goals.
• It aligns actions to individual capacities and character strengths.
• It has space for introspection and insight into one’s thoughts, emotions, and perceptions.
• It helps in setting realistic goals and expectations, thereby aiming to boost self-confidence and energy by task accomplishments.

Professor Gary P. Latham (University of Toronto) emphasized the role of positive psychology and the interconnection of it to goal-setting in his groundbreaking work on life goals and psychology. He mentioned that optimistic people have a strong sense of self, which helps them derive the motivation to set goals and extend them for self-improvement.

Positive psychology, according to Latham, intersects with goal-setting in the sense that it calls for building self-efficacy and create a sense of mastery over our internal and external environments.

Author Doug Smith (1999), in his famous book “ Make Success Measurable! A Mindbook For Setting Goals And Taking Actions ” mentioned that successful goal-setting mainly involves asking three questions to the self:

• How important is the goal for us?
• How confident are we about reaching and accomplishing the goal?
• How consistent is the goal with our core values and beliefs?

Smith said that successful leaders and management professionals use this systematic approach when striving for goal accomplishments and use threads of positive psychology such as optimism, thought replacement, strength , and resilience .

The emerging field of positive psychology provides a stronger base for effective goal-setting and management.

A Look At Goal Setting Theory

Locke’s prime concern was to establish the power of setting accurate and measurable goals.

He believed that rather than focusing on general outcomes, professional goal-setting and management should focus on meticulousness of the tasks and address specific goals for each area of accomplishment. The goal-setting theory Locke designed, set an impetus to increased productivity and achievement.

Principles Of Locke’s Theory

Locke’s theory of goal-setting is the roadmap to today’s workplace motivation and skills to build it. In his argument, he mentioned that effective goal-setting directly contributes to productivity and increases employee satisfaction at all professional levels.

Locke believed that there are five key principles of goal-setting:

• Clarity – How specific and comprehensive the goal is.
• Challenge – How difficult the goal is and the degree to which it requires us to extend our abilities.
• Commitment – How dedicated we are to reach the goal and what value it renders to us.
• Feedback – How our achievements are perceived and recognized by others. Positive feedback increases satisfaction after achieving the target.
• Complexity – The difficulty of the tasks that we need to accomplish for reaching the ultimate goal.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Core Concepts Of Goal-Setting Theory

Locke said that there are four core components of a goal that makes it useful. These are the key aspects that we should keep in mind before committing to a plan.

1. Difficulty

Difficult goals imply more significant achievements. Easy and comfortable goals are seldom productive, as we don’t have to exploit much of our abilities to achieve them.

Although while selecting a target, we may tend to shun away from choosing the harder ones, difficult goals are undoubtedly more motivating, energizing, and satisfying after accomplishment.

2. Specificity

Specific goals imply more certain task regulation. Before setting a goal plan, we must be clear to ourselves about the outcomes and which part of our personal or professional lives will the target achievement improve.

Having a vision of the result strengthens our intentions and helps to sustain focus.

3. Reward reminders

Locke emphasized the importance of following inspirational musings and motivational speeches for goal accomplishments. He said that the human mind is too used to getting reminders from its internal or external environment when it faces a lack of something.

For example, lack of food or water is triggered by feelings of hunger and thirst that motivates us to achieve the equilibrium again. But with professional targets or life goals, it is not absurd to lose motivation unless we keep reminding ourselves of why we should attain it.

4. Goal efficacy

The success of Locke’s theory owes to its cut-throat practical approach. While mentioning about optimism bias in his opinion, Locke said that we often tend to select goals that excite us temporarily.

For example, we may choose a profession by getting lured about the financial benefits of it, failing to notice the hard work that we will need to put in for enjoying the benefits. As a result, we are likely to fail motivation and lose commitment after delving into the reality of the work.

Thus, before setting goals, it is vital that we choose only the ones that are truly rewarding to us, no matter how much we need to push ourselves to achieve it.

Why the secret to success is setting the right goals – John Doerr

Psychological Studies And Research On Goal Setting

Goal-setting is an area in psychology whose roots lie in scientific data and empirical evidence. It is a flexible theory which is open to modifications according to the changing times, and yet serve the purpose of:

• Maximizing success.
• Minimizing failures and disappointments.
• Optimizing personal abilities (Latham & Locke, 2007)

A study on the effects of goal-setting on athletic rehabilitation and training revealed that groups that followed a solid plan of action were more prepared, had higher self-efficacy, and were more organized in their approach (Evans & Hardy, 2002).

The experimental population had three groups, only one of which received the goal-setting intervention. Post-experimental measures showed there was a significant difference in the levels of spirit and motivation among the group that received the goal-setting interventions and the other two groups.

George Wilson’s study on “ Value-Centred Approach To Goal-Setting And Action Planning ” also put forth some groundbreaking revelations. He based the survey of the seven practices Seligman had mentioned in his research on positive psychology and goal-setting (Kerns, 2005).

Wilson called them ‘key takeaways’ and urged organizations to consider these seven highlights while setting up their goal-management programs:

1. Values Commitment

Wilson coined five core values using a value-based checklist . His study showed that when goal-setting focus on the core values, it increased the likelihood of achieving success from the target plan.

The five core values he mentioned were – integrity, responsibility, fairness, hope, and achievement.

2. Goals and Values Alignment

Wilson set the goals in his study based on the core values, such that each goal satisfies at least one or more of the purposes mentioned above. Results showed that the goals which were associated with the values gave more satisfaction to the participants than the ones which were not.

3. Character Strengths and Actions

Seligman’s findings strongly stated that goal-setting and achievements must take into account the character strengths of the individual.

In the absence of character alignment, there will remain a chance of selecting actions that are too easy or way too complicated for the person to accomplish. Wilson extended his study based on this finding and used the Values in Action (VIA) inventory to rule out the strengths and abilities of the participants before choosing the right goals for them.

4. Self-confidence

Positive psychology research on goal-setting spoke about how confidence and goals tend to complement each other. Wilson’s study incorporated regular self-checks for one year post the survey to examine the level of self-confidence of the respondents and determine its influences on their achievements.

5. Persistence

Frequent investigations in the form of self-assessments, interviews, or feedbacks are essential in gauging whether the participants are consistent with their targets. Seligman and his colleagues considered perseverance and consistency hugely critical for ensuring successful execution of the target plans.

6. Realistic outlook

The importance of setting realistic expectations cannot be stressed enough when talking of successful goal-setting. Wilson’s research on goal-setting encouraged participants to take the Seligman Optimism Test for gaining insight into the self-perceptions and followed three approaches to maintain an optimistic perspective in the participants:

• Separating facts from negative thoughts and ruminations.
• Encouraging positive self-talk among the groups.
• Using at least one positive statement in each of the weekly reports where he mentioned the target plans and goals associated with it.

7. Self-resilience

Wilson suggested that measuring the Resilience Quotient ( RQ ) of participants before assigning goals to them is a great idea for optimizing success and promoting happiness (Kerns, 2005). On administering resilience scales to the respondents, the goal-setting and task assignment be came more accessible and guaranteed better outcomes.

There are even more interesting studies, and we share three interesting findings here.

1. A Study On The Interrelationships Among Employee Participation, Individual Differences, And Goal-Setting

Yukl and Latham published this research in 1978 where they explored the interconnections between goal-setting and individual personality factors.

For 10 weeks, 41 participants received goal plans that were either set by supervisors or chosen by the participants themselves, and the results revealed that:

• Participants with difficult goals achieved greater success than others.
• Participants with higher self-esteem did better on task accomplishments.
• Participants with a greater understanding of why the goal was necessary for them had more chances of being successful with the target plans.

2. Dr. Gail Matthews’ (2015) Study On Goal-Setting

A study conducted by Dr. Gail Matthews at Dominican University sought to find evidence for claims coming out of  Harvard Business School that well-planned and well-written goals impact students’ performance and achievements.

In this study, 267 participants were recruited from businesses and professional networking groups to take part. These participants were then divided into five groups:

• The first group set no goals and had no concrete plans.
• The second group set goals but did not prepare a plan to execute them.
• The third group prepared well-defined goals and plans of action to achieve them.
• The fourth group prepared well-defined goals and plans of action, then sent these to a supportive friend.
• The fifth group prepared well-defined goals and plans of action, then sent these to a supportive friend, together with weekly progress reports.

Results revealed that the fifth group, who had their goals written with concrete plans of action and drew on the support of a friend to hold them accountable, accomplished significantly more than all the other groups. This study serves to highlight the benefits of writing down goals and action plans, as well as the benefits of public commitment and accountability as drivers of goal achievement and success in life.

3. A Study On Success And Goals

This was a small enterprise-oriented study that explored how goal-setting and entrepreneurial qualities affected the productivity of the employees and the overall success of the organization. Results indicated the importance of marketing abilities of the organizational head to be a significant influence in the company’s goal-setting plans (Ioniţă, 2013).

1. A Case Study By Emily van Sonnenberg

Emily VanSonnenberg (2011), a psychologist specializing in positive psychology and happiness coach, presented her case study on undergraduates to explain the importance of having goals in life.

The target group of her research was young adults who came from a non-psychology background. She mentioned about starting each session with positive interventions like brief meditation, mindfulness, and task planning, and urged her subjects to journal the tidbits of these positive interventions daily.

Over a while, Emily found that individuals who kept a detailed record of their daily goals and planned their tasks accordingly were more productive, less bored, and showed signs of higher self-contentment than others.

She further mentioned that asking questions to the self like “ What do you intend to do today? ”, or “ What do you want to achieve in life? ”, etc., can clarify our motivations and help in setting our goals more effectively.

Although her study targeted only a particular age-group, the findings are valid for people across different ages and professional backgrounds.

2. A Goal-Setting Case Study By Redmond

This case study was based on professional goal-setting and the use of S-M-A-R-T-E-R goals in achieving success (Redmond, 2011). Following the critical findings of the book ‘ Contemporary Management ’ by Jones and George, researcher Brian F. Redmond suggested the participants create smart goals for them and report their progress to the supervisors regularly (Redmond, 2011).

One participant of the study, John, received a Professional Development Plan (PDP) intending to build his potentials and maximize his achievements. The PDP allowed him to evaluate his character strengths closely and identify the areas that needed improvement.

John set his goals based on his powers and kept reporting his progress and task accomplishments to his supervisors, who kept extending and modifying the targets based on whether or not they were achieved.

This individualized case study asserted the role of setting smart goals in achieving success and building personal skills.

3. Goal-Setting Case Study By Hardin

Deedra Hardin had published a valuable collection of fascinating case studies on goal-setting and success at different organizational levels.

Out of the series of studies,  one case research on the effectiveness of goal-setting in the military service is noteworthy to mention here (Hardin, 2013).

A group leader of a commander team, who was in charge of training over a hundred soldiers, had the responsibility of ensuring that his team members met the physical, systematic, and operational requirements of the top in their field. The goals that the commander set for his army focused a lot on physical fitness and set smart goals that would help his team achieve the same.

Hardin said that the reason why the commander succeeded in creating quick goals for his teams was his intuition and insight into the exact requirements for the team.

Extending the study from there, authors of the research stated that for successfully building a goal plan that can guarantee satisfaction for both the administrator and the respondent, it is vital to understand what the team precisely needs and how the goals can help them achieve so.

Furthermore, the study also indicated that goal-setting could only become successful after the results were reviewed and monitored by the authorities or the participants themselves (Hollenbeck & Klein, 1987).

17 Tools To Increase Motivation and Goal Achievement

These 17 Motivation & Goal Achievement Exercises [PDF] contain all you need to help others set meaningful goals, increase self-drive, and experience greater accomplishment and life satisfaction.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Goal-setting gives a boost to our Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) which makes us readily act on it (Granot, Stern, & Balcetis, 2017). When the goal is tricky and yet achievable, the SBP gets an enhanced spike that increases our zeal to act and achieve it.

Impossible or challenging goals, or the ones that make us question our abilities, are linked with low systolic thrust and they do not provide the spike for ready action. Extensive studies have shown how neural connections and the brain activities pump up our motivation to set and achieve goals.

For example, the Medial Prefrontal Cortex (MPFC) deals with the present orientation of the goal-setting process. The MPFC activation allows us to think about what we need to do right now to achieve our goals, and we set the targets accordingly.

If the goal seems too distant or is too future-oriented, the MPFC activation lowers significantly which is why we may lose interest in sticking to the goals or lose the vision of what might be the best ways to achieve them.

Usually, goals are the incidents that have not yet happened to us, but we want to make them happen. And since they cannot occur on their own, we follow a set of rules or a plan to ensure achievement (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010).

The sense of struggle and power testing that involves the goal-setting process is what makes it so engaging to us. For example, a primary drive or intrinsic motivation that forces us to do well on a new or challenging assignment is the ability to demonstrate and validate our skills (McClelland, 1985).

The underlying neurochemical changes that cause this motivation to keep burning is therefore vital to understand before we embark on setting the goals.

RAS And Goal Setting

Reticular Activating System (RAS) is a part of the brain that plays a crucial role in regulating our goal-setting actions. The RAS is a cluster of cells located at the base of the brain that processes all the information and sensory channels related to the things that need our attention right now.

An exciting fact about RAS activation is that it gives us signs. For example, a person whose goal is to start a family, is likely to see more couples and families around him.

This happens because of RAS activation. The RAS is aware that this is what the person is paying attention to at this very moment, and hence he chooses to register only the information related to it.

Before deciding to start a family, the RAS would naturally have filtered out any such information. The person may have seen so many couples walking past him earlier, but never really paid attention to them, until the time he decided to get married himself (Alvarez & Emory, 2006).

The reticular activation functions in two ways when it comes to goal-setting:

1. Writing goals

RAS gets activated by the simple act of putting our goals in pen and paper. Seeing our aims written in clear words before us, feeling the touch of the pen, or engaging in the thinking process of writing the targets trigger the RAS functions and ensures that we go for it.

2. Planning goals

The art of imagination is essential when it comes to goal-setting. Studies have shown that people who have the power to visualize their goals before setting their actions have a higher activation at the brain level.

Repeatedly imagining success and reminding ourselves of our targets maintains a steady stimulation in the RAS and promotes effective goal-setting (Berkman & Lieberman, 2009).

The RAS activation helps in focusing the mind to attend to only those pieces of information that are related to the goals we seek to achieve.

Neurologists working on the science of goal-setting have proved that the brain cannot distinguish between reality and imagined reality. So, when we give ourselves a picture of the goal we want to achieve, the mind starts believing it to be real.

Eventually, the brain begins driving us to take actions for making the state and hence, the goal-setting becomes a success  (Berkman, 2018).

As the famous saying goes, “ Begin with the end in mind. ” The most crucial aspect of goal-setting is to build an effective plan.

If we set goals by our character strengths, core values, level of motivation, and pledge on sticking to the plan until we reach the aim, there is no way that we won’t get there.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Goal Achievement Exercises for free .

• Alvarez, J. A., & Emory, E. (2006). Executive function and the frontal lobes: a meta-analytic review.  Neuropsychology Review ,  16 (1), 17-42.
• American Psychological Association. (2017, September 27). Beyond goal setting to goal flourishing. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/issue-101
• Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer.  Psychological Science ,  21 (1), 147-152.
• Berkman, E. T. (2018). The neuroscience of goals and behavior change.  Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 70 (1), 28-44.
• Berkman, E. T., & Lieberman, M. D. (2009). Using neuroscience to broaden emotion regulation: Theoretical and methodological considerations.  Social and Personality Psychology Compass ,  3 (4), 475-493.
• Carson, P. P., Carson, K. D., & Heady, R. B. (1994). Cecil Alec Mace: The man who discovered goal-setting.  International Journal of Public Administration ,  17 (9), 1679-1708.
• Doran, G. T. (1981). There’sa SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives.  Management Review ,  70 (11), 35-36.
• Erez, M. (1986). The congruence of goal-setting strategies with socio-cultural values and its effect on performance.  Journal of Management ,  12 (4), 585-592.
• Evans, L., & Hardy, L. (2002). Injury rehabilitation: A goal-setting intervention study.  Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport ,  73 (3), 310-319.
• Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., & Stern, C. (2017). Zip code of conduct: Crime rate affects legal punishment of police. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3 (2), 176-186.
• Hardin, D. L. (2013). Case studies using goal-setting theory. Retrieved from https://wikispaces.psu.edu/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=118882898
• Hollenbeck, J. R., & Klein, H. J. (1987). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Problems, prospects, and proposals for future research.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 72 (2), 212–220.
• Ioniţă, D. (2013). Success and goals: An exploratory research in small enterprises.  Procedia Economics and Finance ,  6 , 503-511.
• Kerns, C. D. (2005). The positive psychology approach to goal management.  Graziadio Business Report ,  8 (3).
• Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis.  Journal of Applied Psychology ,  96 (6), 1289-1304.
• Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting research.  European Psychologist ,  12 (4), 290-300.
• Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.  Organizational Behavior and Human Performance ,  3 (2), 157-189.
• Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting.  Applied and Preventive Psychology ,  5 (2), 117-124.
• Locke, E. A. (2002). Setting goals for life and happiness. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 299–312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 265-268.
• Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior.  Journal of Organizational Behavior ,  23 (6), 695-706.
• Mace, C. A. (1935). Incentives: Some experimental studies (Report No. 72). London, UK: Industrial Health Research Board.
• Matthews, G. (2015). Goal research summary. Paper presented at the 9th Annual International Conference of the Psychology Research Unit of Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER) , Athens, Greece.
• McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do.  American Psychologist, 40 (7), 812-825.
• McDaniel, R. (2015, June 30). Goal setter or problem solver? HuffPost . Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/goal-setter-or-problem-so_b_7543084
• Nowack, K. (2017). Facilitating successful behavior change: Beyond goal setting to goal flourishing. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69 (3), 153-171.
• Redmond, B. F. (2011). Goal setting case study. Retrieved from https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/Goal+Setting+Case+Study
• Smith, D. K. (1999).  Make success measurable! A mindbook-workbook for setting goals and taking action . New York, NY: Wiley.
• VanSonnenberg, E. (2011, January 3). Ready, set, goals! Positive Psychology News . Retrieved from https://positivepsychologynews.com/news/emily-vansonnenberg/2011010315821
• Yukl, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance, goal instrumentality, and performance.  Personnel Psychology ,  31 (2), 305-323.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

It was super useful. I used this article as a reference. Thanks a lot

Incredible article! Such powerful insight on goal setting and achieving. Saving this one everywhere with reminders to review each year.

This is such a great article. I have written a concise summary of this and that shall definitely help me set up for the future. “The brain cannot distinguish between reality and imagined reality”, I Have read that many times but for the first time understood its meaning.

Awesome article, very informative reasearch behind it. This is gonna be helpful to set my goals in a better way. Thankyou.

Great article. Thanks so much.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

How to Encourage Clients to Embrace Change

Many of us struggle with change, especially when it’s imposed upon us rather than chosen. Yet despite its inevitability, without it, there would be no [...]

Victor Vroom’s Expectancy Theory of Motivation

Motivation is vital to beginning and maintaining healthy behavior in the workplace, education, and beyond, and it drives us toward our desired outcomes (Zajda, 2023). [...]

SMART Goals, HARD Goals, PACT, or OKRs: What Works?

Goal setting is vital in business, education, and performance environments such as sports, yet it is also a key component of many coaching and counseling [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (21)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (36)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Goal Achievement Exercises Pack

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

Daring Leadership Institute: a groundbreaking partnership that amplifies Brené Brown's empirically based, courage-building curriculum with BetterUp’s human transformation platform.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Find your coach

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

Goal-setting theory: Why it’s important, and how to use it at work

Jump to section

What is goal-setting theory?

How goal-setting theory works, the 5 principles of goal-setting theory, examples of goal-setting theory, benefits of goal-setting theory, limitations of goal-setting theory, how to use goal-setting theory in the workplace.

If you want to inspire higher performance in your employees, you need to keep team members motivated and moving towards their goals. And if you want to keep team members motivated and moving forward, it’s important to understand goal setting theory.

Goal-setting theory is a well-researched theory that connects goal setting and task performance. And if you want to improve everything from employee engagement , performance, and motivation, understanding this concept is a must.

But what, exactly, is goal-setting theory? How does it work? And how can you use goal-setting theory to keep your team motivated and engaged — and inspire high performance in the process?

First things first—what is goal-setting theory?

Goal-setting theory was developed by Edwin A. Locke . The American psychologist was a pioneer in goal-setting research. Locke originated the theory in 1968 with the publication of the article Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives .

Originally published in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Edwin Locke’s article explored the relationship between goals and task performance. And, more specifically, that hard, specific goals inspire a higher level of performance than easy goals with a “do your best” approach.

Goal-setting theory is an organizational psychology theory. (It’s also sometimes called the goal setting theory of motivation). According to this theory, goals that are clear, specific, and challenging are more motivating than vague goals or easy goals. And when employees are more motivated, they’re more successful in hitting their goals.

In the years following the release of Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives , Locke would go on to partner with Dr. Gary Latham . Together, the pair further explored and researched the effects of goal setting. In 1990, Locke and Latham published A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance . This book expanded on goal setting theory and created a framework for a more effective goal-setting process.

Goal-setting theory is generally considered the foundation for SMART goals , a popular goal setting framework. This acronym suggests goals should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound for best results.

The purpose of goal-setting theory

The main purpose of goal-setting theory is to better understand the connection between how the goal-setting process influences work motivation and performance. From there, people and teams can use that understanding to help employees become more successful in hitting their goals.

So now that you know what goal setting is, let’s quickly go into how it works.

Goal-setting theory works by defining what types of goals drive motivation performance. And when employers understand that? They can ensure their goal-setting process sets their employees up for success.

It’s simple, but it can also be extremely effective.

As mentioned, according to goal-setting theory, goals need to be both hard and specific in order to be effective. But Locke & Latham further expanded on that concept, defining five key principles for effective goals. Those five determinants include:

According to this theory, clarity around goal orientation is a must. The more clarity there is when setting a goal with/for an employee, the less of a chance there is for a miscommunication or misunderstanding. This then leads to higher levels of success . To put it another way: effective goals are both clear goals and specific goals.

2. Challenge

Goal difficulty also ties to the effectiveness of goal setting. When goal attainment presents a challenge, it leads to a higher level of motivation—which, in turn, leads to a higher chance of success. Or, in other words, challenging goals (or difficult goals) are more effective.

3. Commitment

Employees need to have a certain level of buy-in and goal commitment. If they’re not committed, they’re not going to have the follow-through necessary to succeed — and as a result, they won’t hit their goal.

4. Feedback

In order for employees to successfully hit their goals, they need regular feedback . That includes feedback on their progress, what they’re doing well, and where they can improve.

5. Task complexity

If a goal feels too complex or overwhelming, it can negatively impact motivation. Instead, leaders should break down large goals into smaller, more manageable tasks. As employees complete each small task, it will deliver a boost of motivation. And that will ultimately help them progress towards the larger goal.

Understanding goal-setting theory is one thing. But what does this theory look like in practice?

1. Successful and smooth onboarding

Let’s say you just hired a new marketing analyst who has a ton of potential to succeed at your company. A vague, easy goal — like “get settled into your new role” — isn’t going to motivate them to do their best. Instead, under goal-setting theory, you’d want to clearly lay out a challenging goal to help them reach their full potential .

For example, you might set a goal of “learn the marketing analytics software within the first 90 days .” Then, you can help them break that goal down into smaller tasks (like “complete onboarding ” or “learn how to create an analytics report”). You can also let them know you’ll be available to provide feedback along the way — and help them to understand why learning the software is so important.

This goal will give your new high performer something to work towards that’s challenging, but achievable. And because you’re breaking down why the software is so important, it will help them commit to the goal. Those elements will keep them motivated as they learn the ropes of their new role.

3. Finishing a project with a team

Or let’s say you want to motivate your team to wrap up a project. Instead of setting a goal of “get this project finished ASAP,” you’d want to get more clear. For example, you might set a goal of “finish the project by the end of the month.” Then, break that down into tasks for each team member and make yourself available to work on the project with them and provide feedback along the way.

You should also make sure to generate buy-in on why finishing by end of month is important (for example, to deliver the product to customers on time). 

The clarity of the goal and the goal’s importance — along with the challenge of wrapping things up before end of month — can help motivate your team to get things done.

The bottom line? When using goal-setting theory, you want to make sure you’re setting goals that hit all five of Locke and Latham’s principles. This includes making sure goals are clear and challenging (but achievable), that you’re creating a sense of commitment to the goal, and that you’re providing regular feedback.

Using goal-setting theory to motivate employees offers a host of benefits, including:

• Higher levels of engagement. This framework can help employees hit their goals. That success can lead to higher levels of employee engagement and job satisfaction.
• Higher levels of performance . When employees regularly hit their goals, their performance and productivity improves. Employees may also become more effective at hitting goals within their assigned timeframe.
• Better adherence to deadlines and metrics . Goal-setting theory encourages measurable goals. This can help employees improve at getting things done within specified timeframes. It can also help employees better adhere to defined metrics.
• Wide application . Goal-setting theory can be used for a variety of goal types. For example, you can apply it successfully to personal goals , individual goals, team goals , learning goals, or an achievement goal.
• Supports a feedback culture . Goal-setting theory supports a culture of feedback. This gives employees the insights they need to continually improve.
• Leads to self-efficacy . When employees regularly hit their goals, they gain confidence. This confidence leads to self-efficacy and better self-regulation.

Clearly, Locke’s goal-setting theory offers some serious benefits. But it’s not without its drawbacks. There are a number of potential downsides to goal-setting theory, including:

• Negative impact on performance relationship . According to goal setting theory, difficult goals inspire higher performance. But there’s a limit to that. If a goal or complex task is outside of an employee’s skill set, that goal could prove too difficult. This can negatively impact task motivation—and ultimately, cause performance to drop.
• Misalignment . If there is a misalignment between the employee’s goals and the organization’s goals, goal-setting theory may not be as effective.
• Unethical behavior. If goals are too difficult or complex, it can have a negative impact on employees’ decision making. In an effort to hit their goal, they may engage in unethical, risky, or questionable behavior.

Want to use goal-setting theory to motivate your employees and drive organizational performance ? Here’s how to make goal-setting theory work in the workplace.

1. Define what you’re trying to achieve

Before you set goals with your employees, it’s important to define, and communicate , what exactly you’re trying to achieve.

For example, do you want your employee to learn a new skill or software? If so, you need to define why you want them to learn a new skill. You might communicate that learning this new skill or software will help them improve their sales numbers.

Understanding the purpose of your goals will help you generate buy-in with your employees. And this buy-in is a critical part of goal-setting theory. 

2. Loop in the employee or team

Once you know what you’re trying to achieve, it’s time to schedule a time to meet with your employee or team. During the meeting, you can share your vision for the goal and ask for their feedback. You can also ask them what they need to succeed in hitting their goals — and from there, take steps to set them up for success.

Again, you need your employees to be committed to hitting the goal — and meeting with them and asking for their input is a must to create that commitment.  

3. Set SMART goals

The next step is to actually set the goal. And the best way to do that? Using the SMART goal framework.

Again, SMART goals should be:

By using the SMART framework, you can ensure that the goals you’re setting follow goal-setting theory — and lay the foundation for success.

4. Provide regular feedback

Feedback is a key principle of goal-setting theory. So, if you’re implementing goal-setting theory in your workplace, it’s critical that you provide regular feedback.

Make sure to deliver both positive and constructive feedback as your employees work towards their goals. And remember, feedback goes both ways — so invite your employees to do the same.

5. Adjust as necessary

Sometimes, as employees progress toward their work goals , you (or they) may realize that something just isn’t working. For example, maybe the goal was too ambitious or maybe the timeline was unrealistic. In those situations, you need to be willing to be flexible — and adjust the goal as necessary.

Use goal-setting theory to motivate and inspire your team

If you want your employees to succeed, you need to empower them to hit their goals. And using goal-setting theory is a great way to motivate them and help them move towards their goals—and reach their full potential in the process.

Need help inspiring and motivating your employees to hit their goals? BetterUp can help .

Understand Yourself Better:

Big 5 Personality Test

Deanna Debara

Deanna Debara is a writer and entrepreneur. She has over ten years of experience writing in the health and wellness space and holds a B.A. from Colorado State University.

The only guide you'll need to create effective cascading goals

Get smart about your goals at work and start seeing results, how to set short-term professional goals, do goal statements actually work find out here, strategy versus tactics: planning and executing on your goals, examples of behavioral goals: 7 career objectives, your guide to individual development plans (with examples), setting goals for 2024 to ring in the new year right, the best way to set team goals, using drive reduction theory to set & achieve your goals, still chasing efficiency find out why effectiveness is a better goal, empower your work with stretch goals (plus examples), 10 tips to set goals and achieve them, 60 goal-setting quotes to inspire and motivate you, having “too many” interests isn’t holding you back, it’s launching you forward, operant conditioning: what is it, and how does it work, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Personal Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Goal missed, self hit: goal-setting, goal-failure, and their affective, motivational, and behavioral consequences.

• Department of Psychology, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

Setting high and specific goals is one of the best-established management tools to increase performance and motivation. However, in recent years, potential downsides of goal-setting are being discussed. One possible downside is the high risk of failing the goal. In an approach to integrate research on the consequences of goal-failure and the basic assumptions of goal-setting theory, we investigated whether failure of a high and specific goal has detrimental effects on a person’s affect, self-esteem, and motivation. In Experiment 1, 185 participants received fictitious feedback about attaining or failing an assigned high and specific goal. In Experiment 2 with 86 participants, we manipulated goal-failure through task-difficulty and we included task choice as a behavioral measure of motivation. In both experiments, participants who failed the high and specific goal showed a decrease in affect, self-esteem, and motivation compared to participants who attained that goal. Results indicate that failing a high and specific goal can be damaging for self-related factors that may be crucial for organizational long-term outcomes. We advise organizations to consider potential undesirable effects when using goal-setting interventions.

Introduction

Over 1,000 studies have consistently shown that setting high and specific goals is linked to increased task performance, persistence, and motivation, compared to vague or easy goals ( Locke and Latham, 2002 , 2006 ). Given this empirical evidence, setting high (which means a high difficulty that only a certain percentage of individuals can reach) and specific (which means tangible information on what needs to be attained) goals has become a highly recommended motivational and leadership tool in organizations. However, in recent years, more and more studies raised concerns about possible undesirable effects of goal-setting. For example, goals can narrow the attention focus on goal-related actions, so that other important issues are missed ( Ordóñez et al., 2009 ), goals may increase risk-taking and unethical behavior ( Neale and Bazerman, 1985 ; Knight et al., 2001 ; Schweitzer et al., 2004 ), inhibit learning ( Earley et al., 1989 ; Cervone et al., 1991 ), or create an overly competitive environment ( Mitchell and Silver, 1990 ).

The current research seeks to shed light on another possible downside of setting high and specific goals: the possibility of goal-failure and the associated negative consequences. Locke and Latham (1990 , p. 349) advocated that (at least in laboratory settings) a high and specific goal “that only 10% of the subjects can reach” should be set to achieve maximum individual performance (see, e.g., Locke et al., 1989 ; Latham and Locke, 1991 ; Latham and Seijts, 1999 ; Welsh and Ordóñez, 2014 ; Welsh et al., 2019 ). However, this implies that only 10% of individuals are able to attain the high and specific goal and 90% will fail the goal. What happens to those who fail the high and specific goal? Several theories have discussed possible processes induced by goal-failure in general ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Carver and Scheier, 1990 ; Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2004 ), but there is a dearth of empirical research on the consequences of failure of a high and specific goal.

We argue that failing a high and specific goal induces several processes that can harm a person’s affect, self-esteem, and motivation. Reducing such self-related factors can have serious consequences for the person as well as the organizations, for example reduced extrarole performance ( Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2008 ), reduced organizational citizenship behavior ( Welsh et al., 2020 ), or increased absenteeism ( Shi et al., 2013 ). Decreased motivation may also lead to disengagement from challenging tasks ( Seo and Ilies, 2009 ) or choosing tasks with low difficulty ( Nichols et al., 1991 ).

While there is some evidence on the effects of goal-failure on affect (e.g., Martin et al., 1993 ; Grieve et al., 1994 ), to our knowledge there are little to no studies that integrate research of failure with the basic assumptions of goal-setting theory. Hence, the present research seeks to close this research gap, first, by replicating known effects of goal-failure on affect while using a high and specific goal and, second, by investigating the effects on additional self-related factors such as self-esteem and motivation that are also crucial for organizational outcomes. In the next sections, we will outline the underlying theories and potential processes that may lead to negative consequences after goal-failure of a high and specific goal. We will describe in detail the expected effects of goal-failure for affect, self-esteem, and motivation. We will then describe two experimental studies we conducted to examine those effects.

Theory and Hypotheses

Setting high and specific goals is the basic recommendation by goal-setting theory to increase performance ( Locke and Latham, 1990 , 2002 , 2006 ); however, failing these goals may induce processes that are damaging for one’s self. Goals can be described as objects of a person’s ambition that direct attention to goal-relevant activities, mobilize effort, and motivate to develop task-relevant strategies for goal-attainment ( Locke et al., 1981 ). In over 35years of research, Locke and Latham (2002) developed goal-setting theory to influence, predict, and explain performance on organizational tasks through goals. Their core findings were that high and specific goals increased performance, persistence, and motivation compared to vague or so-called “do-your-best” goals ( Locke and Latham, 1990 ).

However, most past research focused on these core findings and increasing performance as the main outcome, while ignoring potential detrimental effects on intrapersonal and self-related factors, especially when the high and specific goal is failed. Some evidence was found that high and specific goals lead to a decrease in affect, because individuals evaluate their performance relatively to a reference point ( Oliver et al., 1994 ; Thompson, 1995 ; Galinsky et al., 2002 ). Even individuals who had objectively good outcomes felt worse when they had a high and specific goal as their reference point ( Thompson, 1995 ; Galinsky et al., 2002 ). What happens when individuals fall under their reference point? Surprisingly, there is a lack of research on the consequences of failing a high and specific goal. It is important to examine the consequences of goal-failure of a high and specific goal since they are the key element of goal-setting interventions in organizations. We propose that failing the high and specific goal may induce detrimental processes for several intrapersonal and self-related factors. We chose intrapersonal factors that have been consistently demonstrated to be strongly connected with organizational outcomes and hence impairing those has the potential to harm the employee and the organization in the long-run.

First, we propose that goal-failure of a high and specific goal can damage a person’s affect. A person’s affect, which is a common indicator for well-being ( Sonnentag, 2015 ), refers to the positive or negative personal reactions to experiences ( Lazarus, 1982 ). Affect is often used as an umbrella term for mood, emotions, and evaluations. One can experience pleasant emotions or unpleasant ones ( Diener, 2000 ). Several theories support the notion that goal-failure can be harmful for a person’s affect. First, self-regulation theory suggests that behavior is meta-monitored by the individual and people seek to reduce discrepancy between their present actions and a reference value. If their progress toward that reference value is sub-standard, they experience negative affect ( Carver and Scheier, 1990 ; Moberly and Watkins, 2010 ). Second, achievement goal theory suggests that individuals with a focus on an externally-set standard view their skillset as fixed and unchangeable ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). Failing the standard for them then implies that their skills are insufficient and they view the failure as a negative judgement of their competence. Thus, when individuals fail a high and specific goal, they experience a discrepancy between their skills and the goal and will experience negative affect. Negative affect can lead to severe consequences like reduced performance ( Seo and Ilies, 2009 ), exhaustion ( Halbesleben and Wheeler, 2011 ), counterproductive work behavior ( Scott and Barnes, 2011 ), and in the long-run even to burnout, which is related to increased absenteeism ( Ybema et al., 2010 ).

A number of studies have examined the consequences of goal-failure for a person’s affect. However, these studies do not directly relate to goal-setting theory. For example, in one experiment, goal level (primary vs. subgoals) and feedback of success or failure were manipulated. Participants who received a primary goal and feedback of goal-failure showed highest negative affect and decreased expectancy for future performance ( Houser-Marko and Sheldon, 2008 ). In another study, participants reported their negative affect; their ruminative self-focus, as well as their current goal and the importance of that goal eight times daily over 7 days ( Moberly and Watkins, 2010 ). It was found that low goal-success and high goal-importance were associated with high negative affect. Rumination after experiences of failure was also examined in another investigation, in which failure to attain prevention or promotion goals was manipulated by letting participants recall past failure experiences ( Jones et al., 2013 ). It was found that failure experiences lead to increased rumination and intensified negative affect, especially for promotion goal failures. In a summary on goals and affect, Plemmons and Weiss (2013) gathered previous findings on the effects of goal-failure on subsequent affect. They concluded that goal-attainment has positive effects on affect, whereas goal-failure has negative effects on affect (see Plemmons and Weiss, 2013 , pp. 121). None of these studies involved high and specific goals. We found two exceptions where high goals according to goal-setting theory were used. In one study, goal-success and goal-failure were used as mood-inducing method ( Henkel and Hinsz, 2004 ). In another investigation, goal-difficulty, goal source, and failure tolerance were manipulated in a scenario experiment in which participants were confronted with a character who fails his fictitious exam ( Kim and Clifford, 1988 ). It was found that for very difficult goals that were assigned by someone else, feelings after failure tended to be more negative. However, the authors did not find unambiguous support for the relationship between goal-difficulty and responses to goal-failure, and the goal only was presented as an item on the scenario booklet; participants did not have to complete the goal themselves.

Hence, there is some empirical evidence that goal-failure may have detrimental effects for an individual’s affect; however, research is needed to test this effect for high and specific goals that are the basic recommendation of goal-setting theory. We propose that:

H1 : Individuals who fail their high and specific goal will show a more negative affect than individuals who attain their high and specific goal.

Second, we propose that goal-failure of a high and specific goal can damage a person’s self-esteem. A person’s self-esteem reflects their evaluation of themselves and their abilities ( Rosenberg, 1965 ). Identity theory describes self-esteem as an outcome of the ratio between successes and goals ( Stets and Burke, 2000 ; Stryker and Burke, 2000 ), meaning the degree to which individuals are able to match their identity goal with their actual performance. If their identity goal matches with their actual performance, self-verification is successful. Successful self-verification leads to higher self-esteem. In contrast, disruption of the self-verification process, for example goal-failure, can have negative consequences for a person’s self-esteem. Reduced self-esteem can have severe long-term consequences, for the individual as well as for the organization, for example increased turnover cognitions/intentions ( Gardner and Pierce, 2001 ), decreased citizenship behavior ( Lee, 2003 ), and lower organizational commitment ( Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004 ). Hence, it is crucial to examine the consequences of goal-failure for self-esteem.

There is only a small body of research on the consequences of failure for a person’s self-esteem. In one study, it was found that participants who received poor exam scores showed reduced self-esteem ( Heatherton and Polivy, 1991 ). The same was found when failure was manipulated by assigning a puzzle task that was impossible to solve in the given time. Participants in the failure condition showed reduced self-esteem after the task. However, in both studies, there was no assigned high and specific goal. Both studies examined perceived failure on self-esteem and did not measure whether participants had a goal prior to the exam or the task. In another series of experiments, achievement goals were unconsciously activated with several methods ( Bongers et al., 2010 ). Participants then performed different tasks that were either easy or difficult to solve. Participants primed with achievement goals reported lower levels of self-esteem after the difficult tasks throughout all experiments. However, there were no assigned high and specific goals and success and failure were not manipulated, but depended on task difficulty condition, meaning that all participants in the difficult task condition were classified as having failed the goal, even though the goal to achieve was only unconscious and neither high nor specific.

Considering these previous findings, it becomes obvious that there are some indications that failure and more specifically goal-failure may have detrimental effects for a person’s self-esteem. The present research seeks to examine these effects when using high and specific goals. We propose that:

H2 : Individuals who fail their high and specific goal show lower self-esteem than individuals who attain their high and specific goal.

Third, we propose that goal-failure of a high and specific goal can reduce motivation for future tasks. Work-related motivation is one of the most common topics in organizational psychology and is described as “an umbrella term meant to capture the dense network of concepts and their interrelations that underlie observable changes in the initiations, direction, intensity, and persistence of voluntary action” ( Kanfer et al., 2017 , p. 339). Hence, we base our conceptualization of work motivation on the voluntarily change of intensity and persistence of an action toward any work-related activity. Work motivation affects how individuals develop their skills, the careers that they pursue, how they allocate their resources, and also affects how activities during work are tackled ( Kanfer et al., 2017 ). Setting high and specific goals is one of the best-known methods to increase work motivation. If the goal is failed, however, we propose that several other processes can be activated that are detrimental to motivation.

According to achievement goal theory, individuals with performance goals avoid challenges when confronted with obstacles, independently of their initial ability ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). While trying to attain a performance goal, individuals feel that their abilities are measured. When goal-failure occurs, individuals perceive their abilities as inadequate and themselves as incompetent ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). Individuals who view themselves as competent will react more positively to responsibilities than individuals who see themselves as incompetent ( Judge et al., 1997 ). Accordingly, individuals who perceive themselves as incompetent will react negatively to responsibilities and view themselves as less likely to succeed ( Judge et al., 1998 ). These individuals will react to failure with withdrawal of effort and reduced persistence ( Judge and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2004 ; Yeo and Neal, 2004 ). Considering the described definition of motivation as changes of intensity and persistence of voluntary actions, we conclude that goal-failure has the potential to reduce a person’s subsequent motivation.

There are few studies which have investigated the effects of goal-failure on subsequent motivation. Two studies manipulated goal type (learning vs. performance goals) and then used fictitious feedback of goal-failure to investigate the effects on subsequent motivation. In one study, students with a performance goal who received feedback of goal-failure performed worse in a subsequent task ( Cianci et al., 2010 ). In this study, subsequent performance was used as an indicator for changes in motivation. In another research, subjects with a performance goal avoided more difficult subsequent tasks after goal-failure ( Nichols et al., 1991 ). In this investigation, subsequent task choice after failure was used as an indicator of changes in motivation. In one study, participants completed a cycling task and received manipulated performance feedback about attaining or failing their assigned goal before completing a subsequent cognitive task ( Healy et al., 2015 ). There were no differences in subsequent performance between goal-failure and goal-attainment conditions. The authors concluded that a physical task may not have been suitable to manipulate goal-failure and that a physical task may enhance cognitive functioning, which could mask the detrimental effects of goal-failure. Again, these studies did not integrate high and specific goals. There is one exception, in which participants actually received a high goal prior to the task ( Vohs et al., 2013 ), but in this experiment, the goal was set so high that it was actually unattainable and thus, again, did not match the basic assumptions of goal-setting theory. It was found that after goal-failure, expectancy for future performance and interest in performing similar tasks, which were used as indicators of motivation, were lower.

Taken together, there is some evidence that goal-failure of performance goals can have undesirable effects on subsequent motivation. We seek to examine these effects when using high and specific goals that are the key element of goal-setting interventions. We propose that:

H3 : Individuals who fail their high and specific goal show lower motivation than individuals who attain their high and specific goal.

Overview of Studies

We conducted two experiments in which we manipulated goal-failure to examine the consequences of failure of a high and specific goal. To manipulate goal-failure, we used fictitious feedback in Study 1 and varied task difficulty in Study 2, so that goal-failure is independent from a person’s skill-level. In Study 1, we focused on the person’s affect, self-esteem, and subsequent self-reported motivation after receiving feedback of goal-failure compared to feedback of goal-attainment or no feedback. Study 2 aimed at replicating the effects found in Study 1 and examined motivation more objectively by using task choice after initial failure as a behavioral measure of motivation.

Study 1 Method

Study 1 was an online-experiment with a one-factor between-subjects design. The between-subjects factor was feedback type with three conditions: goal attained vs. goal failed vs. no feedback (control condition). Participants all received the same high and specific goal in an intelligence test and afterward a fictitious feedback whether they attained that goal or not (or no feedback at all in the control condition; the feedback is pictured in Table 1 ). As dependent variables, we measured affect, self-esteem, and subsequent motivation. The same variables were assessed before the task (baseline) and after receiving the feedback.

Table 1 . Fictitious feedback of goal-attainment/goal-failure in Study 1.

Participants and Procedure

We computed our required sample size with G * Power, optimal sample size is 111 (for between-subjects ANOVAs with three groups of Cohen’s f =0.3, type-I error probability α =0.05, and power 1-β=0.80, according to G * Power; Faul et al., 2007 ). Participants were 185 volunteers (93.5% female). Participants were randomly recruited on different online-platforms and were told that they would have the chance to test intelligence-test questions that can appear in assessment-centers. Participation was completely voluntarily; there was no payment involved. Majority of participants were employees (62.4%) of various professions (16.8% public service). Participants were not paid for participation; however, students (30.3%) received course credit if needed (only applicable to psychology students). Mean age was 28.01years ( SD =7.0). All participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions by using a programmed randomization filter, resulting in 67 subjects in the goal-attainment condition [34.6% female; 27.73 ( SD =7.75) years old; 13.0% high school absolvent or higher; 17.3% employees; and 9.7% students], 53 subjects in the goal-failure condition [25.4% female; 28.58 ( SD =6.90) years old; 11.9% high school absolvent or higher; 16.2% employees; and 7.0% students], and 65 subjects in the no-feedback control condition [33.5% female; 27.83 ( SD =6.73) years old; 14.1% high school absolvent or higher; 17.9% employees; and 13.5% students].

After giving their consent and confirming that they are of legal age, participants answered an online-questionnaire. In this questionnaire, we assessed demographics, covariates, and baseline data for affect, self-esteem, and motivation. Participants then all received the high and specific goal to solve seven out of 10 upcoming intelligence test items. We asked how committed participants were to that goal. Participants then solved the 10 intelligence test items. After completion, participants received fictitious feedback (or no feedback in the control condition) depending on their experimental condition. Afterwards, we assessed the post-measures for affect, self-esteem, and motivation as well as perception of the goal and the feedback as manipulation checks. All study variables were assessed immediately before or after the tasks, there were no breaks in between. Finally, participants were debriefed and dismissed.

Intelligence Test Task

In Study 1, we used 10 intelligence test items from the freely available General Intelligence-Test by Satow (2017) . These 10 items included five matrices that test spatial imagination and five number sequences that test mathematical-logical abilities. We used this task because the items all have a medium difficulty of around 0.5 (which means an item difficulty of around 50%) and participants cannot unambiguously tell if they correctly solved an item. For that reason, participants cannot be sure whether they solved the items correctly or not, which is essential for using fictitious feedback.

Dependent Variables

All scales that were originally in English were translated into German and then back-translated into English. Exact Cronbach’s α for all conditions and measurement times are listed in Table 2 .

Table 2 . Cronbach’s α for feedback type conditions and measurement times.

Affect was assessed with a short-scale version ( Wilhelm and Schoebi, 2007 ) of the Multidimensional Mood State Questionnaire (MDMQ) by Steyer et al. (1997) . The short-scale consists of six bipolar items (e.g., “tired – awake,” “tense – relaxed,” and Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.88 to 0.89) with a seven-point scale, both endpoints labeled with “ very .”

Self-Esteem

State self-esteem was assessed with the subscale performance of the State-Self-Esteem Scale by Heatherton and Polivy (1991) consisting of five items. For example, one item was “I feel confident about my abilities.” Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.80 to 0.85. The response scale ranged from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).

Motivation was assessed with three self-developed items that are based on common scales for measuring motivation. Items were “I approach even difficult tasks with motivation,” “I try everything to attain my goals,” and “When I cannot solve difficult tasks immediately, I lose interest.” Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.71 to 0.74. The response scale ranged from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).

Control Variable

We measured goal-commitment as a control variable. Goal-commitment is one of the most influential moderators of the goal-performance relationship ( Locke and Latham, 1990 ) and thus may affect the consequences of failure of a high and specific goal.

Goal-Commitment

Goal-commitment was assessed with three items by Hollenbeck et al. (1989) that were most appropriate for the goal-setting context. For example, one item was “I am strongly committed to this goal.” Cronbach’s α was 0.84. The response scale ranged from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). There were no pre-experimental differences between the groups in goal-commitment, F (2,182)=1.46, p =0.24, and η 2 =0.02.

Manipulation Checks

We used several manipulation checks to make sure participants adopted the assigned high and specific goal and also to test whether the manipulation of feedback type was successful. We asked participants to repeat their assigned goal directly after the task. One hundred seventy-two participants correctly identified the assigned goal (93%). We also asked participants to rate the assigned goal on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very). Participants perceived the assigned goal as medium to high ( M =3.62, SD =0.83), difficult ( M =3.61, SD =0.91), reasonable ( M =3.46, SD =0.98), and fair ( M =3.56, SD =0.93). We kept participants who did not correctly identify the goal in our analyses, because further ratings indicated that all participants perceived the goal as intended. Additionally, we checked whether the fictitious feedback was perceived as credible. Participants rated the feedback as credible ( M =3.81, SD =1.96). There were no significant differences between the groups, F (2,144) =0.62, p =0.54, and η 2 =0.01 (goal-failure condition: M =3.66, SD =1.87; goal-attainment condition: M =3.72, SD =2.03).

Study 1 Results and Discussion

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of study variables.

Table 3 lists the means, SDs, and correlations of all study variables. All study variables correlated in an expected manner, for example, the baseline measures correlated highly with the post-measures. In preliminary analyses, we made sure that there were no baseline differences in any of the study variables, including affect [ F (2,182)=0.08, p =0.92, and η 2 =0.001], self-esteem [ F (2,182)=0.02, p =0.98, and η 2 =0.00], motivation [ F (2,182)=0.14, p =0.87, and η 2 =0.002], or goal-commitment [ F (2,182)=1.46, p =0.24, and η 2 =0.02]. We also centered and included goal-commitment, gender, and age in our analyses. These variables did not change our results when included as covariates. We, therefore, report results of analyses without these covariates.

Table 3 . Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations Study 1.

Main Effects of Goal-Failure on Affect, Self-Esteem, and Motivation

We tested hypotheses using separate one-way ANCOVAs with centered baseline measures included as a covariate and with the between-subjects factor feedback type (three levels: goal attained, goal failed, and no feedback) for each dependent variable. We used post-hoc tests to compare the goal-failure condition with the goal-attainment condition as this comparison reflects our hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that individuals who fail the high and specific goal will show a more negative affect than individuals who attain the high and specific goal. An ANCOVA showed a significant main effect of feedback type on affect, F (2,181)=13.44, p <0.001, and η 2 =0.13. As planned comparisons indicated, in line with what we predicted, affect was more negative for participants who failed the goal than for participants who attained the goal. There was a statistically significant difference in affect between the goal-failure condition ( M =3.78, SD =1.47) and the goal-attainment condition ( M =4.46, SD =1.40) of 0.67 ( SE =0.15), t (2,181)=4.47, p <0.001, and d =0.48. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. The effect is depicted in Figure 1A . As illustrated, affect increased for participants who attained the goal, while it decreased for participants who failed the goal. Participants in the control condition showed a pattern similar to that of participants who failed the goal.

Figure 1 . Effects of feedback type on affect (A) , self-esteem (B) , and motivation (C) in Study 1.

Hypothesis 2 assumed that individuals who fail the high and specific goal will show lower self-esteem than individuals who attain the high and specific goal. An ANCOVA showed that there was no significant main effect of feedback type on self-esteem, F (2,181)=2.35, p =0.10, and η 2 =0.03. However, as planned comparisons indicated, in line with what we predicted, self-esteem was lower for participants who failed the goal than for participants who attained the goal. There was a statistically significant difference in self-esteem between the goal-failure condition ( M =3.49, SD =1.01) and the goal-attainment condition ( M =3.70, SD =0.90) of 0.22 ( SE =0.10), t (2,181)=2.16, p <0.05, d =0.22. Hypothesis 2 was supported. The effect is depicted in Figure 1B . As illustrated, self-esteem stayed at the same level for participants who attained the goal, while it was reduced for participants who failed the goal. Self-esteem levels for participants in the control conditions were in between the other two groups.

Hypothesis 3 assumed that individuals who fail the high and specific goal will show lower motivation than individuals who attain the high and specific goal. An ANCOVA showed that there was no significant main effect of feedback type on motivation, F (2,181)=2.32, p =0.10, and η 2 =0.03. However, planned comparisons indicated, in line with what we predicted that motivation was lower for participants who failed the assigned goal than for participants who attained the assigned goal. There was a statistically significant difference in motivation between the goal-failure condition ( M =3.41, SD =1.03) and the goal-attainment condition ( M =3.62, SD =0.92) of 0.21 ( SE =0.10), t (2,181)=2.11, p <0.05, d =0.22. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported. The effect is depicted in Figure 1C . As illustrated, motivation stayed at the same level for participants who attained the goal, while it was reduced for participants who failed the goal. Motivation levels for participants in the control conditions were in between the other two groups.

In sum, all hypotheses were supported. As predicted, affect was more negative and self-esteem and motivation were reduced when the high and specific goal was failed. Interestingly, participants who received no feedback at all showed similar tendencies throughout all dependent variables as participants who failed the goal. We assume that since we chose task items with medium difficulty, participants in the no-feedback condition were not sure about their performance and assumed that they did not attain the high and specific goal; hence, they showed similar tendencies as the participants who failed the goal. We conclude that the task we used was indeed ambiguous as we intended and the uncertainty about their own performance lead to participants’ conclusion. However, to avoid uncertainty of their performance and also being dependent of the credibility of the fictitious feedback, we sought to manipulate actual performance in a second study, rather than just manipulating the feedback about the performance. Moreover, feedback in day-to-day life reflects actual performance and is not fictitious. To manipulate actual performance, we manipulated task difficulty in Study 2, so that participants can unambiguously tell how they performed and whether they attained or failed the goal. Furthermore, we sought to test the immediate behavioral effects after failure of a high and specific goal. For that reason, we used a behavioral measure of motivation in Study 2. We will describe Study 2 in detail in the following section.

Study 2 Method

Study 2 was a laboratory experiment with a one-factor between subjects design. Between-subjects factor was goal-failure with two conditions: goal attained vs. goal failed. Participants all received a high and specific goal how many matrices they should solve in a first round. Goal-failure was manipulated through task difficulty. In a second round, participants then were asked to choose between two alternatives of the task with different difficulties. Dependent variables were motivation (task choice) in the second round as well as affect and self-esteem. Affect and self-esteem were assessed before the first round (baseline) and after the second round.

We computed our required sample size with G * Power, optimal sample size is 90 (for between-subjects ANOVAs with two groups of Cohen’s f =0.3, type-I error probability α =0.05, and power 1-β=0.80, according to G * Power; Faul et al., 2007 ). Participants were 86 volunteers (67.4% female; 61.2% employees; and 55.4% high school graduation or higher) who were recruited at several public places throughout the city at which the authors’ university is located. Participants were not paid for participation, but were able to win chocolate chips depending on their performance. Mean age was 36.70 years ( SD =15.12). All participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions by using a common randomization table, resulting in 41 subjects in the goal-attainment condition and 45 subjects in the goal-failure condition.

After giving their consent and confirming that they are of legal age, participants answered a first paper-pencil questionnaire. In this questionnaire, we assessed demographics, covariates, and baseline data for affect and self-esteem. Participants then all received the high and specific goal to solve four out of five matrices in the upcoming “adding-to-ten” task. Participants then tried to solve the five matrices. Participants in the goal-attainment condition received matrices that were so easy that any individual with a basic skill-level in arithmetic can solve them in the given amount of time to make sure that they all attain the assigned goal. Participants in the goal-failure condition received matrices that were so difficult that it was impossible to solve them in the given amount of time to make sure that they all fail the assigned goal. We tested whether the respective task-difficulty would lead to attaining or failing the goal in pilot studies and adjusted it accordingly. Hence, goal-failure was manipulated independently from an individual’s skill-level and solely based on our experimental manipulation of task difficulty. As intended, all participants attained or failed the assigned goal corresponding to our manipulation. After that first round, participants were asked to choose between two alternatives of the previous task with different levels of difficulty (medium vs. high, connected with different rewards). After completing that second round, we assessed the post-measures for affect and self-esteem and the manipulation check. Finally, participants received their reward of their respective amount of chocolate chips (depending on how many matrices they had solved in the second round), were debriefed and dismissed.

Adding-to-Ten Task

In Study 2, we used the “adding-to-ten” task which has been used in several other studies (on the effects of goal-setting on unethical behavior) before (e.g., Mazar et al., 2008 ; Welsh and Ordóñez, 2014 ; Keith, 2018 ). The original task consists of matrices with 12 numbers with two decimal places of which two numbers sum up to 10. We used this task because it allows the respondents to unambiguously evaluate if they had solved the question correctly and because it is not viewed as one reflecting math ability ( Mazar et al., 2008 ). In this task, participants recognize their actual performance and are not dependent on our feedback. For this study, we developed three different levels of difficulty. We varied the level of difficulty by adding more columns or more decimal places. We conducted a preliminary study to test our matrices for difficulty. The final matrices had nine numbers with one decimal place for the very easy matrices, 12 numbers with two decimal places (as in the original) for the medium difficult matrices, and 36 numbers with three decimal places for the very difficult matrices (for an example, see Figure 2 ). We also measured the time it took participants to solve the very easy matrices in a preliminary study. Since participants solved five very easy matrices in less than 2min, we set the high and specific goal at four out of five matrices in 2min in the goal-attainment condition. The same goal applied to the very difficult matrices in the goal-failure condition because we expected it to be impossible to solve those in 2min. In the second round, participants had another 2min to solve as many matrices as possible.

Figure 2 . Examples for easy (top panel), medium (middle panel), and difficult (bottom panel) matrices in the “adding-to-ten” task.

All Scales that were originally in English were translated into German and then back-translated into English. Exact Cronbach’s α for all conditions and measurement times is listed in Table 4 .

Table 4 . Cronbach’s α for goal-failure conditions and measurement times.

Motivaton (Task Choice)

Motivation was measured by task choice in the second round. Participants were asked to choose between two alternatives: To solve medium difficult matrices, receiving one chocolate for every correctly solved matrix; or to solve very difficult matrices, receiving three chocolates for every correctly solved matrix. Hence, the difficult matrices were connected with a large reward, while the medium difficult matrices were connected with a small reward. We included this payoff to have an incentive to choose the difficult matrices. Choosing the difficult matrices indicated higher motivation. Task choice was measured as choice for medium difficult matrices (0=medium difficulty) or choice for difficult matrices (1=high difficulty).

Affect was assessed with the same scale used in Study 1. Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.65 to 0.75.

State self-esteem was assessed with the same scale used in Study 1. Cronbach’s α was 0.70 at both times.

Control Variables

We measured self-efficacy, risk-taking, and perceived mental arithmetic ability as control variables. Self-efficacy is, besides self-esteem, considered as one of the four core traits that constitute core self-evaluations ( Bono and Judge, 2003 ). Hence, self-efficacy is expected to correlate substantially with self-esteem and as a trait may affect the consequences of goal-failure. Risk-taking was measured because it may affect which task participants choose in the second round. Mental arithmetic ability may affect how well participants perform in the “adding-to-ten” task. There were no pre-experimental differences between the groups in any of the control variables.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy was assessed with the German version of the General Self-Efficacy Short Scale (ASKU) by Beierlein et al. (2012) . The scale consists of three items, for example, “I can rely on my own abilities in difficult situations.” Cronbach’s α was 0.81. The response scale ranged from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).

Willingness for Risk-Taking

Willingness for risk-taking was assessed with the subscale “risk-taking” from the TCU Adolescent Social Functioning Form by the TCU Institute of Behavioral Research (2010) , consisting of seven items. For example, one item was “You like taking risks.” Cronbach’s α was 0.84. The response scale ranged from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).

Perceived Mental Arithmetic

Perceived mental arithmetic ability was assessed with the subscale “attitude to fast mental arithmetic” from the “Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study” (TIMSS) student questionnaire by Wendt et al. (2017) , consisting of six items. For example, one item was “Usually, I am very good at fast mental arithmetic.” Cronbach’s α was 0.88. The response scale ranged from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 4 ( strongly agree ).

We used two manipulation checks to make sure that participants had adopted the assigned high and specific goal and that the manipulation of goal-failure was successful. We asked participants to repeat their assigned goal directly after the task. Seventy-four participants correctly identified the assigned goal (86%). We also asked participants if they attained or failed the assigned goal. All 86 participants correctly indicated that they attained the goal in the goal-attainment condition or failed the goal in the goal-failure condition. Hence, manipulation of goal-failure was successful.

Study 2 Results and Discussion

Table 5 lists the means, SDs, and correlations of all study variables. All study variables correlated in an expected manner. Experimental condition correlated highly with motivation (task choice), affect, and also with self-esteem. In preliminary analyses, we made sure that there were no baseline differences in any of the study variables, including affect [ t (84)=1.72, p =0.09, and d =0.37], self-esteem [ t (84)=0.09, p =0.93, and d =0.03], self-efficacy [ t (84)=1.67, p =0.10, and d =0.36], risk-taking [ t (84)=−1.12, p =0.27, and d =0.24], or perceived mental arithmetic ability [ t (84)=−0.43, p =0.67, and d =0.09]. Some covariates seemed to correlate highly with the dependent variables, for example perceived mental arithmetic ability with motivation (task choice) or self-efficacy with self-esteem. For that reason, we centered and included these covariates in our analyses. These variables did not change our results when included as covariates. We, therefore, report results of analyses without these covariates.

Table 5 . Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations Study 2.

Main Effects of Goal-Failure on Affect, Self-Esteem, and Motivation (Task Choice)

We tested Hypotheses 1 and 2 using separate one-way ANCOVAs with centered baseline measure included as a covariate and with the between-subjects factor goal-failure for each dependent variable. We tested Hypothesis 3 using logistic regression with goal-failure (two levels: goal attained, goal failed) as the between-subjects factor and (motivation) task choice as dependent variable since logistic regression is recommended for dichotomous dependent variables ( Mood, 2010 ).

Hypothesis 1 assumed that individuals who fail their assigned high and specific goal will show a more negative affect than individuals who attain their assigned high and specific goal. An ANCOVA showed a significant main effect of goal-failure on affect, F (1,83)=5.64, p <0.05, η 2 =0.06, and d =0.37. Participants who failed their goal ( M =3.49, SD =1.18) showed a significantly more negative affect than participants who attained their goal ( M =3.94, SD =1.24). Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported. The effect is depicted in Figure 3A . As illustrated, affect increased for participants who attained the goal, while it decreased for participants who failed the goal.

Figure 3 . Effects of goal-failure on affect (A) , self-esteem (B) , and motivation task choice (C) in Study 2.

Hypothesis 2 assumed that individuals who fail their assigned high and specific goal will show lower self-esteem than individuals who attain their assigned high and specific goal. An ANCOVA showed a significant main effect of goal-failure on self-esteem, F (1,83)=7.10, p <0.01, η 2 =0.08, and d =0.42. Participants who failed their goal ( M =3.77, SD =0.58) showed significantly lower self-esteem than participants who attained their goal ( M =4.02, SD =0.61). Hence, Hypothesis 2 was supported. The effect is depicted in Figure 3B . As illustrated, self-esteem stayed at the same level for participants who attained the goal, while it decreased for participants who failed the goal.

Hypothesis 3 assumed that individuals who fail their assigned high and specific goal will show lower motivation than individuals who attain their assigned high and specific goal. We used task choice as a behavioral indicator of motivation. A logistic regression showed that goal-failure is a significant predictor of task choice, χ 2 (1)=27.19, p <0.001, OR=13.87, d =1.45, 95%-CI(4.5, 42.76)], with a regression coefficient of −0.26. The model explained 37.2% (Nagelkerke R 2 ) of the variance in task choice and correctly classified 76.7% of cases. Goal-failure was associated with a decreased likelihood of choosing the more difficult task. In the goal-attainment condition, 15 participants (36.6%) chose the medium difficult task and 26 participants (63.4%) chose the highly difficult task. In the goal-failure condition, 40 participants (88.9%) chose the medium difficult task and only five participants (11.1%) chose the highly difficult task. Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported. The results are depicted in Figure 3C .

In sum, the results of Study 2 replicate and extend the findings of our previous study. Specifically, we found support for the harmful effect of goal-failure on affect and self-esteem. As expected, after goal-failure participants showed decreased affect and self-esteem, while after goal-attainment participants showed the same or slightly higher levels of affect and self-esteem. Furthermore, we demonstrated that goal-failure affects subsequent motivation in terms of task choice. After goal-failure, the majority of participants chose the easier task and avoided the challenging task.

General Discussion

Setting high and specific goals has long been recommended as one of the most effective motivational and leadership tools. Yet, setting high performance goals naturally leads to a considerable group of individuals who will fail that goal. Past research on goal-failure indicates that it can cause a variety of undesirable and potentially harmful effects, for the individual as well as for organizations; however, to our knowledge, there is little to no research that combines research on failure with high and specific goals that are the focus of goal-setting theory. Our research aimed at shedding light on this important topic by examining the effects of failing a high and specific goal on affect, self-esteem, and motivation; factors which may have crucial implications for organizations.

We conducted two studies to test for the expected detrimental effects of failure of a high and specific goal on affect, self-esteem, and motivation. Study 1 showed goal-failure of the assigned high and specific goal lead to a decrease in affect, self-esteem, and motivation. We replicated these effects in Study 2 and were able to show the behavioral consequences of the decreased motivation through task choice. In sum, we were able to show that the failure of a high and specific goal can trigger potentially harmful consequences for self-related factors and can hinder a person from tackling new challenges. We discuss theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future directions of all the findings in the following sections.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Our findings are an important contribution to research on goal-setting theory by combining basic assumptions of achievement goal theory with goal-setting theory. Goal-setting theory focuses on those who attain the high and specific goal and states a so-called “high performance cycle” in which individuals are satisfied with their performance and enter an ever-increasing cycle of increased motivation and performance ( Locke and Latham, 1990 , 2002 ). Even though cautionary remarks have always been made about potential pitfalls when applying goal-setting ( Locke and Latham, 2002 ), the high risk of failing that goal is widely overlooked. One theory that takes the possibility of goal-failure into account is achievement goal theory. Achievement goal theory states that goals can be framed as performance goals or learning goals. According to achievement goal theory, performance goals set an external standard. Individuals who fail that standard perceive their skills as fixed, thus, failing implies that their abilities are insufficient ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ). Hence, failing of a performance goal poses a threat for the self. Individuals will perceive themselves as incapable after failing a performance goal, which can be damaging for their self-image. The high and specific goals used in goal-setting interventions are usually framed as performance goals, for example, to produce a certain amount of products, to sell a certain amount, or to enroll a certain number of customers. Combining the assumptions of both theories, one can conclude that failure of a high and specific goal has the potential to pose a threat for a person’s self. We were able to confirm this notion and found that failing a high and specific goal indeed harmed self-related factors.

Our results imply that when using goal-setting interventions in organizations, potentially harmful long-term effects should be considered. Setting high and specific goals is a very commonly used motivational tool because organizations often solely focus on the immediate results, especially on performance. However, setting high and specific goals can have serious detrimental consequences. In recent years, several undesirable effects of high and specific goals have been discussed. For example, a number of studies have explored the effects of goal-setting on unethical behavior (e.g., lying and cheating). The assumption is that individual’s attention focus is narrowed on attaining the goal, so that moral standards are ignored ( Schweitzer et al., 2004 ; Ordóñez et al., 2009 ; Welsh and Ordóñez, 2014 ). Unethical behaviors may be particularly likely when attaining the goal is tied to monetary rewards ( Jensen, 2003 ). Furthermore, some researchers argue that high and specific goals make destructive leadership more likely by increasing leaders’ stress to meet deadlines ( Bardes and Piccolo, 2010 ).

Our findings show that failure of a high and specific goal can harm a person’s self and motivation. These consequences have the potential to harm not only the employee but also the organization’s results in the long-run. Our results also implicate that failure of a high and specific goal can have immediate behavioral consequences and can discourage employees from engaging in new challenges; something employees face daily in their everyday life. We recommend that organizations should find ways to sensitize supervisors and employees for the potential undesirable effects when setting high and specific goals and find ways to counteract them.

Limitations and Future Research

A first limitation of this research is that we did not test the effects of goal-failure in an actual work-setting. Hence, we cannot be sure about the external validity of the findings. However, Study 2 was conducted in the field, at several public places with a rather heterogeneous sample of mainly working adults. Study 2 also allowed a face-to-face setting, which increases psychological realism. Given the large body of converging findings across experimental laboratory and field research on goal-setting, we assume that the used experimental designs should be suited for our investigations. Still, our experimental research should be complemented by field studies in actual work-settings, preferably by longitudinal studies that investigate long-term effects of goal-setting and goal-failure.

A second limitation of our research is that we solely used self-reports to measure the person’s affect and self-esteem. To generalize the found effects, other components of a person’s well-being should be examined, for example an individual’s physical well-being and somatic health. Research showed that the fulfillment of one’s goals plays an important role when coping with stressful events ( Emmons and Kaiser, 1996 ). If a person is repeatedly faced with obstacles blocking the attainment of their goals, the person may be particularly susceptible to experiences of helplessness, which are associated with health risks ( Brunstein et al., 1998 ). Future research is needed to examine the consequences of goal-failure for a person’s physical and mental health. In addition, we only measured participants’ general affect rather than discrete emotions. It is possible that discrete emotions, like anger, anxiety, or depression, provide more information on the outcomes of the goal process than generalized affect ( Plemmons and Weiss, 2013 ). We suggest that future research examines the role of discrete emotions for processes induced by goal-failure.

Another limitation of our research is that we used a self-developed scale for measuring motivation in Study 1. Therefore, we have no information about the validity of our scale. However, we used this scale because the common validated motivation scales usually measure a more general attitude towards work, while we sought to measure motivational change toward certain work tasks. In Study 2, we included a behavioral measure of that motivational change by measuring task-choice, which is a common behavioral measure of work motivation ( Thomas and Ward, 1983 ; Nicholls, 1984 ). Thereby, we were able to combine attitudinal and behavioral measures of motivation. We suggest that these findings should be complemented by a field study with an actual work task.

An additional limitation is that we were not able to examine long-term effects of failure of high and specific goals. In organizations, individuals are confronted with new goals constantly, even if they were not able to attain previous goals. Consecutive failure of high and specific goals might induce a downward spiral of harmful consequences which, in the long-run, damage the organizational outcomes, for example, reduced OCB, increased absenteeism, and disengagement from challenging tasks and burnout ( Seo and Ilies, 2009 ; Ybema et al., 2010 ; Shi et al., 2013 ; Welsh et al., 2020 ). There are few studies which have investigated the effects of setting high and specific goals consecutively ( Welsh and Ordóñez, 2014 ; Keith, 2018 ). For example, it was found that consecutive goal-setting can have detrimental effects on an individual’s goal-commitment and perceived fairness ( Keith, 2018 ). In another study, consecutive performance goals increased unethical behavior by depleting self-regulatory resources ( Welsh and Ordóñez, 2014 ). Future research should investigate the long-term consequences of failure of a high and specific goal or consecutive failure.

Furthermore, it has to be noted that our sample in Study 1 consisted mainly of female participants (93.5%). Past research found that in an experiment, after failure, male participants chose more difficult goals in a subsequent task than did female participants ( Levy and Baumgardner, 1991 ). Additionally, it was found that individuals higher in self-esteem chose more difficult goals. We were able to control for confounding effects of base self-esteem and self-efficacy and both variables did not affect our results, which is consistent with other research on self-esteem and goal-choice ( Hollenbeck and Brief, 1987 ). We cannot be certain that our results also apply to male individuals; however, gender did not affect our results in Study 2 and past research suggests that unambiguous feedback to insure clear failure or success on a task eliminates gender differences in future success expectancies ( Feather and Simon, 1973 ; McMahon, 1973 ; Lenney, 1977 ). Nevertheless, future research should replicate our findings with male individuals to rule out possible gender differences.

Lastly, future research should explore methods to counteract the found undesirable effects. Drawing from achievement goal theory, one possible method may be goal-framing. While performance goals emphasize the attainment of an externally-set standard, learning goals emphasize increasing the own competence or mastering something new. When individuals fail a learning goal, they do not blame the failure on themselves, since they view their skills as changeable ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Welsh et al., 2019 ). Thus, failure of a high and specific learning goal should not pose a threat for a person’s self and framing the goal as a learning goal may counteract the found undesirable effects.

A second possible method to counteract these undesirable effects is to let employees experience success. Past research found that success on previous tasks may breed success on subsequent tasks ( Fan et al., 2020 ). When employees attain easy goals on previous tasks, goal-commitment increases through enactive mastery. As a result, employees increase their personally-set goals and are able to self-motivate for upcoming tasks. Hence, organizations could increase employee’s confidence and enable mastery by setting easy goals first, to create experiences of success.

A third possible method for counteracting the undesirable effects is to use self-regulatory strategies to increase one’s self-control to engage in aversive tasks. Research on the topic found that individuals who focused on the positive consequences of an aversive activity or the negative consequences for not performing it, increased their perceived self-regulatory success. Furthermore, setting goals for the activity and emotion regulation also increased self-control ( Hennecke et al., 2019 ). Hence, when failure experiences harm an employee’s motivation and well-being, self-regulatory strategies may be used to restore those resources for subsequent tasks. Especially evocation of negative affect can increase and prolong rumination after failure experiences, which in turn can increase negative affect ( Jones et al., 2013 ). There are various strategies that can be used to prevent detrimental effects on one’s affect. For example, an employee might use attentional deployment or focus on other aspects. After the affective state is already affected, an employee might regulate their emotions by reappraisal ( Boss and Sims Jr., 2008 ). Thus, we recommend the use of self-regulatory and emotion regulation strategies to replenish those resources, stay persistent, and counteract effects after goal-failure.

A final strategy for counteracting undesirable effects after goal-failure might be to positively affect goal striving as well as goal revision. It has been shown that high self-efficacy and confidence in the own abilities can facilitate successful goal striving ( Wolf et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, research found that individuals use performance-goal discrepancies to make their goal revision decisions. It was found that large discrepancies, especially over a longer period of time, led to a downward revision of their goal ( Donovan and Williams, 2003 ). Accordingly, experiences of success lead to an upward revision of their goal. Considering the previously mentioned methods to enable mastery and to create experiences of success, we assume that these methods are also suitable to positively affect goal striving and goal revision and in turn have the potential to counteract detrimental effects after goal-failure.

Our research contributes to research and practice of goal-setting by explicitly integrating research on failure with the basic recommendation of goal-setting theory and achievement goal theory. We were able to elucidate a highly possible downside of goal-setting interventions by showing that the failure of a high and specific goal can damage self-related factors like affect, self-esteem, and motivation and can also have subsequent behavioral consequences. These short-term consequences may lead to serious long-term consequences, especially when goals are failed consecutively and the person has no resources to counteract the effects. For that reason, employers need to be sensitized for the high possibility of failing a high and specific goal when using goal-setting as a motivational and leadership tool and need to take actions to counteract these undesirable effects, for example with self-regulatory or emotion regulation strategies or by experiences of success.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Study 1 involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Ethics committee of the Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany. Study 2 followed the same guidelines. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in the studies.

Author Contributions

JH will have first authorship of this manuscript, and will also be serving as the corresponding author. The author listed in the byline has agreed to the byline order and to the submission of the manuscript in this form. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This research was supported by grant from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, grant no. KE 1377/5–1).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We thank Anabela Dubravac, Paula Lanz and Lea Strutt for data collection.

Bardes, M., and Piccolo, R. F. (2010). “Goal setting as an antecedent of destructive leader behaviors” in When Leadership Goes Wrong: Destructive Leadership, Mistakes, and Ethical Failures. eds. B. Schyns and T. Hansbrough (Charlotte, NC: IAP Information Age Publishing), 3–22.

Google Scholar

Beierlein, C., Kovaleva, A., Kemper, C. J., and Rammstedt, B. (2012). Ein Messinstrument zur Erfassung subjektiver Kompetenzerwartung - Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeit Kurzskal (ASKU). GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften.

Bongers, K. C. A., Dijksterhuis, A., and Spears, R. (2010). On the role of consciousness in goal pursuit. Soc. Cogn. 28, 262–272. doi: 10.1521/soco.2010.28.2.262

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bono, J. E., and Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: a review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. Eur. J. Personal. 17, 5–18. doi: 10.1002/per.481

Boss, A. D., and Sims, H. P. Jr. (2008). Everyone fails! using emotion regulation and self-leadership for recovery. J. Manag. Psychol. 23, 135–150. doi: 10.1108/02683940810850781

Brunstein, J. C., Schultheiss, O. C., and Grässmann, R. (1998). Personal goals and emotional well-being: the moderating role of motive dispositions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 494–508. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.494

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: a control-process view. Psychol. Rev. 97, 19–35. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.1.19

Cervone, D., Jiwani, N., and Wood, R. M. (1991). Goal setting and the differential influence of self-regulatory processes on complex decision-making performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 61, 257–266. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.257

Cianci, A. M., Klein, H. J., and Seijts, G. H. (2010). The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: the main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 618–630. doi: 10.1037/a0019130

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am. Psychol. 55, 34–43. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34

Donovan, J. J., and Williams, K. J. (2003). Missing the mark: effects of time and causal attributions on goal revision in response to goal-performance discrepancies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 379–390. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.379

Dweck, C. S., and Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychol. Rev. 95, 256–273. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256

Earley, P. C., Connelly, R., and Ekegren, G. (1989). Goals, strategy development and task performance: some comments on the efficacy of goal setting. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 24–33. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.24

Emmons, R. A., and Kaiser, H. A. (1996). “Goal orientation and emotional well-being: linking goals and affect through the self” in Striving and Feeling: Interactions among Goals, Affect, and Self-Regulation. eds. L. L. Martin and A. lesser (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 79–98.

Fan, J., Gómez-Miñambres, J., and Smithers, S. (2020). Make it too difficult and I’ll give-up; let me succeed and I’ll excel: the interaction between assigned and personal goals. Manag. Decis. Econ. 41, 964–975. doi: 10.1002/mde.3151

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., and Buchner, A. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysisprogram for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146

Feather, N. T., and Simon, J. G. (1973). Fear of success and causal attribution for outcome. J. Pers. 41, 525–542. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1971.tb00060.x

Galinsky, A. D., Mussweiler, T., and Medvec, V. H. (2002). Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: the role of negotiator focus. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83, 1131–1140. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1131

Gardner, D. G., and Pierce, J. L. (2001). Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context: a replication. J. Manage. Sys 13, 31–48. doi: 10.1177/1059601198231004

Grieve, F. G., Whelan, J. P., Kottke, R., and Meyers, A. W. (1994). Manipulating adults' achievement goals in a sport task: effects on cognitive, affective and behavorial variables. J. Sport Behav. 17, 227–245.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., and Wheeler, A. R. (2011). I owe you one: coworker reciprocity as a moderator of the day-level exhaustion–performance relationship. J. Organ. Behav. 32, 608–626. doi: 10.1002/job.748

Healy, L. C., Ntoumanis, N., Stewart, B. D., and Duda, J. L. (2015). Predicting subsequent task performance from goal motivation and goal failure. Front. Psychol. 6:926. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00926

Heatherton, T. F., and Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 895–910. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.895

Henkel, J. M., and Hinsz, V. B. (2004). Success and failure in goal attainment as a mood induction procedure. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 32, 715–722. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2004.32.8.715

Hennecke, M., Czikmantori, T., and Brandstätter, V. (2019). Doing despite disliking: self-regulatory strategies in everyday aversive activities. Eur. J. Personal. 33, 104–128. doi: 10.1002/per.2182

Hollenbeck, J. R., and Brief, A. P. (1987). The effects of individual differences and goal origin on goal setting and performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 40, 392–414. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(87)90023-9

Hollenbeck, J., Williams, C., and Klein, H. (1989). An empirical examination of theantecedents of commitment to difficult goals. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 18–23. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.18

Houser-Marko, L., and Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Eyes on the prize or nose to the grindstone? The effects of level of goal evaluation on mood and motivation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 1556–1569. doi: 10.1177/0146167208322618

Jensen, M. C. (2003). Paying people to lie: the truth about the budgeting process. Eur. Financ. Manag. 9, 379–406. doi: 10.1111/1468-036X.00226

Jones, N. P., Papadakis, A. A., Orr, C. A., and Strauman, T. J. (2013). Cognitive processes in response to goal failure: a study of ruminative thought and its affective consequences. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 32, 482–503. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2013.32.5.482

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., and Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: the relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Hum. Perform. 11, 167–188. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1102&3_4

Judge, T. A., and Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2004). “Core self-evaluations, aspirations, success, and persistence: an attributional model” in Attribution Theory in the Organizational Sciences: Theoretical and Empirical Contributions. ed. M. J. Martinko (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing), 111–132.

Judge, T. A., and Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2008). “Affect, satisfaction, and performance” in Research Companion to Emotion in Organizations. eds. N. M. Ashkanasy and C. L. Cooper (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar), 136–151.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., and Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluations approach. Res. Organ. Behav. 19, 151–188. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2006.27169037

Kanfer, R., Frese, M., and Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: a century of progress. J. Appl. Psychol. 102, 338–355. doi: 10.1037/apl0000133

Keith, N. (2018). Undesirable effects of goal setting on perceived fairness, commitment, and unethical behavior. Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie 62, 1–11. doi: 10.1026/0932-4089/a000267

Kim, A., and Clifford, M. M. (1988). Goal source, goal difficulty, and individual difference variables as predictors of responses to failure. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 58, 28–43. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00876.x

Knight, D., Durham, C. C., and Locke, E. A. (2001). The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 326–338. doi: 10.5465/3069459

Latham, G. P., and Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 212–247. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90021-K

Latham, G. P., and Seijts, G. H. (1999). The effects of proximal and distal goals on performance on a moderately complex task. J. Organ. Behav. 20, 421–429. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4<421::AID-JOB896>3.0.CO;2-#

Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. Am. Psychol. 37, 1019–1024. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.37.9.1019

Lee, J. (2003). An analysis of organization-based self-esteem as a mediator of the relationship between its antecedents and consequences. Korean. Personnel. Administration. J. 27, 25–50. doi: 10.1080/0958519032000106207

Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychol. Bull. 84, 1–13. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.1.1

Levy, P. E., and Baumgardner, A. H. (1991). Effects of self-esteem and gender on goal choice. J. Organ. Behav. 12, 529–541. doi: 10.1002/job.4030120606

Locke, E. A., Chah, D.-O., Harrison, S., and Lustgarten, N. (1989). Separating the effects of goal specificity from goal level. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 43, 270–287. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(89)90053-8

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57, 705–717. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Locke, E. A., and Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 15, 265–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., and Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychol. Bull. 90, 125–152. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125

Martin, L. L., Tesser, A., and McIntosh, W. D. (1993). “Wanting but not having: the effects of unattained goals on thoughts and feelings” in Century Psychology Series. Handbook of Mental Control. eds. D. M. Wegner and J. W. Pennebaker (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.), 552–572.

Mazar, N., Amir, O., and Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest individuals: a theory of self-concept maintenance. J. Mark. Res. 45, 633–644. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633

McMahon, I. D. (1973). Relationships between causal attributions and expectancy of success. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 28, 108–114. doi: 10.1037/h0035474

Mitchell, T. R., and Silver, W. S. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: effects on task strategies and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 75, 185–193. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.185

Moberly, N. J., and Watkins, E. R. (2010). Negative affect and ruminative self-focus during everyday goal pursuit. Cognit. Emot. 24, 729–739. doi: 10.1080/02699930802696849

Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 26, 67–82. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcp006

Neale, M. A., and Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effect of externally set goals on reaching integrative agreements in competitive markets. J. Occup. Behav. 6, 19–32. doi: 10.1002/job.4030060103

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychol. Rev. 91, 328–346. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328

Nichols, A. L., Whelan, J. P., and Meyers, A. W. (1991). The effects of children's goal structures and performance feedback on mood, task choice, and task persistence. Behav. Ther. 22, 491–503. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80341-7

Oliver, R. L., Balakrishnan, P. V., and Barry, B. (1994). Outcome satisfaction in negotiation: a test of expectancy disconfirmation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 60, 252–275. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1994.1083

Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., and Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone wild: the systematic side effects of over-prescribing goal setting. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 23, 6–16. doi: 10.5465/amp.2009.37007999

Plemmons, S. A., and Weiss, H. M. (2013). “Goals and affect” in New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance. eds. E. A. Locke and G. P. Latham (New York, NY; Sussex, UK: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group), 117–132.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Satow, L. (2017). Allgemeine Intelligenz-Test (AIT): Test-und Skalendokumentation. [General Intelligence Test (AIT): Test and Scale Documentation. Available at: http://www.drsatow.de (Accessed November, 2018).

Schweitzer, M. E., Ordóñez, L., and Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 47, 422–432. doi: 10.2307/20159591

Scott, B. A., and Barnes, C. M. (2011). A multilevel field investigation of emotional labor, affect, work withdrawal, and gender. Acadamy. Manage. J. 54, 116–136. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.59215086

Seo, M., and Ilies, R. (2009). The role of self-efficacy, goal, and affect in dynamic motivational self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 109, 120–133. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.03.001

Shi, Y., Sears, L. E., Coberley, C. R., and Pope, J. E. (2013). The association between modifiable well-being risks and productivity: a longitudinal study in pooled employer sample. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 55, 353–364. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182851923

Sonnentag, S. (2015). Dynamics of well-being. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 2, 261–293. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111347

Stets, J. E., and Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Soc. Psychol. Q. 63, 224–237. doi: 10.2307/2695870

Steyer, R., Schwenkmezger, P., Notz, P., and Eid, M. (1997). Der Mehrdimensionale Befindlichkeitsfragebogen. Handanweisung [The Multidimensional Mood Questionnaire (MDMQ)]. Hogrefe.

Stryker, S., and Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Soc. Psychol. Q. 63, 284–297. doi: 10.2307/2695840

TCU Institute of Behavioral Research. (2010). TCU Adolescent Client Evaluation of Self and Treatment (CEST) Forms . Abgerufen am 30. Juni 2019 von TCU. Available at: https://ibr.tcu.edu/forms/adolescent-thinking-forms/

Thomas, E. A. C., and Ward, W. E. (1983). The influence of own and other outcome on satisfaction and choice of task difficulty. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 32, 399–416. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(83)90157-5

Thompson, L. (1995). The impact of minimum goals and aspirations on judgments of successin negotiations. Group Decis. Negot. 4, 513–524. doi: 10.1007/BF01409713

Van Dyne, L., and Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 439–459. doi: 10.1002/job.249

Vohs, K. D., Park, J. K., and Schmeichel, B. J. (2013). Self-affirmation can enable goal disengagement. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 14–27. doi: 10.1037/a0030478

Welsh, D. T., Baer, M. D., and Sessions, H. (2020). Hot pursuit: the affective consequences of organization-set versus self-set goals for emotional exhaustion and citizenship behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 166–185. doi: 10.1037/apl0000429

Welsh, D., Bush, J., Thiel, C., and Bonner, J. (2019). Reconceptualizing goal settings’ dark side: the ethical consequences of learning versus outcome goals. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 150, 14–27. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.11.001

Welsh, D. T., and Ordóñez, L. D. (2014). The dark side of consecutive high performance goals: linking goal setting, depletion, and unethical behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 123, 79–89. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.07.006

Wendt, H., Bos, W., Goy, M., and Jusufi, D. (eds.) (2017). “TIMSS 2015” in Skalenhandbuch zur Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente und Arbeit mit den Datensätzen (Münster, DE; New York, NY: Waxmann Verlag GmbH).

Wilhelm, P., and Schoebi, D. (2007). Assessing mood in daily life: structural validity, sensitivity to change, and reliability of a short-scale to measure three basic dimensions of mood. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 23, 258–267. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.23.4.258

Wolf, B. M., Herrmann, M., and Brandstätter, V. (2018). Self-efficacy vs. action orientation: comparing and contrasting two determinants of goal setting and goal striving. J. Res. Pers. 73, 35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2017.11.001

Ybema, J. F., Smulders, P. G. W., and Bongers, P. M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of employee absenteeism: a longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and burnout. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psy. 19, 102–124. doi: 10.1080/13594320902793691

Yeo, G., and Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between effort and performance: effects of ability, conscientiousness and goal orientation. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 231–247. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.231

Keywords: goal-setting theory, goal-failure, affect, self-esteem, motivation, task choice

Citation: Höpfner J and Keith N (2021) Goal Missed, Self Hit: Goal-Setting, Goal-Failure, and Their Affective, Motivational, and Behavioral Consequences. Front. Psychol . 12:704790. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.704790

Received: 03 May 2021; Accepted: 19 August 2021; Published: 21 September 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Höpfner and Keith. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jessica Höpfner, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Organizational Behaviour

Goal Setting Theory of Motivation

In 1960’s, Edwin Locke put forward the Goal-setting theory of motivation.

This theory states that goal setting is essentially linked to task performance.

It states that specific and challenging goals along with appropriate feedback contribute to higher and better task performance.

In simple words, goals indicate and give direction to an employee about what needs to be done and how much efforts are required to be put in.

The important features of goal-setting theory are as follows:

The more challenging the goal, the greater is the reward generally and the more is the passion for achieving it.

Feedback is a means of gaining reputation, making clarifications and regulating goal difficulties. It helps employees to work with more involvement and leads to greater job satisfaction.

While, lower the level of self-efficiency, less will be the efforts put in by the individual or he might even quit while meeting challenges.

The goal commitment is dependent on the following factors:

Advantages of Goal Setting Theory

Limitations of goal setting theory.

  Related Articles

• Modern Theories of Motivation
• McClelland’s Theory of Needs
• Reinforcement Theory
• Equity Theory of Motivation

View All Articles

Authorship/Referencing - About the Author(s)

The article is Written and Reviewed by Management Study Guide Content Team . MSG Content Team comprises experienced Faculty Member, Professionals and Subject Matter Experts. We are a ISO 2001:2015 Certified Education Provider . To Know more, click on About Us . The use of this material is free for learning and education purpose. Please reference authorship of content used, including link(s) to ManagementStudyGuide.com and the content page url.

• Motivation - Introduction
• Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Model
• Motivation Incentives
• Importance of Motivation
• Motivation and Morale
• Employee/Staff Motivation
• Workplace Motivation
• Self Motivation at Work
• Team Motivation
• Role of Motivation in OB
• Motivational Challenges
• Good Motivation System
• Classical Theories of Motivation
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory
• Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation
• Theory X and Theory Y
• Goal Setting Theory
• Expectancy Theory of Motivation
• How the Movie Yuva Explains The Need Theory of Motivation and What Motivates Us
• Why Intrinsic Motivation Matters More Now In the Times of the Great Resignation
• How Motivation Can Help Millennials/Gen Zers Avoid Burnout in the Post Pandemic Age

• Conscious and Unconscious Motivations
• Effective Motivation Techniques
• Extrinsic Motivation
• Inspirational Motivational Stories
• Intrinsic Motivation
• Learning and Motivation
• Motivation and Desire
• Motivation and Discipline
• Motivation and Emotions
• Motivation and Goal Setting
• Motivation and Instinct
• Motivation and Willpower
• Motivational Theories
• Procrastination and Motivation
• Understanding Motivation
• Motivation and Lifestyle
• Motivation and Mental Health
• Motivation in Education
• Motivation in Sports
• Motivation in the Workplace
• Practical Applications of Motivation
• Productivity

Are there Case Studies on Goal Setting and Achievement?

Goal setting and achievement are integral components of personal and professional development. They play a crucial role in allowing individuals to define their objectives, create a roadmap for success, and ultimately realize their desired outcomes. To understand the effectiveness and practicality of goal setting, case studies have been conducted to examine real-life examples and experiences. These case studies delve into the strategies, challenges, and outcomes of individuals or organizations that have pursued and achieved their goals, offering valuable insights and lessons for others to learn and apply. In this article, we will explore the existence and relevance of case studies on goal setting and achievement, highlighting their significance in providing practical guidance and inspiration for individuals seeking to achieve their own goals.

Table of Contents

Understanding the Importance of Goal Setting

Goal setting is a fundamental aspect of personal and professional development. It provides a clear direction, enhances motivation, and allows individuals to measure their progress. Whether it’s achieving financial success, improving fitness levels, or excelling in one’s career, setting goals can be a powerful tool for personal growth. However, it is essential to approach goal setting in a strategic and well-informed manner to maximize its effectiveness.

The Science Behind Goal Setting

Psychological research has shed light on the importance of goal setting and its impact on human behavior. The renowned psychologist Edwin A. Locke pioneered the theory of goal-setting. According to Locke, setting specific and challenging goals leads to higher performance compared to vague or easy goals. This theory is widely known as the “goal-setting theory.”

Furthermore, the process of setting goals activates the brain’s reward center. When individuals set and work towards achieving their goals, the brain releases dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and motivation. This neurochemical response reinforces the desire to pursue and accomplish goals, creating a positive cycle of achievement.

Key takeaway: Case studies on goal setting and achievement demonstrate the power and effectiveness of setting clear, challenging, and well-defined goals. These studies highlight the positive impact of goal setting across various domains, including career progression, athletic performance, personal wellness, academic achievement, entrepreneurial success, personal development, and team performance. By adopting effective goal-setting strategies and setting specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound goals, individuals can enhance motivation, focus efforts, and increase their chances of success in both personal and professional endeavors.

Case Studies on Goal Setting and Achievement

To gain a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of goal setting, researchers have conducted numerous case studies across various domains. These studies provide valuable insights into the impact of goal setting on individual and organizational performance. Let’s explore some noteworthy case studies:

Key Takeaway: Case studies on goal setting and achievement provide valuable insights into the power of setting clear, challenging, and well-defined goals. These studies highlight the positive impact of goal setting across various domains, including career progression, athletic performance, personal wellness, academic achievement, entrepreneurial success, personal development, and team performance. By setting specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound goals, individuals and organizations can enhance their motivation, focus their efforts, and increase their chances of achieving success.

1. The Harvard MBA Study

In a well-known case study conducted by Harvard Business School, researchers followed a group of MBA graduates over a ten-year period to analyze the impact of goal setting on their careers. The study revealed that the 3% of graduates who had clear, written goals and a plan for achieving them outperformed the other 97% in terms of income and overall career satisfaction. This study highlights the power of setting specific goals and formulating strategies to achieve them.

2. The Olympic Athletes Study

Another compelling case study focused on elite athletes competing in the Olympic Games. Researchers discovered that athletes who set clear and challenging goals, along with developing detailed plans and strategies, consistently outperformed their competitors. These findings emphasize the significance of setting ambitious goals and devising a roadmap to success.

3. The Weight Loss Study

Goal setting is not limited to professional or athletic domains; it also plays a crucial role in personal wellness. A study conducted on individuals aiming to lose weight revealed that those who set specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals were more successful in their weight loss efforts compared to those who lacked clear objectives. This study showcases the effectiveness of setting well-defined goals in achieving desired outcomes, even in non-professional contexts.

4. The Business Productivity Study

Goal setting also has significant implications for organizational success. In a study examining the impact of goal setting on business productivity, researchers found that companies that established clear objectives and provided employees with a sense of purpose and direction experienced higher levels of productivity and employee satisfaction. This study underscores the importance of aligning individual and organizational goals to drive success.

Key Takeaways

Case studies on goal setting and achievement provide valuable insights into the power of setting clear, challenging, and well-defined goals. These studies highlight the positive impact of goal setting across various domains, including career progression, athletic performance, personal wellness, and organizational productivity.

Understanding the science behind goal setting and learning from real-life examples can inspire individuals to adopt effective goal-setting strategies. By setting specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound goals, individuals can enhance their motivation, focus their efforts, and increase their chances of achieving success. So, why wait? Start setting your goals today and embark on a journey towards personal and professional fulfillment.### 5. The Academic Achievement Study

Goal setting is not only applicable to career and personal goals but also to academic pursuits. A study conducted on students aiming to improve their academic performance found that those who set clear and specific goals for their studies, such as achieving a certain GPA or mastering a particular subject, were more likely to succeed. These students exhibited higher levels of motivation, developed effective study strategies, and sought out additional resources and support to reach their goals. This study emphasizes the importance of goal setting in the educational context and its impact on student achievement.

6. The Entrepreneurial Success Study

Entrepreneurs face numerous challenges when starting and growing their businesses. Setting goals becomes crucial in guiding their actions and measuring progress. A study conducted on successful entrepreneurs revealed that those who set ambitious yet attainable goals for their ventures were more likely to achieve long-term success. These entrepreneurs used goal setting as a roadmap to guide their decision-making, prioritize tasks, and stay focused on their vision. This study illustrates how goal setting can be a powerful tool for entrepreneurs in navigating the complexities of the business world.

7. The Personal Development Study

Beyond tangible achievements, goal setting also plays a significant role in personal development and self-improvement. A study conducted on individuals striving for personal growth found that those who set goals related to areas such as emotional intelligence, mindfulness, or personal relationships experienced positive changes in their overall well-being and happiness. These individuals actively engaged in self-reflection, sought out learning opportunities, and took deliberate actions to align their behaviors with their desired personal growth. This study highlights the transformative power of goal setting in fostering self-awareness and facilitating personal development.

8. The Team Performance Study

In addition to individual goals, setting collective goals for teams has been shown to enhance performance and collaboration. A study conducted on teams in various settings, such as sports teams or project teams, found that teams that set specific and challenging goals outperformed those without clear objectives. Setting team goals created a shared sense of purpose, increased motivation, and improved coordination among team members. This study emphasizes the importance of aligning individual goals with team goals to drive overall team performance and success.

Are there case studies available on goal setting and achievement?

Yes, there are numerous case studies available on goal setting and achievement . These case studies showcase how individuals or organizations set goals and how they work towards achieving them. They provide real-life examples of successful goal-setting strategies and highlight the factors that contribute to their achievement. These case studies may cover various areas such as personal development, career growth, business expansion, academic success, or sports achievements, among others.

How can case studies on goal setting and achievement be beneficial?

Case studies on goal setting and achievement offer valuable insights and practical knowledge for individuals and professionals looking to improve their goal-setting skills. By examining the experiences of others, it allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges, strategies, and processes involved in setting and achieving goals. These case studies often provide actionable tips, techniques, and lessons learned that can be applied to our own lives to enhance our chances of success.

Where can I find case studies on goal setting and achievement?

Case studies on goal setting and achievement can be found in various resources. One of the main sources is academic research journals, where scholars and researchers publish their studies on goal setting and achievement. Business and self-help books also often include case studies to illustrate their concepts. Additionally, websites and online platforms dedicated to personal development, productivity, or success may offer case studies as part of their content. Professional conferences and seminars may also feature case studies presented by experts in the field. Libraries or online databases specializing in psychology, management, or personal development literature can also be useful sources.

What can I learn from case studies on goal setting and achievement?

Case studies on goal setting and achievement provide rich insights and observations that can enhance your understanding of effective goal-setting strategies. They can teach you about the importance of setting specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals, as well as the significance of creating action plans and building strategies for overcoming obstacles. Moreover, you may learn about the power of motivation, perseverance, and adaptability in the face of challenges while pursuing your goals. These studies often highlight the role of self-discipline, accountability, and effective time management in achieving meaningful results.

Can case studies on goal setting be applied to different areas of life?

Certainly! While case studies on goal setting and achievement may focus on specific areas like business or sports, the principles and techniques they demonstrate are often applicable to various aspects of life. The strategies and lessons learned from successful goal achievers can be adapted and implemented in personal life, academics, relationships, health, hobbies, or any endeavor where setting and achieving goals are relevant. The fundamental concepts such as goal clarity, planning, tracking progress, and staying motivated can be universally applied to strive for success in different areas.

Are case studies on goal setting and achievement always successful?

Not every case study on goal setting and achievement guarantees success. Case studies often showcase successful outcomes to demonstrate effective strategies, but they may also include examples of failures or setbacks. These failures can provide valuable lessons on what did not work and how to avoid common pitfalls. Remember that success in goal setting varies among individuals and circumstances. It is crucial to approach case studies with a critical mindset, extracting insights that can be applied to your own unique goals and adapting the strategies to suit your specific context.

How Can You Find Motivation to Apply for a Job?

How can you find motivation for a project, how can you build intrinsic motivation, how can you find motivation for art, the relationship between motivation and discipline: a deeper under, does hypnosis work for motivation.