This paper examines goal-setting theory, originally developed by Locke and Latham for industrial-organizational psychology. The theory posits that higher, more specific goals lead to greater task performance than easier or abstract goals, provided employees have commitment, ability, and freedom from conflicting objectives. The paper explores central mechanisms including psychological awareness and the balance of ability and motivation, reviews empirical research supporting the theory, and discusses important moderating variables such as personality orientation (performance-oriented vs. knowledge-oriented). The paper concludes that while goal-setting theory provides a flexible, practical framework for managers, its application must account for individual differences and contextual factors to be most effective.
Goal-setting theory was first developed by Locke and Latham (2005) for the benefit of industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology. The theory's basic premise is that setting higher goals leads to higher levels of task performance compared to easier or more abstract goals. For goals to be effective, the follower must be committed, have the ability to accomplish the goal, and must not be troubled by conflicting goals. The organization must also identify a clear discrepancy between the present state—where there is a deficit regarding goals—and the future state where the goal must be realized for the organization to thrive (Locke & Latham 2005: 265).
Several central mechanisms are at play within goal-setting theory. The foremost is the notion that people will only reach goals if they have a psychological awareness of the extent to which they are capable of great things. High goals yield greater performance by creating an action-related structure for the employee's purpose. This psychological foundation is essential to understanding why the theory works as a motivational tool across organizational contexts.
The second core component of goal-setting theory is the idea that performance requires both ability and motivation on the part of the employee (Locke & Latham 2005: 265). A highly motivated employee cannot accomplish tasks he or she is not capable of executing. Conversely, even able employees will not perform if unmotivated. Goals can be used strategically to encourage employees to seek out new knowledge to meet objectives and to build upon their existing knowledge, particularly when people are motivated by new and complex tasks.
If the acquisition of new knowledge is a variable in goal attainment, this can complicate the process, as the individual's ability to gain such know-how remains an open question. Complexity and difficulty, as well as "role overload" (too much overwhelming complexity or a lack of necessary resources such as time and knowledge to complete the task), can mediate goal attainment. Other mediating variables that can impact the influence of high-goal setting include personality, availability of feedback, participation from the subordinate, job autonomy, and pay (Locke & Latham 2005: 265; Seijts et al. 2004). The ability to track one's progress and receive feedback on goal advancement can enhance completion rates.
High goals enhance productivity but only up to a point: the goals must be feasible to obtain given existing resources, including personal resources. Goals can arise from a variety of sources—they may be internal (set by the individual) or external (set by others). However, goal choice remains important. Studies have indicated that when there is a large discrepancy between set goals and actual performance, goal revision may be necessary (Locke & Latham 2005: 266). The reason for lowered expectations must be determined: if ability or another uncontrollable constraint is the cause, more rigorous goal revision is required than would be necessary for a lack of motivation or effort, which should be addressed through motivational strategies rather than goal revision.
Research indicates that the best way to encourage individuals to meet complex, challenging tasks is to frame goal-setting in a step-by-step manner. Rather than focusing on the ultimate goal alone, first focus on the series of skill-related steps needed to achieve it. Setting short-term learning goals is the best way to achieve the ultimate goal of enhanced performance. Framing the goal in a non-threatening, positive fashion can also be beneficial to completion. Although high goals are desirable, people should not be made to believe their goal is beyond their grasp by overemphasizing the difficulty involved.
Goal-setting theory has been substantiated by both experimental and observational research, according to Lunenburg (2011). The notion of "goals" underlies much of modern research on organizations, including Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Bandura's theory of social modeling (Lunenburg 2011: 1). People are more inclined to act in a particular fashion if motivated to do so. The critical insight of goal-setting theory is setting people up for success within an organizational context (Lunenburg 2011: 1).
Managers must be cognizant of the fact that they cannot motivate employees with generalized mission statements but rather must use highly specific goal statements as a tool of empowerment. Values coherent with the organization fuel goals. Locke and Latham (2005) conducted over 400 studies to support their theory, providing extensive empirical validation for the framework's core premises.
However, research has also yielded the finding that personality can have a profound impact upon performance and the willingness to work hard to achieve high goals. A study by Seijts, Latham, and Tasa (2004) first measured the degree to which individuals were performance-oriented versus knowledge-oriented. Knowledge-oriented individuals chose to perform tasks in which they could gain skills—tasks that were complex and "high," consistent with trait-based theories. In contrast, performance-oriented individuals solely focused on goals and preferred easy tasks, apparently due to a worry about looking foolish when making errors. This is an important caveat to goal-setting theory: not all individuals are equally motivated by high goals, particularly those in a performance-oriented context (Locke & Latham 2005: 266; Seijts et al. 2004).
Certain professions might attract more performance-oriented individuals, and thus intellectual challenges might be less motivating for some groups. For example, sales staff compensated on commission might be less motivated by intellectual challenges than engineers. Performance-oriented individuals, in contrast to the stereotype that "goal-driven" people are highly motivated, may suffer from a lack of self-esteem. High goals they suspect they cannot attain may make them less willing to try, whereas less challenging goals offer them a venue to demonstrate success.
Knowledge-oriented individuals, by contrast, are emotionally resilient and can cope with setbacks in the face of new knowledge. Their higher self-esteem means they have less of a control-based orientation and are more willing to take risks in pursuing internally motivated goals, such as improving themselves (Locke & Latham 2005: 266; Seijts et al. 2004).
This refinement in understanding goal-setting theory is an important one. It is not possible to make a blanket statement that everyone is more motivated by high, challenging goals, although such goals generally do seem to enhance performance. Managing individuals still requires sophisticated interpersonal skills and understanding of how different individuals operate. This is also a caveat to remember when hiring individuals. Selecting knowledge-driven individuals can be a profound enhancement to the organization, given that they are more willing to take risks.
However, a system of incentives can still be constructed to better motivate individuals, regardless of their personality characteristics or tendencies toward knowledge or goal-orientations. Setting smaller achievable goals in pursuit of a larger goal and breaking down complex skills into manageable pieces is a way to provide sufficient rewards for some employees to motivate them to continue forward, while still giving adequate challenges to other members of the organization who are more knowledge-driven, intrinsically motivated, and willing to take risks.
Goal-setting theory is a fairly flexible theory in its orientation and allows for modifications based upon personality characteristics and other external and internal factors that can impact results. The theory is explicitly designed as a tool for managers to use rather than a narrow theory applied in a one-size-fits-all fashion to all situations and employees. Locke and Latham (2005), the authors of the theory, have themselves participated in research studies which have added important caveats to their core theory that higher goals lead to enhanced performance and motivation. Internal and external factors, including worker skills and feasibility of goals, will still influence performance.
"Practical implications for managers and organizational practice"
You’re 90% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.