Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goal Setting

Abstract

Goal setting is one of the most replicated and influential paradigms in the management literature.Hundreds of studies conducted in numerous countries and contexts have consistently demonstrated that setting specific, challenging goals can powerfully drive behavior and boost performance. Advocates of goal setting have had a substantial impact on research, management education, and management practice. In this article, we argue that the beneficial effects of goal setting have been overstated and that systematic harm caused by goal setting has been largely ignored. We identify specific side effects associated with goal setting, including a narrow focus that neglects non-goal areas, a rise in unethical behavior, distorted risk preferences, corrosion of organizational culture, and reduced intrinsic motivation. Rather than dispensing goal setting as a benign, over-the-counter treatment for motivation, managers and scholars need to conceptualize goal setting as a prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, consideration of harmful side effects, and close supervision. We offer a warning label to accompany the practice of setting goals.Goals Gone Wild 3 Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goal Setting For decades, goal setting has been promoted as a halcyon pill for improving employee motivation and performance in organizations. Across hundreds of experiments, dozens of tasks,

The Effect of Goal Difficulty on Escalation of Commitment

“…Although goal setting has been shown to have a positive influence on task performance (Locke & Latham, , , ), since the early days of goal setting research, the possibility of negative side effects has been acknowledged (Locke & Latham, ). More recently, Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, and Bazerman () suggested that goal setting “may cause systematic problems in organizations due to narrowed focus, increased risk taking, unethical behavior, inhibited learning, decreased cooperation, and decreased intrinsic motivation” (p. 14). Instead of prescribing goal setting as an “all‐purpose remedy for employee motivation,” they argue that goal setting is like a strong prescription drug that can have adverse side effects, that it should be applied with caution, and that it should come with a warning label.…”

“…Instead of prescribing goal setting as an “all‐purpose remedy for employee motivation,” they argue that goal setting is like a strong prescription drug that can have adverse side effects, that it should be applied with caution, and that it should come with a warning label. In a response to Ordóñez et al (), Locke and Latham () suggested that the evidence against goal setting is largely anecdotal and that the standards for good scholarship demand that more empirical work be carried out before any claims regarding adverse effects can be made. The findings of this research draw attention to a negative side effect of goal setting in which moderately difficult goals lead individuals to continue a failing course of action.…”

Violations-Inducing Framing Effects of Production Goals: Conditions under which goal setting leads to neglecting safety-relevant rules

“…Currently, there is only indirect evidence from the work of Schweitzer, Ordonez and Douma (2004) and Lehman and Ramanujam (2009), who found that people with unmet goals were more likely to violate rules and to engage in unethical behavior. Additionally, there is anecdotal evidence such as the examples given by Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky and Bazerman (2009). While further experiments are needed to investigate the influence of the interaction of different organizational factors, the results of this study clearly indicate that newly introduced safety rules (which always come with some effort) are vulnerable to violation if the management fails to frame them as a sure gain for company and workers.…”

Einsatz der Balanced Scorecard in der Pflege und deren Auswirkung auf die Mitarbeiter

“…Es existieren Vorbehalte gegen den konsequenten Einsatz von Controlling (auch wenn hier teilweise bereits die BSC eingesetzt wird) insbesondere bei Einrichtungen der öffentlichen Hand, von Wohlfahrtsverbänden oder kirchlichen Trägern. Schon beim Einsatz "einfacher" ControllingInstrumente, kann es zu Konflikten zwischen flexibler Dienstleistung am Menschen und klaren, messbaren Ziel-und Leistungsvorgaben und somit zu Widerständen bei den handelnden Personen kommen [21].…”