UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 11.7 Free with a free account
Aiming Higher: Locke's Goal-Setting Theory
Principles of Management · Chapter 11: Motivation in the WorkplaceSection 11.7 · lesson 68 of 11712 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: What Motivates Beyond Pay: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reward Systems →← Shaping Behavior: Thorndike and the Power of ReinforcementNext lesson: What Motivates Beyond Pay: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reward Systems →
In this lesson
Why specific, difficult goals work, and how they backfire.
- State the principles of goal-setting theory
- Explain the 4 mechanisms by which goals affect performance
- Write a usable goal and correct a defective one
- Stress-test a goal against its failure modes
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,697 words). Read along, or search it.
Motivation in the Workplace
Aiming Higher: Locke's Goal-Setting Theory
Set someone a goal, and their performance changes. That much is well established. Goal-setting theory explains how, and also when it goes wrong. We'll start with Edwin Locke's central finding, one of the best-supported in all of motivation research. Then the five principles that govern it, and the four mechanisms through which goals work. We'll see why a goal that's too hard stops working at all. We'll look at commitment, feedback, and self-efficacy. Then we'll write usable goals, and correct some defective ones. We'll catalog the ways goals backfire, and a discipline for catching them in advance. And we'll meet Adaeze, whose team hit every target while the real problem persisted.
The Central Finding
Specific and Difficult Beats Do Your Best
The psychologist Edwin Locke proposed the theory, and a substantial body of later research has tested it directly. Its central finding stands among the best-supported in the entire motivation literature. Specific and difficult goals produce higher performance than vague goals, or easy goals. They also beat the simple instruction to do your best. That last comparison is worth pausing on. Do your best sounds motivating. In practice, it's outperformed by a specific, difficult target. The evidence deserves to be stated plainly, rather than hedged. Unlike several theories earlier in this chapter, this central finding is described as unusually robust. It has held up across a wide range of tasks, settings, and populations. Few claims in this literature have.
The Principles
5 Principles Behind the Effect
Five principles govern how goals actually produce this effect. The first is specificity. A goal should be concrete and measurable, rather than vague. Improve customer satisfaction motivates less than a specific, measurable target does. The second is difficulty within reach. A goal should be genuinely challenging, without tipping into the range where it's rejected as impossible. The third is commitment. The person must be genuinely invested in reaching the goal, not merely aware that it exists. The fourth is feedback, meaning ongoing information about progress toward the goal. The fifth, task complexity, works differently. It's a moderator. For highly complex tasks, the benefit of goal difficulty is somewhat reduced. Complex tasks demand more attention to discovering an effective strategy. Extra effort translates less directly into extra performance.
4 Mechanisms
How Goals Change Performance
Goals affect performance through four specific mechanisms. First, they direct attention toward goal-relevant activity. And unavoidably, away from other activity at the same time. Second, they energize effort. People work harder than an unspecific instruction would prompt. Third, they increase persistence, sustaining effort for longer in the face of difficulty. Fourth, they prompt a search for strategies. A person thinks about how to reach the goal, rather than just working harder at whatever she was already doing. Hold on to that first mechanism. It's the source of most goal-setting problems. The reason follows from what attention is. Attention directed toward one thing is, by definition, directed away from something else. So a goal that successfully focuses effort on the measured target often does so, in part, at the expense of whatever it didn't measure.
Figure 11.7.1
The Difficulty Relationship
How difficult should a goal be? Figure eleven point seven point one plots performance against goal difficulty. Performance rises with difficulty, up to a point. That point is the limit of the person's actual ability. Beyond it, performance falls, because the goal is rejected as unattainable. A goal set comfortably within reach produces less effort than a genuinely stretching one. But set a goal so far beyond someone's capability that she no longer believes it's achievable, and it stops functioning as a goal at all. Instead, it produces the expectancy failure from Subchapter eleven point five. The belief that effort leads to performance collapses. Notice that the peak isn't a fixed point. It reflects a specific individual's actual capability. That's why the same numerical target can sit near the productive peak for one person, and well past the rejection point for another. So one target, handed to a whole team, can stretch some people and defeat others.
What Produces Commitment
4 Sources of Commitment
Commitment matters, so what produces it? Several identifiable factors. Participation in setting the goal tends to build stronger commitment than a goal simply assigned from above. That said, a goal assigned with a clear rationale can still generate real commitment. Perceived attainability matters directly. That connects to the difficulty relationship we just saw. Publicly stated commitment tends to strengthen follow-through. Once an intention has been stated out loud, abandoning it carries a social cost. And the importance attached to the goal matters. How much does it genuinely matter to the person, independent of who set it? That directly affects how hard she works.
Feedback and Self-Efficacy
What a Goal Needs to Function
Feedback is not an optional addition to a well-set goal. It's a necessary condition for the goal to function at all. A goal without feedback on progress is, in practical terms, a wish. A person pursuing a target she can't track has no way to know, for instance, whether her current effort is sufficient. She can't tell whether to adjust her strategy, or how close she actually is. That strips away most of the mechanism through which goals are supposed to work. Self-efficacy is a person's own belief in her capability to successfully perform a specific task. It moderates how goals affect her performance. It's closely related to expectancy, from Subchapter eleven point five. Both concern whether effort can produce the performance. Self-efficacy is the confidence itself. Expectancy is that belief, applied within the effort-to-performance calculation. Someone with low self-efficacy for a task is likely to set less ambitious goals for herself. And she tends to give up sooner when it gets difficult, compared with someone of high self-efficacy facing the identical task.
Writing a Usable Goal
6 Elements of a Usable Goal
So how do you write a goal that actually works? A usable goal specifies six elements. First, the outcome being pursued. Second, the measure that will track it. Third, the specific numeric target. Fourth, the baseline that target is measured against. Fifth, the timeframe within which it should be reached. And sixth, the owner who's accountable for it. Each element closes off a particular way for a goal to drift. Leave any one out, and the goal typically fails, in a specific, identifiable way. The next table shows six such failures, and how to correct each one.
Table 11.7.1
Defective Goals, Corrected
Table eleven point seven point one shows six defective goals, each with its defect named and a corrected version. Improve customer service has no measure, target, or timeframe. It gives effort no clear direction. The correction: raise the customer satisfaction score from seventy-eight to eighty-five within this quarter, owned by the support team lead. Reduce errors as much as possible has no specific target. As much as possible isn't a stopping point. The correction: cut the defect rate from four percent to two percent by the end of the third quarter. Be a better team player isn't measurable, and specifies no observable behavior. Instead: complete peer collaboration reviews with an average rating of four out of five by year end. Increase sales has no baseline, so no one can tell whether a given result counts as improvement. Instead: grow quarterly sales from forty thousand dollars to fifty thousand dollars by the end of the fourth quarter. Everyone should contribute to reducing costs has no individual owner. Responsibility diffuses, and nobody feels accountable. Instead: the procurement lead will cut vendor costs by eight percent within six months. And finish the project soon has no timeframe. There's no urgency, and no way to call it late. Instead: complete the migration project by March fifteenth.
Failure Modes
How Goals Backfire
Goal-setting carries several documented failure modes. Most trace back to the attention-directing mechanism. First, unmeasurable work gets driven out by measurable work. A person, responding rationally to what's actually tracked, quietly deprioritizes valuable work the goal never captured. Second, goal displacement, in the same sense covered for bureaucratic rules in Subchapter three point two. Meeting the goal itself becomes the objective, detached from the purpose it was meant to serve. Third, a short-term focus, when a goal's timeframe rewards a quick result at the expense of a better long-term one. Fourth, shortcuts that meet the goal while damaging the objective behind it. The target is technically satisfied, through means the goal-setter never intended, and wouldn't have wanted. Fifth, individual goals can damage collaboration when the work is genuinely interdependent. Rewarding one person's individual output can discourage the cooperation a shared task actually requires.
Stress-Testing a Goal
Ask How It Could Go Wrong, Before It Does
One discipline addresses these failure modes before they occur, rather than after. It's called stress-testing a goal. At the time the goal is set, ask exactly how it could be met in a way the organization wouldn't actually want. Take a sales target measured purely in revenue. Could it be hit through deeply discounted, low-margin sales? Or through sales later reversed as returns? A speed target invites a different question. Could it be hit by cutting corners on quality? Asking deliberately, before the goal takes effect, surfaces exactly the shortcuts the attention-directing mechanism makes possible. And there's still time to close the gap in how the goal is written. Finally, goal-setting principles underlie management by objectives, covered fully in Subchapter fourteen point one. It applies specific, difficult, feedback-supported goals to an entire cascading structure of organizational objectives.
Case Vignette
Adaeze Meets Every Goal While the Real Problem Persists
Here's a composite case, constructed for instruction. Adaeze managed a customer support team. She set a clear, specific, appropriately difficult goal. Resolve at least ninety percent of tickets within a same-day window, up from seventy-five percent, over the coming quarter. Her team hit the target almost exactly, closing ninety-one percent of tickets the same day by quarter's end. But customer satisfaction scores, which the goal was meant to improve, didn't move at all. And complaints about issues going unresolved on first contact actually increased slightly. Adaeze eventually reviewed the ticket detail, rather than only the headline number. She found her team had learned to close tickets quickly, by marking them resolved before the underlying issue was fixed. If the customer complained again, the issue was reopened under a new ticket number. The attention-directing mechanism had worked exactly as described. It focused effort precisely on the measured target, same-day closure. And it pulled effort away from the real objective, genuine issue resolution, which the goal had never measured at all. Next, Subchapter eleven point eight turns to intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, and what motivates beyond pay.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Aiming Higher: Locke's Goal-Setting Theory
What is Locke's goal-setting theory?
How do goals improve performance?
What makes a goal well written?
How can goal setting backfire?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →