Is defined as the extent to which a person is interested in reaching a goal

Goal-Setting Theory

The basis of goal-setting theory is that specific, difficult goals engender higher performance than does merely urging individuals to do their best (Locke & Latham, 1990). Goals drive this higher performance through four mechanisms. First, goals focus attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities and away from other activities. Second, goals energize individuals to exert greater effort on more challenging goals. Third, goals increase the level of persistence that an individual will display in order to achieve the goal. Finally, goals indirectly are the arousal, discovery, and/or use of knowledge relevant to the task.

Goal-setting is an implicit component of most reward systems (Latham & Pinder, 2005). Through the above mechanisms, goals combine with the extrinsic motivation of the reward to increase performance. Creativity however, is often viewed as being maximized when the employee is under minimal constraints. In an investigation of the effect of goal-setting on creative performance, Shalley (1995) demonstrated that the assignment of a creativity goal increases performance, but actually decreases production in a quantity sense. However, another study combining productivity and creativity goals found performance levels of both were maximized when a difficult productivity goal was combined with either a do-your-best creativity goal or a difficult productivity goal (Shalley, 1991). In addition, feedback on creativity goals increases creative performance beyond the effect of mere goal-setting (Carson & Carson, 1993). Creativity is minimized when no creativity goal is provided. In a further investigation into feedback and creativity, the most creative ideas were generated from a combination of feedback style and valence and task autonomy (Zhou, 1998). This empirical support of creativity and goal-setting lends support to the idea that reward systems should incorporate strong creativity goals and feedback mechanisms in order to maximize their effectiveness at increasing creative performance.

Goal setting in sport

Buoyed by support for goal-setting theory in organizational settings, and acting upon a lack of goal-setting research in sport, Locke and Latham (1985) challenged researchers to test the theory in relation to sports-based tasks. Highlighting anecdotal support for sports goals and the comparable nature of organizational and sports-based tasks, Locke and Latham asserted that their theory should be generalizable across both contexts. Furthermore, it was proposed that goal effectiveness should be more evident in sport as performance is more measurable than in work settings.

Prompted by this challenge, and a concurrent interest in performance-enhancing strategies, an increase in goal-setting research was clearly evident throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Such work evidenced existing widespread use of goal setting (Weinberg, Burke, & Jackson, 1997; Weinberg, Burton, Yukelson, & Weigand, 1993) and provided initial support for the effectiveness of setting goals (see Burton & Weiss, 2008, for review). Furthermore, findings echoed Locke and Latham’s (1990) endorsement of specific and difficult goals.

Early support for the effectiveness of goals fueled further promotion of goal setting as a fundamental strategy for sport (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). However, while the general outlook was positive, the findings were less convincing than expected. In their analysis of 36 studies, Kyllo and Landers (1995) reported an effect size of 0.34, notably lower than Locke and Latham (1990) and contradicting expectations that goal effectiveness should be more evident in sport. Furthermore, many researchers failed to provide evidence for the distinct benefits and optimal characteristics of sport-specific goals, with coaches similarly reporting difficulties with using goals effectively (Burton et al., 1998).

Unconvinced that these findings reflected poor applicability of goal-setting theory to sport, Locke (1991) contended that inconsistent results could be attributed to flaws in experimental methodology, including a lack of controls preventing participants from setting their own goals and failure to measure personal goals. While agreeing with the need for rigorous research, sports researchers were more hesitant to attribute findings to methodological problems alone. Instead, in their response to Locke, Weinberg and Weigand (1993) suggested that the highlighted causes of inconsistent findings (eg, spontaneous goal setting among participants) should be considered in terms of the difference between work and sport settings that they may reflect. Instead of preventing sports participants from setting their own goals, perhaps the tendency to set our own goals in sport should be examined in itself.

While the goal-setting debate may have hampered the provision of clear guidelines for sports-based goal setting, the debate may also have revealed a key factor in the pursuit of sports goals, namely the role of personal motivation. While Locke (1991) sought to control motivation through strict experimental conditions, Hall and Kerr (2001) argue that full understanding of sports goals requires consideration of the underlying motivation. This is due to a relevant difference between Locke’s organizational settings and sport. In work settings, goal setting acts to ensure task completion in the absence of workers’ own motivation. In contrast, sport is characterized by individuals who participate through their own volition. This inherent quantity of motivation can mask the distinct contribution of goals. Consequently, an understanding of sports-based goals requires an understanding of both the goals themselves and their underlying motives.

5 How to Pursue Goals That Are (Still) Unknown

Activities at work in general are goal oriented. Often, goals are specific and difficult, leading to high performance. Goal-setting theory offers evidence for understanding these effects. But nowadays, more and more work activities are no longer related to clear and specific goals because the specific goals are not yet known when the activities are started. One classic example is given with design tasks. They are characterized by the fact that outcomes are not at all clear for a long time during work on the tasks. They are similar to the learning tasks mentioned earlier in the article. In design tasks, people cannot do the following:

Analyze the conditions of action necessary for reaching the goals exactly.

Run trial actions.

Form language terms to describe actions.

Coordinate component goals toward ultimate goals.

Compare outcomes with goals stored in memory.

Although these activities cannot be regulated by specific goals as anticipated outcomes, design actions are not without direction given that the outcomes must be developed first. During activities of this kind, people must do the following:

Follow up more than one problem-solving alternative.

Build up evaluation criteria to be used in iterative processes of error correction.

Look for similar cases to be used as models for the current ones.

The practical consequences of these considerations are easy to describe. Although it is known that high specific and concrete outcome goals lead to high performance, it is not always possible to set such goals, especially when the outcome of work is not quite clear at the beginning. In such a case the chances for success will increase through setting learning goals such as the following:

Discover a number of strategies to learn how to perform the task.

Develop systematic testing of task-relevant strategies.

Identify evaluation criteria.

Use information from similar cases.

After having learned about strategies to solve the task, it could be helpful to again relate goals to outcomes.

3.2 Cross-Cultural Differences in How Employees Are Motivated at Work: Process Theories

Process theories deal with the ways in which employees are motivated at work. There are four major process theories of motivation: goal-setting theory, job enrichment theory, equity theory, and expectancy theory. Among the four, goal-setting theory of Locke and Latham has received the most attention from cross-cultural researchers. The theory asserts that the existence of goals is motivating and that goals with particular characteristics (e.g., challenging, specific, accepted) are more motivating than others. Participation and joint decision making are considered to be a key factor in motivation. Participation enhances motivation in that it provides greater autonomy and control over work outcomes and reduces anxiety and uncertainties. The Industrial Democracy in Europe (IDE) International Research Group compared the participative decision-making practices in 12 European countries in 1981 and repeated the study 10 years later in 10 of the original 12 countries as well as in Japan and Poland. This was a major undertaking to show that participation had different meanings and practices across cultures. These studies show that in the most collectivist cultural contexts, group participation is more motivating and effective in improving work outcomes than is individual participation. Individual and face-to-face involvement in decision making (i.e., the North American model) is, in fact, not desired in all cultural contexts. In cultures that Hofstede identified as high in power distance and uncertainty avoidance, participation may even result in demotivation because subordinates seek guidance from their superiors to reduce uncertainties. Research suggests that for participative goal setting to be motivating in developing countries, organizations should enhance employees’ self-efficacy beliefs through empowerment, coaching, and mentoring.

The job enrichment theory of Hackman and Oldham suggests that workers are motivated to the extent that they experience meaningfulness in their jobs. This can be achieved through more autonomy and discretion in one’s job, feedback on performance, opportunity to use multiple skills (i.e., skill variety), identification of the contribution of one’s job to the overall work context (i.e., task identity), and knowledge of the significant contribution of one’s job to others’ lives (i.e., task significance). Jobs that are designed to have high autonomy, feedback, skill variety, task identity, and task significance are referred to as “enriched jobs.” This theory is based on individualist assumptions of employees’ desire for independence, freedom, and challenge. Thus, it is argued that job enrichment might not be as effective in countries with power hierarchies and avoidance of uncertainties. Increasing discretion and responsibility elevate anxiety and uncertainty, and worker autonomy defies the role of the authority. In more collectivist European countries, job design takes the form of “autonomous work groups” in which job enrichment principles are implemented at the group level (e.g., team autonomy, team-based feedback). However, this system is reported to have limitations in developing countries due to uncertainty avoidance and resource scarcity that is endemic to the majority of developing countries.

The equity theory of Adams purports that employee motivation is achieved by invoking the perception of fairness. One way in which to increase fairness is to establish an equitable relationship between “inputs” and “outputs” among workers. Inputs represent everything that employees perceive as their contribution to the job (e.g., training, skills, time, effort, loyalty, commitment to the organization), whereas outputs represent everything that employees perceive as received in return for their contribution (e.g., pay, promotion, praise, recognition and awards). Equity theory has not attracted much cross-cultural research attention, but the available evidence suggests that what constitutes inputs and outputs varies across cultures. In collectivist cultures, loyalty, commitment, seniority, and tenure are more important inputs for promotion and rewards than is job performance. Also, in cultures where there are status hierarchies, the social class or caste to which one belongs is considered an input. Similarly, there are cultural variations in the perception of outcomes. Challenge and autonomy in the job and salary increases are considered to be valued outcomes in individualist cultures, whereas praise from supervisors can be an important outcome in collectivist cultures. There are ways in which to restore equity such as changing inputs (e.g., working less), changing the comparison group, changing the outcomes (e.g., asking for a salary increase), and leaving the organization. There is not enough research to indicate cross-cultural variations in the ways in which to restore equity. However, there is a large body of cross-cultural research in the area of organizational justice. Reward allocation based on an equity principle is not endorsed in all cultural contexts.

The final process theory of motivation is the expectancy theory of Vroom. According to the theory, employees are motivated to the extent that their expectations are met in the following ways. First, if they exert enough effort, their job performance will be at the desired level. Second, if they perform at the desired level, it will lead to some outcomes. Third, the outcomes will have high valence or attractiveness. Although there is no systematic research testing the validity of the theory across cultures, it seems to have more applicability in individualist cultures than in collectivist ones. In individualist cultures, employees are motivated if there is a high likelihood of meeting their own expectations, whereas in collectivist cultures, motivation is related to the probability of meeting the expectations of “significant others” (e.g., family, organization, superiors). “Face saving” is also an important motivator in collectivist cultures. Another cross-cultural variation may exist in people’s beliefs in the controllability of events. In fatalistic cultures, employees do not believe that control of events is in their hands; that is, they have an “external locus of control.” Thus, expectancy theory might not be useful in such cultural contexts.

Goal-Setting Theory

Given the large number of ways that goals can differ, research has examined how different goal dimensions affect performance. One approach to systematically studying the effects of different goal dimensions is goal-setting theory (Locke and Latham, 2002). Goal-setting theory is one of the most influential theories in the study of work motivation, describing how goal characteristics influence performance through the mechanisms of attentional focus, effort, persistence, and strategy development. A key finding from goal-setting research is that difficult, specific goals that are accepted result in better performance than do-your-best or easy goals (Locke and Latham, 2002). Goals with these characteristics are beneficial in that they reduce ambiguity and require individuals to expend more effort, better focus their attention, and persist longer over time. Moreover, as tasks become more complex, difficult and specific goals also produce more strategy development, which can enhance performance.

There are several boundary conditions and caveats surrounding the prescription of assigning difficult and specific goals. First, goal difficulty is determined relative to each individual's capability, with optimal effort exertion occurring when there is a good match between the demands of the task and an individual's skill (Locke and Latham, 1991). Thus, an assigned goal that is determined to be normatively difficult may overshoot the optimal difficulty level for some individuals and undershoot it for other individuals, both of which can result in lower motivation. Second, research has shown that goal setting must be accompanied by feedback that allows individuals to monitor their progress and make necessary adjustments to their goal-directed behavior (Locke and Latham, 1990). Goal environments that are not feedback rich can prevent goal-setting interventions from producing their intended benefits. Finally, research has shown that difficult, specific goals may harm performance when they are assigned for novel or complex tasks as they may inhibit needed strategy development (e.g., Kanfer and Ackerman, 1989). When first working on a task (i.e., early in the skill acquisition process), not assigning a goal may actually be beneficial as it can facilitate learning and strategy development, resulting in a better long-term performance.

Psychology of Individual Differences

The basic tenet of differential psychology within OB is the assumption that personal characteristics constitute the core of variables to be studied by psychology either as causal (at least moderating) factors of consequent psychological/social phenomena or as the most important outcomes of individual experience in organizational settings. The microperspective dominates here. Within this theory class might also be counted the important approaches of expectancy and of goal setting theory in as much as individual characteristics (e.g., preferences, competencies) need to be considered by them. The former surmises that subjectively expected outcome values (subjective expected utilities (SEU)) guide individual decision-making behavior (Naylor et al., 1980), the latter postulates that goals, self-set individually or interactively by subordinates and superordinates, constitute potent predictors of subsequent behavior in organizations.

Major topical concerns within this paradigm concentrate on issues such as the role of personality and leadership style as conditioning work group and organizational performance (including absenteeism from work, turnover), work attitudes (causes and consequences of job satisfaction, meaning of working, and work commitment/motivation).

4.2 Anteceding Conditions

A performance-related pay system requires a careful phase of preparation. At least the following four conditions should be met.

3 Additional Considerations and Future Directions

In the view of Hall and Kerr (2001), the attractiveness of the achievement goal framework is that it enables researchers and practitioners “… to understand considerably more about the direction of behavior and about why athletes make particular motivational choices than is possible from considering Locke and Latham’s (1990) goal-setting theory alone … [which] limits us to understanding changes in intensity and persistence once discrete goals are set” (pp. 230–231).

Systematic research that attempts to integrate the constructs and tenets of achievement goal theory with the hypothesized goal-setting process is needed. In essence, the aim of such work would be to better inform us about when and why goal setting would be effective or ineffective, and what might be the best ways to implement goal setting in the sport domain. With respect to the potential mechanisms involved, one research direction would be to test variations in the proposed direct and indirect effects of goals on performance as proffered in Locke’s goal-setting theory as a function of the achievement goals manifested. In terms of differences in achievement goal emphases, it would be interesting to consider people’s goal orientations and the motivational climate in which they are operating as well as the interaction between these two factors. It would also be conceptually intriguing and practically important to examine the relationship of achievement goals to the nature and motivational implications of the process, performance, and outcomes goals set by athletes in both training and competition. While pursuing such lines of inquiry, the impact of variability in athletes’ perceived ability on the interdependence between achievement goals and the goal-setting process should be determined.

In the discussion of achievement goals in this article, the emphasis has been placed on what have recently been termed dichotomous goal models. Such models distinguish competence-based striving in terms of a task (or mastery) and ego (or performance) focus. This approach was adopted for several reasons. First, the two-goal approach to achievement motivation has laid the foundation to date for the large majority of achievement goal research in sport. Second, existing discussions in the literature concerning distinctions between the constructs of achievement goals and discrete goals have been grounded in dichotomous conceptualizations. Finally, space constraints precluded the possibility of fully describing and developing the recently proposed trichotomous goal models and “2 × 2” achievement goal framework in terms of the present discourse. These latter frameworks differentiate approach achievement goals [goals directed toward the attainment of favorable judgments of competence, whether that competence is self-referenced or task-based (i.e., approach task) or normatively referenced (i.e., approach ego)] from avoidance goal perspectives [goals centered on avoiding unfavorable judgments of ability, whether those perceptions of ability are self-referenced or task-based (i.e., avoidance task) or normatively referenced (i.e., avoidance ego)]. As these multiple goals have been found to differentially link to motivation-related responses such as intrinsic interest, anxiety, and performance, incorporating the approach–avoidance distinction in forthcoming studies of achievement goals and goal setting should prove informative.

Duda made a distinction between the quantity and quality of athletes’ motivation. The former refers to an athlete being energized at that point in time and performing adequately. The latter relates to whether (1) the athlete wants to and does invest over time, (2) the activity contributes to the athlete’s physical, psychological, emotional, and moral growth and well-being, (3) the athlete usually is able to perform up to her or his ability, and (4) the athlete enjoys the activity and is self-determined. At best, goal-setting theory alone can provide an appreciation of whether motivation is high or low from a quantity perspective. Integrating goal setting within an achievement goal framework, however, promises insight into both aspects. In so doing, we emphasize other achievement behaviors (e.g., perseverance) along with performance. Most critically, though, we consider other motivational outcomes of significance besides achievement (e.g., the athletes’ welfare). Finally, as pointed out by Hall and Kerr, we become cognizant of the fact that (and the reasons why) goal setting can help promote quality sport engagement or be maladaptive (i.e., contributing to the quantity of motivation but compromising the quality and/or eventually leading to an erosion of quantitatively high motivation as well). All in all, based on the tenets of AGT and related research, it seems that more task-involving goal setting is what will reap the greatest motivational gain in sport or any other achievement domain.

What is goal setting in psychology?

What is the ability to complete tasks and reach goals?

What are the 4 benefits of goal setting?

What is the definition of the word goal quizlet?