research goal setting

Beyond SMART: An Evidence-Based Formula for Goal Setting

Smart goals work well in the office but miss the human side of goal setting..

Posted October 24, 2019 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• What Is Motivation?
• Find a therapist near me

One of the curious disparities among people reporting a desire for a better life is the small percentage who set actual goals to make their lives better.

This disparity is difficult to understand because goal setting is so well-established as a contributor to success by scientists and highly successful people. Entrepreneur Richard Branson, for example, summarized his perspective on goal setting as follows: "Setting goals is the first step from the invisible to the visible."

Goal setting has long been recommended for achieving better health, a larger income, and a more rewarding lifestyle—purposefully appearing as the very first lesson in Napoleon Hill’s masterpiece, Law of Success, in 1927 (he referred to a goal as a “definite chief aim.”) Nearly a century after Law of Success , the best goal setting research was combined into a “meta-analysis” published in 2011, with the results affirming the positive effect of goal setting on performance (1). If goal-setting is such a no-brainer for improving our results, why don’t more people set goals?

Among those seeking professional assistance for improving their health, goal setting is difficult to avoid. The teaching of goal-setting skills is now a bread and butter tool among health educators, healthcare providers, and self-help programs in many forms, to name a few. Whether to help people lose weight, stop smoking , or manage chronic diseases, nearly every established treatment program encourages goal-setting.

In these programs, goal setting is most commonly recommended using a formula called SMART (referring—with some variations—to Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Timely). Interestingly, the SMART goal concept originates from the business sector in the early 1980s, where it was initially introduced to managers as a more consistent formula for communicating business objectives. Catchy and easily remembered, however, SMART goals spread rapidly from the business sector to the health and self-help industries.

Unfortunately—but perhaps not surprisingly—the business-derived SMART goal formula seems to produce better results for office managers than for people striving to improve their health. Despite decades of use, for example, there is little or no scientific data that the overall SMART goal formula either increases goal-setting behavior (i.e., inspires more people to set goals) or produces better results than goal-setting without using the SMART formula.

On one hand, some writers have countered that components of the SMART goal formula could backfire, such as by reducing motivation from setting “realistic” instead of exciting goals. On the other hand, research shows that the SMART goal formula omits empirically supported goal setting strategies. In combination, the widely used SMART goal formula can be criticized both for including strategies that aren’t proven to work and for failing to include goal-setting strategies that are proven.

On the other hand, none of these criticisms are entirely fair to the SMART goal formula that, again, was designed to help managers write goals for soulless quarterly reports, not to inspire health transformations. Perhaps both the primary strength and the primary limitation of the SMART goal formula is that it is better suited to the practical goals of the workplace rather than goals such as health and lifestyle changes that are based as much on inspiration as information. If so, then simply being memorable won’t ever make the SMART formula an effective tool for helping people set and achieve health-related goals. What will?

The figure below outlines an alternative goal-setting formula to SMART, called SUCCESS. The advantages of the SUCCESS goal formula are:

• Like SMART, it is easily remembered and promotes positive emotions about goal-setting.
• It includes the goal-setting strategies demonstrated through research and professional experience to be effective.

Applying the SUCCESS goal formula involves using as many of the seven dimensions as possible in formulating a goal but does not require that all of them be applied to any individual goal.

Goal setting formulas that haven't worked in the past are unlikely to work in the future. Whether you are a person hoping to use goals to improve your own health results or a professional helping others to achieve their health goals, consider a better formula to realize better results.

1. 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.

2. https://www.dominican.edu/academics/lae/undergraduate-programs/psych/fa…

Thomas Rutledge, Ph.D. , is a Professor-in-Residence in the Department of Psychiatry at UC San Diego and a staff psychologist at the VA San Diego Healthcare System.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Scott H Young

Learn faster, achieve more

• Get Better at Anything

Now available!

The science of achievement: 7 research-backed tips to set better goals.

Setting goals can transform your life. Goals can help you get in shape, improve your finances, learn a new language, or finally launch that business.

But goal-setting can also leave you miserable. Burnout, stress and disillusionment are high on the list of potential side effects.

The crucial difference between success and burnout often comes down to how your goals are designed. Done wisely, setting goals can be a positive experience—not just successful, but life-affirming. Here are seven research-based suggestions to help you design better ones.

1. Aim for Hard, but Believable

For over four decades, psychologist Edwin Locke has been central in research on goal-setting. His research has three consistent findings :

• Setting goals improves performance.
• Hard goals improve performance more than easy ones.
• Specific targets work better than simply trying to “do your best.”

Early research on goal-setting found that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between difficulty and performance. 1 This means that easy goals lead to weak efforts, but so do goals that are too hard. The key factor here seems to be that goals need to be challenging, but also believable to be effective. If you don’t think you can actually reach a goal, you won’t.

Thus the best goals to set are those that demand effort from you, but you’re confident you can achieve if you put in the effort.

2. Use the 80% Rule

How do we build motivation to pursue our goals? Psychologist Albert Bandura developed the concept of self-efficacy to explain why some people eagerly face challenges while others shrink. If you don’t feel you’ll be successful, why bother?

The danger is that self-efficacy can create either a vicious or a virtuous cycle. If you don’t feel you’ll be successful, you don’t put effort into your goals. This leads to failure and seemingly confirms your inability. The reverse is also true: you can pick successful goals, achieve them and steadily boost your confidence.

One way to build confidence is the 80% rule. Psychologist Barak Rosenshine, in his review of successful teaching , found that this was approximately the success rate students should experience while in school. Too much success, and you’re likely not picking hard enough goals. Too little, and you can fall into the confidence trap.

One way to calibrate this is to set smaller goals (think 30 days) and track your success rate. If you’re under 80%, try setting a more achievable target. If you’re over 80%, try something a little more ambitious.

3. Deadlines Are Poison for Creative Problem-Solving

A significant exception to the power of specific, challenging goals involves creative problem-solving. In tasks that require complex thinking, such as learning, problem-solving or creative work, goal-setting can backfire .

Why is this? It’s because these activities require the full use of your working memory. Working memory is a psychological concept that corresponds roughly to mental bandwidth. It’s been known for several decades that the amount of things we can keep in mind at one time is limited—and often less than we think.

A stressful deadline to come up with a creative solution can hurt. The goal itself occupies so much space in your working memory that you have little left to try out new possible solutions. In these cases, you’re better off in a relaxed state with minimal distractions.

Of course, here we have a conflict. Goal-setting works by marshaling motivation and energy to reach a goal. Without goals, we often fail to put in the effort needed to achieve. However, if we are thinking about the goal while we’re working, we lose that mental bandwidth to develop creative solutions. How do we fix this?

One way is to set goals to work on a creative problem for a chunk of time without interruption or expectation of results. This allows you to focus on the task and gives your mind more space to think of solutions.

4. Visualize Failure

A common suggestion for goal-setting is to visualize success. But visualizing failure might work even better.

Psychologist Peter Gollwitzer suggests a key ingredient to the success of your goals is what he calls implementation intentions . These are when you visualize difficulties that might come up in pursuing your goal and decide in advance how you will handle them.

Many goals get derailed by events that are unexpected but not unimaginable. You get sick two weeks into an exercise program. Your exam gets rescheduled. You were ready to start your business, but the permits are delayed.

Imagining obstacles in advance and deciding your response can make those responses more effective when the time comes. Since your motivation is usually highest when setting the goal, this planning can keep you from abandoning your goal when things get difficult.

5. Keep it to Yourself (At Least to Start)

Should you tell other people about your goals? Surprisingly the answer is sometimes no.

In addition to implementation intentions, Peter Gollwitzer also studied the effects of telling people about the goals you want to achieve. Interestingly, his research found that telling people about your goals can substitute for actually taking action . Why is this?

Gollwitzer explains the results in terms of his theory of symbolic self-completion . According to this theory, we all want to maintain our image in the eyes of others. To do that, we display signals of our self-identity. Announcing our goals can make us feel like we have sent that signal, and our motivation to achieve the actual goal can go down.

This suggests we should focus first on taking action, not talking about it.

6. Break it Down and Make Yourself Accountable

Why do we procrastinate? The common perception is that procrastination is caused by perfectionism. People who need to do everything perfectly waste time getting started.

Except research doesn’t bear this out. In a comprehensive review, psychologist Piers Steel found perfectionism didn’t predict procrastination . What did? Unpleasant tasks and impulsive personalities.

One difficulty with setting goals is that our motivational hardwiring doesn’t cope well with the future. When a deadline is far off, and the immediate work isn’t always fun, we’re likely to slack. This persists until shortly before the deadline when the fear of failure spurs us to action. Unfortunately, as we discussed in point 3, these last-minute efforts aren’t ideal for complex work.

The key is to break down your goals into smaller, daily actions. If you know what needs to be done today, you’re in a much better position to act on it.

It is even better is if you can create a compelling incentive to stick to the daily plan. A powerful tool for overcoming procrastination is precommitment. Telling a friend or spouse that you’ll give them money for each day you miss your plan is a surefire strategy to stay committed.

Less extreme solutions can also include following a “don’t break the chain” strategy. Once you’ve set your daily plan, keep a tally of how many days in a row you’ve followed it. The goal is not to miss a day. If you do, reset your tally and start over.

For goals that don’t break down into simple, daily habits, you can still focus on daily actions. Break the goal into smaller milestones that have short-term deadlines. The closer you can move your goals to the present, the more successfully they will guide your behavior.

7. Set Goals You Want to Achieve (Not Just Those You Feel You Should)

Much of the stress and disillusionment people experience with goals comes from setting ones that aren’t truly their own. When we work on the goals of other people, goals we feel pressure to achieve but don’t actually want, the result is often misery.

Self-determination theory was developed by psychologists Edward Ryan and Richard Deci. They found that external incentives, such as paying someone to complete an otherwise interesting puzzle, could crowd out internal motivation. People would play the puzzle while being paid to, but they would play less when the rewards stopped.

They argue that many of the goals we pursue are only partially our own. We chase them because we feel we should, but they are somewhat “alien” to our deeper selves. Since these goals mainly just fulfill social expectations, they are harder to motivate ourselves toward consistently.

I suspect that the prevalence of these goals is why many have soured on goal-setting altogether. They have too many goals that aren’t truly their own. As a result, they are poorly motivated to achieve them, often fail to put in adequate effort, and experience stress and burnout.

For goal-setting to be life-affirming, the goals pursued have to feel deeply meaningful to you. Getting in touch with what you really want out of life, and separating out the things you merely think you “should” want, is perhaps the most essential part of goal-setting. A good life isn’t measured by the sum of your achievements, but by the meaning you attach to them. Choose wisely.

• Atkinson, John W. “Towards experimental analysis of human motivation in terms of motives, expectancies, and incentives.” Motives in fantasy, action and society (1958): 288-305.

Best Articles

• Best Learning
• Best Habits
• Best Goal Setting
• Best Life Philosophy
• Best Career
• Best Feeling Better
• Best Thinking Better
• Best Productivity

Related Articles

• Managing Stress with Daily Goals I recently wrote a guest post over at lifehack.org about managing stress by setting daily goals instead of traditional to-do lists. Daily goal-setting means chunking to-do items into a group...
• The Power of Goals One of my big focuses is on the power of goal setting. It is the subject of a software project I am working on designed to teach the subject. I...
• Achieving Impossible Goals Have you ever had an ambition or desire that you simply couldn’t see yourself achieving? A goal that, given your past behavior doesn’t seem likely to be obtained? Becoming fit...
• Goals an Interactive Guide I am pleased to announce that my interactive program designed to help teach goal setting is now available from the programs section of this website. It was a very interesting...
• Do You Even Want Success? (The Perils of Achievement Bias) Biases distort our perception of reality. Consider survivorship bias. This is the fact that when viewing a group, you often only have the ability to look at the success stories,...

About Scott

• Ultralearning
• Free Newsletter

MSU Extension

Achieving your goals: an evidence-based approach.

John Traugott, Michigan State University Extension - August 26, 2014

To achieve goals, write them down, make a plan and solicit support from a friend.

Setting and attaining goals is an important step in achieving success academically, in the working world and in life in general. Often people identify well defined goals and start out gung-ho and motivated toward achieving them, only to look back weeks later wondering where they got off track. New research suggests strategies to overcome this problem, providing empirical evidence that writing down your goals, committing to action steps and developing a support network dramatically increases success in attaining them. Michigan 4-H Youth Development offers strategies to help you achieve the goals you set.

A widely accepted goal setting practice is to decide what you want to obtain or achieve and then write down a “SMART” goal. SMART goals are S pecific in that they define the who, what, when and where of your goal. SMART goals should also be M easureable, so you can track your progress and they should be something that is personally within your ability to A ttain. Finally, they should be something that is R ealistic for you to achieve and set within a specific T imeframe.     

The next phase, where many goal setters fall short, is to plan the steps you need to take and then put your plan into action. Questions to consider include:

• What activities do I need to complete to achieve my goal and in what timeframe?
• What resources do I need?
• Who can help me achieve my goal?

Additionally, you need to anticipate potential problems and brainstorm possible solutions. Find a supportive friend or network to help you stay on track with your goal and touch-base weekly with those friends to resolve issues and to assist in staying focused on success.

A recent study by Psychology Professor Dr. Gail Matthews confirms the importance of the steps above to achieve goals, providing empirical evidence that supports the practice of writing down goals and committing to action steps. Her research also highlights the effectiveness of goal setters soliciting a supportive friend to hold them accountable for completing their action steps through weekly progress updates. Matthews’s study broke participants into five groups, each with different instructions. The first group had unwritten goals, the second wrote their goals down, the third wrote down both goals and action commitments, the forth wrote goals and actions and gave them to a friend, and the fifth group gave their written goals and actions to a friend and also provided weekly updates.

The results of the study showed that 76 percent of participants who wrote down their goals, actions and provided weekly progress to a friend successfully achieved their goals. This result is 33 percent higher than those participants with unwritten goals, with a success rate of only 43 percent of goals achieved. This study shows the value of taking the time to write down your goals, create an action plan and develop a system of support to hold yourself accountable for achieving your goals.

Michigan State University Extension offers a variety of educational articles, programs and resources to learn more about setting career related, academic and personal goals.

This article was published by Michigan State University Extension . For more information, visit https://extension.msu.edu . To have a digest of information delivered straight to your email inbox, visit https://extension.msu.edu/newsletters . To contact an expert in your area, visit https://extension.msu.edu/experts , or call 888-MSUE4MI (888-678-3464).

Did you find this article useful?

Ready to grow with 4-H? Sign up today!

new - method size: 3 - Random key: 1, method: tagSpecific - key: 1

You Might Also Be Interested In

AC3 Podcast episode 3

Published on June 30, 2021

MIFruitcast: Biological Controls with Jackie Perkins

Published on December 1, 2023

University of Minnesota #IPM50

Published on August 24, 2022

Now and Later Hemp Regulations

Published on April 1, 2020

Planned Leftovers with Stephanie Meck

Published on September 17, 2020

Keep your friends close and your Friends of Extension closer

Published on February 4, 2019

• 4-h careers & entrepreneurship
• careers & entrepreneurship
• life skills
• msu extension
• 4-h careers & entrepreneurship,
• careers & entrepreneurship,
• life skills,

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The mechanism of goal-setting participation’s impact on employees’ proactive behavior, moderated mediation role of power distance

Sabeeh pervaiz.

1 School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China

2 School of Finance and Economics, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China

Associated Data

All the relevant data is provided in the paper, and due to respondents ethical concerns if the future researchers needs any further data it can be obtained by contacting the corresponding author via email.

Organizations nowadays are under immense external pressure due to advancements in information technology, making it precarious. It also inserts extra pressure to keep the employees motivated and productive. Therefore, while information technology benefits the organization, it also challenges the organization and employees more. In order to meet these challenges, many organizations have begun to flatten their organizational structures and decentralized their management approaches. This study collected 336 valid questionnaires from 20 service companies. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire were tested. In addition, the exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Relevant analysis and empirical analysis were also carried out using hierarchical regression. The study finds that (1) Goal-setting participation positively affects employees’ proactive behavior. (2) Perceived insider status plays a mediating role between goal-setting participation and employee proactive behavior. (3) The power distance positively modifies the goal-setting participation in the relationship of employee’s perceived insider status. (4) Power distance positively moderates perceived insider status in the relationship of goal-setting participation on employee proactive behavior through perceived insider status. This research applies goal-setting theory and social cognition theory to build a theoretical framework for the influence mechanism of goal-setting participation on employee’s proactive behavior. Expands the application scope of fundamental theoretical research and improve understanding of the relationship between goal-setting participation and employee’s proactive behavior. The research conclusions help organizations understand the formation mechanism of employees’ proactive behaviors, strengthen the focus on goal-setting participation, and optimize the relationship between leaders and employees.

Introduction

This rapid development era in information technology brings more intense, complex, and unpredictable competition for the organization, making it hard for the organization to keep the employees engaged and active. Talented and enthusiastic employees are an essential part of any organization, as organizations’ performance depends heavily on them. Unfortunately, very little research has been done on how organizations, via education and training, care for their employees on a larger scale than in the industry. Human capital is typically recognized as the only resource to be enhanced continually. In long-term efforts to increase the level of organizations, it may be considered significant [ 1 ]. The realization of the learning organization idea became relevant when businesses used staff education and training to boost growth, competitiveness, and adaptability to external changes. The establishment of a learning organization has become a critical component of long-term corporate development, assisting in acquiring and maintaining a competitive edge [ 2 ].

It is vital to look for the antecedents that can keep employees motivated and beneficial. The previously positive effect of employees’ proactive behavior on the organization concluded that employees could actively provide job suggestions and feedback to overcome difficulties and improve their performance [ 3 ]. Through active collection and feedback, new employees can clarify their job responsibilities, information, role imitation, and role positioning in the work process more quickly [ 4 ]. Employees’ active participation in daily social interactions can build good subordinate relationships and create a decent working atmosphere. However, modernization has brought many changes to the work setting now. Organizations often make decisions that are not user-friendly; thus, employees feel inactive when they are imposed to follow the supervisor’s orders [ 5 ]. Employee behavior is influenced by various internal (family and personal life, supervisors’ behavioral integrity, trust) and external (work culture, job responsibility, effective communication, work relationships) variables [ 6 ]. Other modern factors that may influence employee behavior are the effectiveness of remuneration regulation, identifying "bottlenecks," substantiating socially responsible programs. Identifying priority areas and developing management, Decisions, and monitoring the implementation of planned regulatory measures in remuneration [ 7 ]. Any organization’s productivity is heavily dependent on the commitment and dedication of its employees. Therefore, how to effectively stimulate employee’s proactive behavior has been the main idea of this paper.

Proactive employees are an essential asset for any organization, and retaining such employees has always been a big concern for organizations. Because of the information asymmetry between job seekers and employers, potential employees are choosing insufficient educational topics and, as a result, investing in insufficient competencies [ 8 ]. Highly qualified people are likely to have relevant, on-demand skills, become more easily integrated into society because they have improved foreign linguistic and cultural knowledge; have better access to world information sources through social and professional networking services. As a result, middle-income nations, where people can afford to go, have greater emigration rates. The entry of highly qualified migrants increases the destination country’s human capital and creates a suitable competitive environment for local inhabitants, encouraging training and acquiring new information and skills [ 9 ].

Many scholars have contributed a lot through research. However, Previous research has paid more attention to the antecedent variables of employees’ proactive behavior, such as personality traits, positive emotions, and work motivations [ 10 – 12 ]. Most scholars do not consider the effect of goal-setting and decision-making participation on employees’ positive psychological state, which may strengthen employee’s proactive behavior. Setting goals in our daily life can keep the employees engaged and active in their approach. According to the goal management theory proposed by Peter Drucker, goals have a significant incentive impact on employees’ job motivation, attitude, and behavior [ 13 ]. At the same time, goal-setting can become a vital driving force for employees to engage in work that promotes organizational and personal goals. A goal can have several types, whereas goal-setting participation is a particular type of employee decision-making [ 14 ]. Participating in goal-setting can affect the individual’s importance evaluation and accessibility of the goal, affecting their sense of control and acceptance of the goal achievement [ 15 ]. It enables employees to understand the organizational goals clearly and remain aligned with organizational values. This stimulates a series of positive actions to optimize their work systems, achieve common organizational development goals, and generate insider identity [ 16 ]. Goal-setting is how employees can participate in the management and create an organizational atmosphere of trust and respect.

The employees’ willingness to participate in goal-setting and affect their attitudes and behaviors depends on the power distance between leaders and employees. Employees with lower power distance have a more substantial need to be respected. In comparison, Employees with higher power distance have a higher acceptance of unequal power distribution [ 17 ]. If employees are treated accordingly, It makes employees more likely to feel respect, recognition, and support from the organization. An essential part of the organization is strengthening employees’ internal identity perception and consolidating insiders’ identities [ 18 ]. Therefore, employees will take a series of actions to promote organizational development. Introducing the variable of power distance as a moderator will help interpret the specific goal-setting participation mechanism in the organizational context. It will also help understand the influence of different power distance levels in goal-setting participation affecting perceived insider status.

Locke first proposed Goal-Setting Theory in 1967. The theory believes that setting appropriate goals can enable individuals to achieve goals and motivate employees. In setting goals, employee participation and employees’ feedback on completing goals are key elements motivating employees. They allow employees to clarify the difficulty and clarity of goals and increase employees’ grasp and recognition. In achieving goals, achievement needs will be transformed into intrinsic motivation, making people work hard to achieve goals. In this process, individuals will constantly compare their behavioral results with the established goals. They will adjust and improve their efforts in real-time to ensure the realization of the goals [ 14 ]. Clarity and difficulty are the two fundamental attributes of a goal. The effect of target motivation is affected by these two attributes and the surrounding environment. Yukl and Latham proposed a comprehensive model of Goal-setting. When setting goals, employees should be involved in the organization’s goal-setting. Factors such as individual differences among employees should be considered [ 19 ]. Locke and Latham [ 20 ] further conducted empirical research on survey subjects in different industries and occupations. They found that clear and challenging goals can improve employees’ work performance. Goal-setting theory has been widely used to improve the work performance of employees. Goal-setting participation can explain a series of work attitudes and behaviors of employees. Goal-setting participation can make employees clarify the difficulty and feasibility of goals, increase their autonomy, feel the organization’s respect, significantly improve employees’ enthusiasm at work, and indirectly affect employees’ behavior.

American psychologist Bandura proposed social cognitive theory in 1986. This theory mainly explores the relationship between the environment, cognition, and behavior of the individual. Previous studies have mostly applied social cognition theory to study the impact of organizational management on individual anti-productive behaviors and advocacy behaviors [ 21 ]. Compeau et al. [ 22 ] applied social cognition theory to establish an individual’s social cognition mechanism in "environment-cognition-behavior." Employees process according to the information obtained from the environment and use this to construct self-awareness and behavior to keep consistent with the external environment. Goal-setting participation is a specific work situation, which is adequate to become an employee’s specific work environment affecting employees’ self-perception and behavior. Therefore, it can be combined with social cognitive mechanisms to study the goal setup mechanism to influence participation on employees’ proactive behavior.

Hence this study expands research of goal-setting participation in several respects. First, this research explored the influence mechanism of goal-setting participation on employees’ proactive behavior in the presence of goal-setting theory. Many researchers widely accepted and explored this theory in similar contexts [ 23 , 24 ]. It is reasonable to include the goal-setting theory and social cognitive theory in the study of goal-setting participation on employee proactive behavior. Secondly, this research examined the mediating effect of perceived insider status in this research setting, which will help the organizations better understand employees’ perceptions and outcomes. Third, the variable of power distance is introduced as a moderator between goal-setting participation and perceived insider status. This study hypothesizes that power distance can play a vital role in the overall relation. It will help the managers to understand their employees and design the goals accordingly. Hence, this study expands the theoretical basis’s scope. Additionally, it enriches the theoretical literature and empirical research on goal-setting participation and the antecedent variables of employees’ proactive behavior. Most importantly, this research provided some enlightenment to the management practices, such as encouraging employees to participate in the management, optimizing the relationship between leaders and employees. It will help create a harmonious working environment, improve the management levels, and promote its healthy development in the long term.

Hypotheses development

Participation in goal-setting and proactive behavior.

Nowadays, organizations are more concerned about employee involvement in setting up organizational goals. Internal difficulties, such as inefficient hiring, continuous improvement, job structure, and motivation, are the primary challenges in modern personnel management at such companies [ 25 ]. For organizations that desire talent onsite rather than remote contract employees, a scarcity of experienced applicants in the area might be a significant issue. SME’s, which, in principle, appear to be the most adaptable for use with modern personnel levers, have proven inadequately intimate [ 26 ]. Employees have become more educated and have high negotiation skills [ 27 ]. Managers also support this concept of employee involvement in setting up their goals, which gives employees motivation and managers the supremacy to motivate and direct their employees to achieve those goals. According to Erez et al. [ 28 ], Participation in goal-setting refers to employee involvement in setting up the goals. Participation in goal-setting makes the goals more acceptable and leads to more involvement from employees. Organizations and managers allow employees to work together to set up the organization’s goals. It helps the employee with more involvement and proactive behavior [ 29 ]. In setting goals, employees can have intrinsic motivation and desire to obtain them, positively affecting organizations in the longer run. Employees can also make observations and recommendations about the content and standards

Many scholars have previously explored goal-setting participation to increase the individual’s understanding of completing the organization’s goals, increasing the goals’ acceptance, and improving the employee’s goal commitment level [ 30 – 32 ]. Employees’ trust in managers is enhanced when they have a reduced power distance [ 33 ], clarifies the guidelines in goal completion [ 34 ], and improves employees’ internal motivation [ 35 ]. The employee’s inner motivation determines the employee’s work attitude and behavior. In contrast, extrinsic motivation plays a vital role in decreasing the power distance as an employee feels connected and part of the organization.

This study proposed the following views. Based on the previous discussion and literature review, goal-setting participation can increase employees’ proactive behavior [ 23 ]. This assumption supported the goal-setting theory; participation in goal-setting can increase the individual’s understanding of achieving its goals [ 36 ]. However, it also increases the acceptance of goals and improves the employee’s goal commitment [ 37 ]. Studies have shown that employees’ independent decision-making power promotes trust and intrinsic motivation through participation. Building a positive emotions model to promote employee initiative can play a driving role in increasing employee initiative behavior [ 38 ]. Participating in the goal-setting process can increase the possibility of achieving the goal, as employees will control the goal’s difficulty within the scope of their ability [ 39 ].

Secondly, Goal-setting involvement increases an employee’s sense of self-efficacy. Çetin & Aşkun [ 40 ] research suggests that employees’ self-efficacy improves employees’ internal work motivation and promotes proactive behavior. This concept is well supported in the light of the Social learning theory Bandura [ 41 ]. It is defined as” people’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exercise their influence over events that affect their lives .” Personal belief in the capabilities can drive a person to set a goal of high standards. Goal-setting attaches to a person’s belief or confidence in achieving the task. If a person has strong self-efficacy, they will set higher standards goals and have a firmer approach in achieving goals [ 42 ]. Similarly, Shoaib & Kohli [ 24 ] suggested that managers focus on the employee’s contribution and participation in the goal-setting process only when positively influencing the employee’s initiative.

Furthermore, this study proposed that communication is the key to any good relationship. According to Grunig [ 43 ], businesses should treat employee relations in the same way they treat other critical stakeholders: Grunig further said that good employee communications might lead to better employee relationships and more supportive employee actions toward businesses. Employees who receive favorable feedback on their performance are more likely to preserve reliable connections with their employers. Good communication between the company and employees and among coworkers is the foundation of long-term engagement [ 44 ]. In addition, the communication environment and system of an organization are significant contextual factors that influence involvement. Translucent organizational communication is indeed an organization’s premeditated dissemination of information in combination with its active involvement in information acquisition and distribution to hold companies accountable for business legislation and processes in a genuine, substantial, and comprehensive way [ 45 ]. Both controls and communication are key elements to create a management system that can increase innovation and market performance standards among small and medium-sized enterprises. In each small and medium-sized business, they both participate in the distinctive culture of a business [ 46 ].

Communication between employees and managers increases the employee’s understanding of the goals and minimizes the power distance [ 47 ]. Employees feel more connected, motivated, and attached to the organization when they believe they hear their voice. David [ 48 ] found that employee participation management can help employees understand their roles better and recognize the development strategy. Employees perceive a high degree of trust in the organization, generate a sense of accomplishment, and belong to the organization [ 49 ]. This sense of belonging and achievement drives employees to generate positive emotions, improve organizational commitment, optimistic attitude, and proactive behaviors. Many researchers in the West have also researched different types of employees and industries and reached the same conclusions [ 50 , 51 ]. Employees working in different industries have the exact needs and desire to be recognized by their organization and managers. Hence we can expect participation in goal-setting to have a positive relationship with employee active behavior.

Hypothesis 1: Participation in goal-setting positively affects employees’ proactive behavior .

The mediating role of perceived insider status

Perceived insider status (PIS) relates to how employees believe themselves as part of an organization [ 52 ]. When employees feel more connected to an organization, they will exhibit positive behavior towards the organization. Previous researchers have studied perceived insider status with two different approaches. According to inducement contribution theory, Employees perceive themselves as an insider of the organization and an integral part of the organization setting. They believe the organization has provided them personal space and acceptance [ 16 ]. Whereas organizational socialization theory relates that employees feel connected to an organization and help new employees gather essential information about the company [ 53 ]. Studies showed that employees who feel connected and valued at the start of their jobs have long tenures and productivity [ 54 , 55 ].

Participation in goal-setting is a specific work situation that creates a work environment that can determine the organization’s feelings. The organization is willing to empower employees to participate in the organization’s goal-setting and employees have the right to participate and speak [ 56 ]. This way of empowering management sends a signal to employees that the organization recognizes its capabilities. Managers and employees have formed a mutual sharing, mutual respect, mutual tolerance of the common work model [ 57 ]. Research conducted by Ding [ 52 ] also discussed the positive relationship between participation in goal-setting and perceived insider status. Participation in goal-setting allows employees to feel the organization’s recognition of their capabilities. It creates an atmosphere of trust in the organization [ 58 ], respect of the organization [ 48 ], and an increased sense of belonging [ 18 ].

Employees with strong insider status “insiders” of the organization have a stronger sense of emotional connection and belief, resulting in spontaneous, forward-looking, and transformative initiatives [ 16 ]. This results in many behaviors conducive to organizational development, such as organizational citizenship behavior. Wang [ 18 ] proposed that employees with strong insider identity awareness prioritize the organization’s interests over personal interests and are more motivated to work. Employees will generally think about organizational-related issues from a long-term perspective of insider behavior. They will actively seek and share solutions and be better at overcoming obstacles at work. Favero [ 59 ] suggests that strong insider perception makes employees more willing to take on challenging tasks. They will produce innovative behaviors that are conducive to the development of the organization. Based on the previous research, we propose that perceived insider status plays a “bridge” role between goal-setting participation and employee proactive behavior. Based on this self-awareness, employees will think that they have common interests with the organization.

This research also supports the previous concept of Goal-setting involvement, making employees aware that the organization’s goals are closely linked to their goals. It creates a sense of self-awareness that they share the same interests as the organization [ 60 ]. When employees participate in the organization’s goal-setting process, the employees will provide personal opinions and suggestions on the difficulty and accuracy of the goals under their circumstances [ 61 ]. Nowadays, employees are more concerned with the goals setting accuracy and difficulty. They do not encourage the passive approach from the organization in setting up the goals. Employees will have a clearer understanding of the organization’s goals and increased acceptance of goals [ 59 ]. When the employees and the organization’s goals are consistent, the value of the employee’s organizational relationship is improved, and employees will consider themselves part of the organization. Based on the above discussion, we can hypothesize the positive relationship between participation in goal-setting and perceived insider status.

Hypothesis 2 : Perceived insider status mediates the relationship between goal-setting participation and employee proactive behavior .

The moderating role of power distance

With a positive nature of participation in goal-setting on employee proactive behavior, Many researchers have introduced the variables such as autonomous motivation [ 62 ] and employee trust [ 63 ] overall effect to measure this relationship. This section of the paper introduces power distance as a moderator. Power distance refers to the distribution of power in an organization and its acceptance from employees [ 33 ]. Employees can have a dual approach to this power distance. Employees who believe power distance should exist in the organization are referred to as high power distance employees. Whereas some employees support, managers having less control over their subordinates are low power distance employees [ 64 ]. Employees with high power distance tend to obey the leadership’s work pattern. In contrast, employees with low power distance tend to work in a decentralized way. This study discusses the power distance in a dual approach.

First, Employees who believe that the manager should hold power over their subordinates support the idea of having a formal relationship at work. Such employees believe attitudes and performances are not dependent on power distance [ 17 ]. Employees at a high power distance often think that leadership and employees are not equal, and employees are bound to comply with managers. Research by Wang and Guan [ 64 ] also supports that such employees will accept the organization’s centralized management and are inclined to follow the authority. Employees believe that top management is responsible for the decision-making process and rarely question their decisions. In organizations requiring employees to participate in the organization’s goal-setting, employees with high power distances will choose conservative strategies [ 65 ]. “Especially in the process of participating in goal-setting, employees with high power distances are less willing to participate in the organization’s goals. if there is a high level of uncertainty about a factor in the goal-setting process.”

On the other hand, some employees believe that their organization must include them in the decision-making process or feel left out. Such employees desire low power distance [ 66 ]. Employees with low power distance levels are willing to participate in the organization’s goal-setting. Studies have shown that employees with low power distance display negative behaviors when they are not included in goal-setting [ 67 ]. Research by Wang and Guan [ 64 ] states that authoritarian leaders are expected to affect low power distance employees negatively. This study argues that low power distance need is related to low perceived insider status. With less power distance, employees will have more access to organizational matters and increased insider identity. Hence it propose that power distance act as a moderator in the relation of participation in goal-setting on perceived insider status.

Hypothesis 3 : Power distance will moderate the relationship between participation in goal-setting on perceived insider status . High power distance will result in high perceived insider status , and lower power distance will have lower perceived insider status .

The moderated mediation role of power distance

As per the previous research summary and theoretical analysis, there is a correlation between goal-setting participation and employee’s perception of insider identity. Also, there is a correlation between the perception of insider’s identity and employees’ proactive behavior. However, the difference in power distance may affect the degree of employee participation in goal-setting. Power distance is an organization, group, staff, and other psychological perception of uneven power distribution. The distribution of power imbalance is more likely to be accepted in higher power distance organizations.

Previous studies have not directly tested the moderating effect of power distance between participation in goal-setting and perception of internal identity. In addition, previous studies have mainly studied the impact on management practices from the differences in the power distance of employees themselves and rarely comprehensively considered the level of power distance between organizations, managers, and employees [ 68 ]. There is not much research on the participation of the three power distance levels brought to management practice. Consequently, the level of power distance between organizations, managers, employees and the difference in power distance between the three factors that need to be considered affect employees’ participation in goal-setting. Managers with different power distances will have different management styles and different perceptions of employee behaviors and ways of responding to employee behaviors [ 69 ]. Employees with different power distance levels are willing to participate in the organization’s goal-setting to various degrees. Managers with different power levels are willing to let employees participate in the organization’s goal-setting [ 70 ]. According to the theory of social cognition, employees’ internal perception of identity is also unique [ 71 ].

Most previous research has used power distance as a moderating variable due to its controlling nature. Many studies have been conducted on the moderating effect of power distance at the individual level among various variables [ 67 , 72 ] For example, the moderating effect of power distance between different types of leadership styles [ 73 ], management styles and employee behaviors [ 68 ], superior-subordinate relationships [ 74 ], and organizational performance [ 64 ]. The power distance of employees negatively regulates shared leadership and employee admonition behavior [ 65 ]. Employees with high power distance will reduce conflicts with leaders and other members in the work process and negatively regulates the relationship between moral leaders and subordinates. Virtue leaders create a respected and trusted working atmosphere for employees; hence employees with low power distance have stronger motivation to interact with leaders. Therefore, It is easy to establish a good relationship between superiors and subordinates. The power distance of the group positively regulates the relationship between the management method of the organization’s differentiated authorization, employee fairness perception, and employee performance [ 47 ]. The group with high power distance believes that the differentiated authorization is the organization’s comprehensive consideration of employee differences and the choices made can improve the performance of the organization.

In summary, the power distance at all levels has a range of effects on employees’ proactive behavior. In a country with a high power distance like China, the influence of the different power distance levels of the organizations or individuals studied has essential theoretical and practical significance on employee behavior. Therefore, power distance moderates the mediating variable of perceived insider status variable to explore the influence mechanism of goal-setting participation on employees’ proactive behavior.

Hypothesis 4: Power distance will moderate the mediating role of perceived insider status between Participation in goal-setting and Proactive behavior. While Power distance is high, the mediating effect will be enhanced; When Power distance is low, the mediating effect is weakened .

The theoretical model can be seen in Fig 1 .

Methodology

The service industry is one of the fast-growing industries in China and explored by many researchers. The questionnaire was designed on a weblink and circulated to HR managers of 20 service companies (including 7 hospitals, 4 logistic services, 5 travel companies, and 4 telecom companies). 20 questionnaires were sent to respective HR managers for dissemination among employees. Since the respondents had to fill the questionnaire in three phases with time intervals, a code was assigned to each respondent.

The first phase of data collection measured goal-setting participation, power distance, and demographic information initiated in January 2020. 440 total questionnaires were distributed, and 386 were received. Upon further assessing the returned questionnaires, incomplete and influenced questionnaires were deleted in every phase. Therefore 380 valid questionnaires were recovered during phase one.

The second phase of data collection was carried out to collect data on perceived insider status in April 2020. 380 questionnaires were returned to the respective employees, and 364 were received. The valid questionnaire during this phase was reported as 362. The third phase of data collection commenced in June 2020. 362 questionnaires were sent back to measure employees’ proactive behavior, and 347 responses were received. Upon the final validation of questionnaires, 336 valid data sample was obtained with a response rate of 76.36%. All the research processes were rigorously monitored and standardized. Participants were asked to complete the survey items uniformly within the prescribed time limit, and the purpose of the research was conveyed to participants. Therefore, the objectivity, confidentiality, and authenticity of the collected data were ensured to a certain extent.

The distribution of men and women is relatively balanced, of which 59.83% are male and 40.17% are female. In terms of age, 22.62% are under 25,51.19% are 26–35, 17.56% are 36–45, and 8.63% are over 46. In terms of education level, the proportion of undergraduates is 46.72% at the maximum, and 14.29% of those with a junior college education or below. In terms of tenure, 27.08% of respondents had less than 5 years spent in the company, 24.40% had spent 6–10, 24.40% had spent 11–16 years, where the most number of respondents reported in tenure of 17–25 years with 35.42%,and above 26 years reported as 3.57%.

Ethical issues

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct by the American Psychological Association (APA). The research was granted access by the ethics committee of the School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, the People’s Republic of China, as a part of Ph.D. Dissertation. The Industrial linkages between the university and service industries supported getting the approvals from participating companies’ employees council. The participating companies’ HR departments were informed, and all the participants provided the written consent. The research was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Scales selection

Goal-setting participation.

The goal-setting participation is based on a scale developed by Sholihin et al. [ 75 ] with a Cronbach α reliability coefficient of 0.719. The scale contains 2 items. Among that is, "the organization allows employees to participate in setting related work goals, and employees participate in work related to themselves."

Employee proactive behavior

The employee proactive behavior scale was developed by Frese et al. [ 76 ] and the Cronbach α reliability coefficient is 0.640. The scale has a total of 7 items. However, confirmatory and exploratory tests found that deleting 3 of these items can improve the questionnaire’s validity. Therefore, the scale contains 4 items, such as "Every time a problem occurs, the employee will immediately find a solution; usually, you will do more than required," and so on.

Power distance

Power distance draws on a scale compiled by Culpepper & Watts [ 77 ]. This scale was obtained based on the research of Hofstede. The Cronbach α reliability coefficient is 0.919. The scale has a total of 8 items, such as "corporate rules cannot be broken, even if employees believe that changes are beneficial to the company’s interests on work-related matters. Managers often expect subordinates to obey unconditionally."

Perceived insider status

Stamper & Masterson [ 78 ] developed the scale of perceived insider status. The Cronbach α reliability coefficient is 0.84. The scale includes 5 items, as "employees feel that they are insiders of the organization, and the organization often makes employees feel that they have not been left out."

Control variables

This study considers that demographic variables may affect the relationship between goal-setting participation, power distance, perceived insider status, and employee active behavior variables, so it controls the respondents’ gender, age, education, and tenure.

Reliability and validity test

This study used KMO and Bartlett’s spheres to examine the factor analysis suitability. The KMO coefficient is 0.883, which is greater than 0.7, and the significance of Bartlett’s sphericity test is 0.000, which is less than 0.001.

Since the data was obtained through self-assessment by the respondents, in order to reduce common method bias, this study performed Harman’s data on the four variables of goal-setting participation, power distance, perceived insider status, and employee proactive behavior. There are four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, consistent with the number of variables set in the study. The factor loading matrix extracts four principal components consistent with the study setting [ 79 ]. The cumulative variance contribution rate is 66.863%, within the acceptable range [ 80 ]. The first-factor variation contribution rate is 33.848%, which is lower than the empirical standard threshold of 40%. This shows no serious common method deviation between these four variables.

This study used AMOS 21.0 to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis of the survey data. This verifies the matching of the data with the model and the validity of the data, as shown in Table 1 . The research results show that the four-factor model has the best fit (χ2 / df = 3.198, RMSEA = 0.071, CFI = 0.980, TLI = 0.964). It can be seen that goal-setting participation, perceived insider status, power distance, and employee proactive behavior have good reliability and discriminative validity. The data obtained from the questionnaire is valid.

Note PGS; participation in goal setting, PIS; perceived insider status, EPB; active employee behavior, PD; power distance

This research conducted the Fornell Larcker test to check the discriminant validity. The results showed that AVE’s square root values of goal-setting participation (0.646), perceived insider status (0.669), employee proactive behavior (0.665), and power distance (0.707) presented in Table 2 are more significant than other correlation coefficients in the same rows and columns, stating that the variables have good discriminant validity.

1) *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05

2) The numbers on the diagonal are A V E .

3) PGS; participation in goal setting, PIS; perceived insider status, EPB; active employee behavior, PD; power distance

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

The mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficient of these four variables are shown in Table 2 . There was a significant positive correlation between goal-setting participation and employee proactive behavior (r = 0.382, p <0.001). Goal-setting participation was significantly positively correlated with employee’s perceived insider status (r = 0.378, p <0.001). Perceived insider status was significantly positively correlated with employee active behavior (r = 0.483, p <0.001). Goal-setting participation has a positive relationship with employees’ perception of insider identity and employee’s proactive behavior. Whereas perceived insider status also positively relates to employee’s proactive behavior, providing a base for hypothesis 1. The correlation coefficients between the various variables are lower than 0.75, indicating no multicollinearity between the variables, supporting the subsequent testing and regression analysis.

Test of mediating role of perceived insider status

Goal-setting participates in the primary effect test that affects employees’ proactive behavior. Among all the main effects analysis models, gender, age, education, and tenure were used as control variables for the study. The test results are shown in Table 3 . It can be seen from Model 4 that goal-setting participation has a significant positive impact on employee proactive behavior (β = 0.350, p <0.001), and Hypothesis 1 is verified.

1) PGS; participation in goal setting, PIS; perceived insider status, EPB; active employee behavior

2) *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05

This study used a hierarchical regression method to test the mediating effect of perceived insider status. The test results are shown in Table 3 . Model 2 shows that goal-setting participation has a significant positive effect on perceived insider status (β = 0.357, p <0.001). Model 5 shows that employees’ perception of insider identity significantly impacts employees’ proactive behavior (β = 0.449, p <0.001). When the control variables, goal-setting participation, and perceived insider status were included in the regression equation (Model 6), The predictive effect of goal-setting participation on employee’s positive behavior weakened (β = 0.221, p <0.001), and perceived insider status significantly affected employee proactive behavior (β = 0.359, p <0.001). Perceived insider status plays a part of the mediating role between goal-setting participation and employee proactive behavior. The results obtained supported hypothesis 2.

Furthermore, the study in Table 4 conducted bootstrapping to test the mediation effect of insider status in the direct and indirect effect of goal-setting participation on employee practive behavior. Under the direct effect of goal-setting participation on employee proactive behavior. The direct effect is significant (95% confidence interval CI = [LLCI = 0.1385, ULCI = 0.3043] did not include 0). Hence the result supports Hypotheses 1. Under the condition, the indirect effect is significant (95% confidence interval CI = [LLCI = 0.853, ULCI = 0.1740], which did not include 0) and verifies hypothesis 2.

Test of moderating effects of power distance

In this study, the hierarchical regression method is used to test the moderating effect of power distance. The test results are shown in Table 5 . Model 4 shows that goal-setting participation positively effects the perceived insider status (β = 0.260, p <0.001).An interactive item between goalsetting participation and power distance significantly affects perceived insider status (β = 0.027, p <0.05). It shows that both the coefficients are positive in nature and power distance positively moderates the relationship between goal-setting participation and perceived insider status, verifying Hypothesis 3.

Note PGS; participation in goal setting, PIS; perceived insider status, EPB; active employee behavior, PD; power distance (2) *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05

This study draws a graph of the power distance adjustment effect to describe further the direction and trend of the power distance adjustment effect, as shown in Fig 2 . The test results are consistent with Hypothesis 3. The solid line represents the high power distance level group, and the dotted line represents the low power distance level group. The research results show when employees or organizations have a high level of power distance, the positive correlation between employees’ perception of insider identity and goal-setting participation is relatively steep. Whereas employees or organizations having a low power distance, The positive correlation between human identity perception and goal-setting participation is relatively flat. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is verified.

Test of moderated mediation

This research used Mplus to conduct the moderated mediation analysis, and the results are stated in Table 6 . In low power distance, goal-setting participation on employee proactive behavior through perceived insider status is significant at 0.123***. In contrast, at high power distance, the effect of goal-setting participation on employee proactive behavior through perceived insider status is significant at 0.137***. The difference between the indirect effect of low power distance and high power distance is observed effective at 0.015*, proving the moderated mediation and supporting the model.

*** p<0.001

** p<0.01

* p<0.05

This study built a theoretical model of the impact of goal-setting participation on employees’ proactive behavior centered on goal-setting theory and social cognitive theory. In this model, the perceived insider identity is used as an intermediary variable. The realization path of goal-setting participation to employee’s proactive behavior is also discussed. Furthermore, this study explores the positive regulating effect of goal-setting participation and perceived insider status using power distance as a moderator variable. It further influences the role of goal-setting participation in promoting employee’s proactive behavior. The questionnaire survey was used to verify the theoretical hypothesis. The research conclusions are as follows:

First, goal-setting participation has a positive impact on employees’ proactive behavior. When the organization’s degree of goal-setting participation is low, strengthening the organizational atmosphere of goal-setting participation can promote employees’ proactive behavior to a certain extent, consistent with the previous results [ 81 , 82 ]. Based on goal-setting theory, the results proposed that goal-setting participation allows employees to clarify the accuracy and difficulty of goals, increases employees’ grasp of goals, and promotes employees’ proactive behavior. Clements & Kamau’s study seconds the idea of providing more autonomy in goal-setting to have more realistic and accurate goals [ 23 ].

Second, perceived insider status plays a mediating role in goal-setting participation and employees’ proactive behavior. The goal-setting and participation in the organizational context have given employees full respect, trust and strengthened their internal identity perception [ 83 , 84 ]. Based on social cognition theory, employees develop a sense of “owner,” consistent with the research of Zagenczyk et al. [ 85 ] To consolidate employees’ status as “inners”, employees are more likely to have proactive behavior.

Third, power distance positively regulates the role of goal-setting participation on the perceived insider status and further affects employee’s proactive behavior. Results suggested and consistent with previous research that employees are unwilling to participate in goal-setting when an organization’s level of power distance is high [ 86 ]. Therefore, goal-setting participation is more robust, and a greater probability of employees’ proactive behavior. The specific performance is that in organizations with a low level of power distance, the organization’s managers believe that employee participation in decision-making can bring hitches to an organization and are keen to involve employees in the organization’s goal-setting less. Study results also suggest that employees with higher power distance have a higher acceptance of organizational inequality situations and have a lower need to set organizational goals [ 86 ]. Consistent with Anand et al.’s results, When the level of power distance is high, the lower the degree of employee participation in goal-setting, the stronger the perceived insider status [ 65 ]. The more significant the probability that the employee will take the initiative. Therefore, the level of power distance amplifies the effect of goal-setting participation.

In summary, goal-setting participation positively affects employee’s proactive behavior, and employee’s active behavior enhances organizational performance. Therefore, organizations should pay attention to and strive to create an organizational context for goal-setting participation.

Practical implications

First of all, goal-setting participation is a positive work characteristic and should receive the organization’s attention. Goal-setting participation is an empowered and decentralized management method that can maximize the organization’s resources. In the organizational context of goal-setting participation, employees feel more autonomy, allowing employees to have a clearer understanding of the difficulty and accuracy of organizational goals. Employees can make comments and suggestions, increasing the degree of recognition of the organization’s goals and their achievability. Besides, goal-setting creates an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect between the organization and employees and enhances the perception of the identity of the insiders of employees. Therefore, the organization should create an atmosphere of employee participation in Goal-setting, encourage employees to participate more, and develop a reward system for employee suggestions.

Second, organizations should focus on how to improve employees’ perception of insider identity. Previous studies have considered the positive effect of perceived insider status on organizational development from different perspectives [ 87 , 88 ]. When employees have a strong sense of insider identity, they will consider themselves and the organization a community of destiny. The organization’s development is associated with its development, resulting in positive behaviors conducive to its development. The stronger the employee’s perception of insider identity is, the greater the awareness of contributing to the organization. Therefore, organizations should continue to focus on how to increase employees’ internal identity awareness.

Finally, organizations should identify employees with different personality traits and adopt different management strategies. For example, employees with low power distances pursue an equal organizational climate. The organization should solicit more opinions from employees and be more willing to participate in goal-setting. Also, employees with low power distance levels should be selected to participate in the organization’s goal-setting in low-power distance organizations. This way, the employees’ maximum ability can maximize the organization and employees’ benefits. Organizations with different power distances should adopt different leaders and management methods. In organizations with a low level of power distance, empowered, participatory leaders can adopt effective management methods to promote proactive employee behavior.

Research limitations and future research prospects

This study applies goal-setting theory and social cognition theory to explore the influence mechanism of goal-setting participation on employee’s proactive behavior and further verified it through empirical analysis. The study results confirm the positive effect of goal-setting participation on organizational development. It makes theoretical contributions to the academic community and provides practical suggestions for corporate growth. However, this research also inevitably has some limitations.

Although this study draws on previous developed foreign scales, the differences in Chinese and foreign cultures may still lead to situational unsuitability. Subsequent research can further explore localized scales to improve their practicality in China.

Secondly, The questionnaires used in this study are all self-evaluation questions. Some answers may not be objective and fair. Subsequent research may consider inquiring in combination with experimental methods to strengthen the research conclusions’ reliability.

Thirdly, Other control variables related to employee proactive behavior are not set except for the demographic information factors. Future research should consider more control variables like organizational support, personality and job satisfaction to better explain this relationship

Fourthly, The study’s conclusion was based on an examination of 20 firms of various types, some of which are state-owned, some of which are private, and some of which are joint ventures. Furthermore, these businesses were chosen because they span a wide range of industries, including education, banking, sales and services, and more. However, including additional firms would bring fresh perspectives to future studies.

Lastly, This study applies goal-setting theory and social cognition theory to explore the mediating role of perceived insider status and moderating role of power distance in the influence mechanism of goal-setting participation on employee’s proactive behavior. Previous studies have shown that organizational identity and other factors also positively affect employee’s proactive behavior. Therefore, subsequent studies can use other theories to explore other variables between goal-setting participation and employee’s active behavior mediating and moderating effect.

Funding Statement

This study received funding from Jiangsu University & JiangSu Haicore Technology Joint Stock Co., LTD. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.

Data Availability

Goal-Setting Theory

Locke, et al (1981) defined the “goal” in Goal-Setting Theory (GST) as “what an individual is trying to accomplish; it is the object or aim of an action” (p. 126). According to Moeller et al. (2012), goal setting is the process of establishing specific and effective targets for task performance. Locke, et al. (1981) also provided evidence that goal setting has a positive influence on task performance. Latham and Locke (2007) explained that “a specific high goal leads to even higher performance than urging people to do their best” (p. 291).

Before the 1960s, some researchers began to study the effectiveness of setting goals in business. The results showed that goal setting has a positive influence on workers’ performance. However, there was a lack of theoretical framework to explain why and how goal-setting influences work performance (Latham & Locke, 2007). GST served to explain human behavior in specific work situations (Locke, 1968). After a lot of experimental research done by Locke and Latham, GST was formalized in 1990 (Locke & Latham, 1990; Locke & Latham, 2002). The theory is now seen as “one of the most influential frameworks in motivational psychology” (Nebel et al., 2017, p. 102).

Previous Studies

Studies that employ GST can be divided generally into three domains. First, in academics, setting goals was shown to have a significant influence on students’ learning performance (see, e.g., Gardner et al, 2016; Locke & Latham, 1990 ; Locke & Latham,  2002 ). For example, Gardner et al. (2016) invited 127 medical students to participate in surgical skill training. They found that goal setting was effective in helping new students acquire surgical skills, especially when students develop specific strategy and goal orientations. In other words, the study found that students have better learning performance when they have clearer and more specific goals. In addition, Neble et al. (2017) had 87 students play the video game Minecraft  (Mojang, 2011), and the results showed that for those students who set specific goals, their cognitive load was lowered. Further, Moeller and colleagues (2012) conducted a five-year quasi-experimental study on the relationship between goal setting and the performance of Spanish language learners in high school. The results indicated that having high-quality goals contributed to students’ better language acquisition.

Second, Latham and Locke (2007) pointed out in their study that, in the field of organization and human resource management, goal setting can have an impact on employees’ behavior and performance in the workplace. Based on this idea, 108 middle level banking managers in Indonesia were invited by Aunurrafiq et al. (2015) to investigate whether setting goals could have a positive impact on their managerial performance. They provided evidence that goal specificity, goal participation, and goal commitment are significant factors in enhancing managers’ managerial performance. In addition, Brown and Latham (2000) invited 36 unionized employees in a Canadian telecommunications company to test the effectiveness of three ways to increase employees’ performance. Their results indicated that the employees with specific and challenging goals reached higher performance levels than those who set goals along with self-instructions to do their best.

Third, goal setting has also been popularized in the field of sports. According to Weinburg and Butt (2014), “Setting goals can help athletes prioritize what is the most important to them in their sport and subsequently guide daily practices by knowing what to work on” (p. 343). Locke and Latham (1985) concur. In Locke and Latham’s (1985) study, they found that setting goals can be more effective in sports because the performance of sports is easier to measure. In another study, Burton et al. (2010) investigated the impact of incorporating goal setting and goal strategies between highly effective and less effective athletes among 570 college athletes who participated in 18 sports at a university. The results indicated that goal setting had a positive impact on their performance, and the athletes who set goals and implemented goal strategies more frequently tended to be both more effective than others and have better sports performance. Finally, a study conducted by Bueno et al. (2008) on the effectiveness of goal setting on endurance athletes’ performance indicated that goal setting is effective in increasing efficacy, which leads to better performance in endurance sports.

Model   of Goal-Setting Theory

This model in Figure 1 is adapted from Locke and Latham (2002) and consists of three parts: concepts, constructs, and a proposition. The concepts include key factors that affect peoples’ performance, with moderators and mediators that might affect the goals that are set. The constructs indicate that these concepts impact people’s performance and motivation. The proposition shows that a specific and challenging goal, combined with regular feedback, can increase motivation and productivity so that people can perform better. These model aspects are described below.

Locke (1990) pointed out that there are some significant factors that can impact an individual’s performance: core goal properties (e.g., specificity, challenge), moderators (e.g. ability, feedback, goal commitment), and mediators (e.g., choice, effort). Latham (2003) pointed out in one study that individuals who have specific, challenging, but attainable goals have better performance than those who set vague goals or do not set goals. Meanwhile, individuals should possess ability and have commitment to the goal to have better performance.

For the part of moderators, Locke (1990) explains ability as whether people possess skill or knowledge to finish the task. Feedback is also needed for people to decide whether they should put forth more effort or change their strategy. Moreover, goal commitment refers to whether individuals have the determination to realize the goal. In addition to ability, feedback, and commitment, task complexity is also considered important; it indicates that people tend to have better performance when the tasks are more straightforward. In addition, situational resources, the related resources or materials provided for individuals to achieve their goal, are also essential. Finally, self-efficacy refers to whether people are confident in doing something and that it will affect their goals and performance (Locke & Latham, 1990).

For the part of mediators, choice means that people will make an effort towards the goal-relevant activities when they choose to set specific and difficult goals. Furthermore, persistence refers to how long people will stick to the goal and if individuals are willing to spend time on achieving it. If so, they may have better performance (Locke & Latham, 1990). Finally, a specific, high goal needs a strategy to attain it.

According to the discussion above, with these important factors (e.g. specificity, challenge, ability, feedback, effort) in the concepts, people tend to have better performance and are more willing to face new challenges. Performance consists of a variety of behaviors, from test-taking to running a competitive race.

Proposition

To conclude, the proposition of GST is that when the concepts are optimal for an individual, better performance can result. What is optimal for each individual is a subject for research.

Using the Model

Goal-setting theory could be used in different domains such as teaching or research. In teaching, for example, this theory could be used as an instructional procedure to improve students’ writing performance for those who have difficulty in learning writing. By setting specific goals of what will be written in each paragraph, students may perform better in their writing class (Page & Graham, 1999). In addition, Nebel, et al. (2017) mentions that GST can also be used while using educational video games such as Minecraft ; goal setting can reduce students’ cognitive load when they set specific goals. Moreover, players who use educational video games and follow a specific learning goal can be impacted affectively by goal setting. In other words, students tend to become more engaged and show greater passion in finishing the task when they have clear goals. Moreover, Idowu, et al. (2014) invited 80 senior secondary school students to investigate whether goal setting skills are effective for students’ academic performance in English, and the results indicated that the incorporation of a goal setting strategy can enhance students’ academic performance in English. In other words, teachers can encourage students to create goals that can support their academic performance.

In the research area, studies investigate the influence of GST on language learners’ motivation and self-efficacy, which can better help language learners and language experts understand how to set up different goals affecting students’ self-efficacy and motivation in language learning (Azar et al., 2013). For future study, researchers could integrate goal-setting and self-efficacy theories to explore outcomes and the reasons for them, or studies could use GST with young children to see whether the theory applies across ages.

To conclude, goal setting can play a significant role in enhancing people’s motivation and performance. People who set specific, challenging goals and commit to these goals are more likely to try their best and persist in achieving the goals, which can lead to better performance and success.

Aunurrafiq., Sari, R. N., & Basri, Y. M. (2015). The moderating effect of goal setting on performance measurement system-managerial performance relationship.  Procedia Economics and Finance, 31 , 876-884.

Azar, H. F., Reza, P., & Fatemeh, V. (2014). The role of goal-setting theory on Iranian EFL learners’ motivation and self-efficacy.  International Journal of Research Studies Language Learning, 3 (2), 69-84.

Brown, T., & Latham, G. P. (2000). The effects of goal setting and self-instruction training on the performance of unionized employees .  Relations Industrielles / Industrial Relations, 55 (1), 80-95.

Bueno, J., Weinberg, R.S., Fernandez, C., & Capdevila, L. (2008). Emotional and motivational mechanisms mediating the influence of goal setting on endurance athletes’ performance.  Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9 (6), 786-799.

Burton, D., Yukelson, D., Weinberg, R., & Weigand, D. (1998). The goal effectiveness paradox in sport: Examining the goal practices of collegiate athletes.  The Sport Psychologist, 12 (4), 404-418.

Chen, X., & Latham, G. P. (2014). The effect of priming learning vs. performance goals on a complex task.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 125 (2), 88-97.

Gardner, K.A., Diesen, D.L., Hogg, D., & Huerta, S. (2016). The impact of goal setting and goal orientation on performance during a clerkship surgical skills training program.  The American Journal of Surgery, 211 (2), 321-325.

Idowu, A., Chibuzoh, I., & Louisa, M. (2014). Effects of goal-setting skills on students’ academic performance in English language in Enugu Nigeria.  Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal), 3 (2), 93-99.

 Latham, G. P. (2003). Goal setting: A five-step approach to behavior change.  Organizational Dynamics, 32 (3), 309-318.

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., & Latham, G. P. (1979). Goal setting: A motivational technique that works.  Organizational Dynamics, 8 (2), 68-80.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1985).  The application of goal setting to sports .  Journal of Sport Psychology, 7 (1985), 205-222.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990).  A theory of goal setting and task performance.  Englewood Cliffs.

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 (9), 705-717.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory . Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 265-268.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2019). The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective.  Motivation Science, 5 (2), 93-105.

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980.  Psychological Bulletin, 90 (1), 125-152.

MINECRAFT. (2011). [Developed by Mojang]. Mojang.

Moeller, A. J., Theiler, J. M., & Wu, C. (2012). Goal setting and student achievement: A longitudinal study.  The Modern Language Journal, 96 (2), 153-169.

Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Schledjewski, J., & Rey, G. D. (2017). Goal- setting in educational video games: Comparing goal-setting theory and the goal-free effect.  Simulation & Gaming, 48 (1), 98–130.

O’Neil H. F., & Drillings, M. (Eds.). (1994).   Motivation: Theory and research . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting.  Academy of Management Perspectives, 23 (1), 6-16.

Page, V., & Graham, S. (1999). Effects of goal setting and strategy use on the writing performance and self-efficacy of students with writing and learning problems.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (2), 230-240.

Weinberg, R., & Butt, J. (2014). Goal-setting and sport performance. In Athanasios G., Papaioannou, & Hackfort, D. (Eds.),  Sport and Exercise Psychology  (pp.343-355). Routledge.

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 10 min read

Locke's Goal-Setting Theory

Setting meaningful, challenging goals.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

Many of us have learned – from bosses, seminars and business articles – the importance of setting ourselves SMART objectives. We know that "SMART" stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-bound. But are these the only factors to consider if we want to achieve our goals?

Learn how to set effective goals, in this short video.

Dr Edwin Locke and Dr Gary Latham spent many years researching the theory of goal setting, during which time they identified five elements that need to be in place for us to achieve our goals.

In this article, we'll look at their research, and find out how to apply it to our own goals.

What Is Locke's Goal-Setting Theory?

In the late 1960s, Locke's pioneering research into goal setting and motivation gave us our modern understanding of goal setting. In his 1968 article " Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives ," he showed that clear goals and appropriate feedback motivate employees. He went on to highlight that working toward a goal is also a major source of motivation – which, in turn, improves performance.

Locke's research showed that the more difficult and specific a goal is, the harder people tend to work to achieve it.

Key Studies Related to Goal-Setting Theory

In one study , Locke reviewed a decade's worth of laboratory and field studies on the effects of goal setting and performance. He found that, for 90 percent of the time, specific and challenging (but not too challenging) goals led to higher performance than easy, or "do your best," goals.

For example, telling someone to "try hard" or "do your best" is less effective than saying "try to get more than 80 percent correct," or "concentrate on beating your best time." Likewise, having a goal that's too easy is not motivating. Hard goals are more motivating than easy ones, because it feels more of an accomplishment to achieve something you've worked hard for.

A few years after Locke published his article, Dr Gary Latham studied the effects of goal setting in the workplace. His results supported Locke's findings – that there is an inseparable link between goal setting and workplace performance.

In 1990, Locke and Latham published their seminal work, " A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance ." In this book, they repeated the need to set specific and difficult goals, while outlining five other characteristics for successful goal setting.

Locke and Latham's Five Principles

According to Locke and Latham, there are five goal setting principles that can improve our chances of success:

• Commitment.
• Task complexity.

Let's look at each of these elements, and explore how you can apply them to your personal goals and to your team's objectives.

1. Setting Clear Goals

When your goals are clear, you know what you're trying to achieve. You can also measure results accurately, and you know which behaviors to reward. This is why SMART is such a useful mnemonic.

However, when a goal is vague – or when you express it as a general instruction like "take initiative" – it isn't easy to measure, and it isn't motivating. You may not even know you've achieved it!

How to Set Clear Goals

2. setting challenging goals.

People are often motivated by challenging goals, however it's important not to set a goal that is so challenging it can't be achieved.

How to Set Challenging Goals

3. securing team commitment.

To be effective, your team must understand and agree to the goals – team members are more likely to "buy into" a goal if they have been involved in setting it.

This doesn't mean that you have to negotiate every goal with your team members and secure their approval. They're likely to commit to it as long as they believe that the goal is achievable, it is consistent with the company's ambitions, and the person assigning it is credible.

How to Secure Commitment to Goals

4. gaining feedback.

In addition to selecting the right goals, you should also listen to feedback, so that you can gage how well you and your team are progressing.

Feedback gives you the opportunity to clarify people's expectations and adjust the difficulty of their goals.

Keep in mind that feedback doesn't have to come from other people. You can check how well you're doing by simply measuring your own progress.

How to Give Feedback on Goals

5. considering task complexity.

Take special care to ensure that work doesn't become too overwhelming when goals or assignments are highly complex.

People who work in complicated and demanding roles can often push themselves too hard, if they don't take account of the complexity of the task.

How to Set Complex and Challenging Goals

Frequently asked questions:.

What is the basic premise of Locke's goal-setting theory? The theory posits that specific and challenging goals enhance motivation and performance. It emphasizes clarity, difficulty, commitment, and feedback as key factors in effective goal setting.

Why are challenging goals considered more effective? They encourage individuals to put in more effort and persistence. They push people to stretch their abilities and skills, leading to higher performance and personal growth, as long as the goals remain achievable.

Can this goal-setting theory be applied in any organization? Yes, it's versatile and can be applied across different types of organizations and industries. However, the specific application should consider the nature of tasks, organizational culture, and individual differences.

How does goal specificity influence performance? Specific goals provide clear, unambiguous objectives, making it easier for individuals to focus and direct their efforts effectively. This specificity leads to higher performance as individuals know exactly what is expected and can measure their progress.

Goal setting is something that many of us recognize as a vital part of achieving success.

By understanding goal-setting theory, you can apply Locke and Latham's principles to your goals. Their research confirms the usefulness of SMART goal setting, and their theory continues to influence the way that we measure performance today.

To use this tool:

• Set clear, challenging goals and commit yourself to achieving them.
• Be sure to provide feedback to others on their performance towards achieving their goals, and reflect on your own progress as well.
• Consider the complexity of the task, and break your goals down into smaller chunks, where appropriate.

If you follow these simple rules, your goal setting will be much more successful, and your overall performance will improve.

Edwin A. Locke. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance [online] . Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 157-189. Available here . [Accessed October 24, 2018.]

Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance : 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152. Available here . [Accessed October 24, 2018.]

Locke, E. and Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance . Englewood Cliffs: Pearson College Div.

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

Managing working parents.

Creating a Flexible, Happy Workforce

Business Process Reengineering

Using Radical Change to Improve Organizational Performance

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Gain essential management and leadership skills

Busy schedule? No problem. Learn anytime, anywhere. 

Subscribe to unlimited access to meticulously researched, evidence-based resources.

Join today and save on an annual membership!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Better Public Speaking

How to Build Confidence in Others

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

How to create psychological safety at work.

Speaking up without fear

How to Guides

Pain Points Podcast - Presentations Pt 1

How do you get better at presenting?

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Influencing upwards.

Have a Better Relationship With Your Boss

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast

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.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

5 Ways to Set More Achievable Goals

• Rakshitha Arni Ravishankar
• Kelsey Alpaio

#1 Connect every goal to a “why.”

Setting goals is a meaningful exercise. Still, so many of us struggle to achieve the goals we set out for ourselves. Here are five ways to set more attainable goals:

• Connect your every goal to a “why.” When you spend time understanding the “why” that’s driving your actions, it’s easier to avoid distractions and focus on pursuing your goal.
• Break your goals down. Instead of setting one big goal, break them down into smaller goals that you can accomplish every day.
• Schedule “buffer time” for your goals and increase your estimated deadline by 25%.
• Focus on continuation, not improvement. Embrace all the things you’ve already started and would like to continue or build upon with time.
• Don’t dwell on past failures. Know that it’s normal and everyone goes through a cycle of ups and down.

Where your work meets your life. See more from Ascend here .

Setting goals is a deeply meaningful exercise. Research shows that it motivates us , gives us a sense of purpose, and helps us feel accomplished.

• RR Rakshitha Arni Ravishankar is an associate editor at Ascend.
• KA Kelsey Alpaio is an Associate Editor at Harvard Business Review. kelseyalpaio

Partner Center

The Importance, Benefits, and Value of Goal Setting

We all know that setting goals is important, but we often don’t realize how important they are as we continue to move through life.

Goal setting does not have to be boring. There are many benefits and advantages to having a set of goals to work towards.

Setting goals helps trigger new behaviors, helps guides your focus and helps you sustain that momentum in life.

Goals also help align your focus and promote a sense of self-mastery. In the end, you can’t manage what you don’t measure and you can’t improve upon something that you don’t properly manage. Setting goals can help you do all of that and more.

In this article, we will review the importance and value of goal setting as well as the many benefits.

We will also look at how goal setting can lead to greater success and performance. Setting goals not only motivates us, but can also improve our mental health and our level of personal and professional success.

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:

The importance and value of goal setting, why set goals in life, what are the benefits of goal setting, 5 proven ways goal setting is effective, how can goal setting improve performance, how goal setting motivates individuals, why is goal setting important for students, a look at the importance of goal setting in mental health, the importance of goal setting in business and organizations, 10 quotes on the value and importance of setting goals, a take-home message.

Up until 2001, goals were divided into three types or groups (Elliot & McGregor, 2001):

• Mastery goals
• Performance-approach goals
• Performance-avoidance goals

A mastery goal is a goal someone sets to accomplish or master something such as “ I will score higher in this event next time .”

A performance-approach goal is a goal where someone tries to do better than his or her peers. This type of goal could be a goal to look better by losing 5 pounds or getting a better performance review.

A performance-avoidance goal is a goal where someone tries to avoid doing worse than their peers such as a goal to avoid negative feedback.

Research done by Elliot and McGregor in 2001 changed these assumptions. Until this study was published, it was assumed that mastery goals were the best and performance-approach goals were at times good, and other times bad. Performance-avoidance goals were deemed the worst, and, in fact, bad.

The implied assumption, as a result of this, was that there were no bad mastery goals or mastery-avoidance goals.

Elliot and McGregor’s study challenged those assumptions by proving that master-avoidance goals do exist and proving that each type of goal can, in fact, be useful depending on the circumstances.

Elliot and McGregor’s research utilized a 2 x 2 achievement goal framework comprised of:

• Mastery-approach
• Mastery-avoidance
• Performance-approach
• Performance-avoidance

These variables were tested in 3 studies. In experiments one and two, explanatory factor analysis was used to break down 12 goal-setting questions into 4 factors, as seen in the diagram below.

Confirmatory factor analysis was used at a later date to show that mastery-avoidance and mastery-approach fit the data better than mastery alone.

The questions for these studies were created from a series of pilot studies and prior questionnaires. Once all of the questions were combined, a factor-analysis was utilized to confirm that each set of questions expressed different goal-setting components.

Results of these studies showed that those with a high motive to achieve were much more likely to use approach goals. Those with a high motive to avoid failure, on the other hand, were much more likely to use avoidance goals.

The third experiment examined the same four achievement goal variables and revealed that those more likely to use performance-approach goals were more likely to have higher exam scores, while those who used performance-avoidance goals were more likely to have lower exam scores.

According to the research, motivation in achievement settings is complex, and achievement goals are but one of several types of operative variables to be considered.

Achievement goal regulation, or the actual pursuit of the goal, implicates both the achievement goal itself as well as some other typically higher order factors such as motivationally relevant variables, according to the research done by Elliot and McGregor.

As we can clearly see, the research on goal setting is quite robust.

Mark Murphy the founder and CEO of LeadershipIQ.com and author of the book “ Hard Goals : The Secret to Getting from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be ,” has gone through years of research in science and how the brain works and how we are wired as a human being as it pertains to goal setting.

Murphy’s book “ Hard Goals: The Secret to Getting from Where You Are to Where You Want to Be” combines the latest research in psychology and brain science on goal-setting as well as the law of attraction to help fine-tune the process.

A HARD goal is an achieved goal, according to Murphy (2010). Murphy tells us to put our present cost into the future and our future benefit into the present.

What this really means is don’t put off until tomorrow what you could do today. We tend to value things in the present moment much more than we value things in the future.

Setting goals is a process that changes over time. The goals you set in your twenties will most likely be very different from the goals you set in your forties.

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.

Edward Locke and Gary Latham (1990) are leaders in goal-setting theory. According to their research, goals not only affect behavior as well as job performance, but they also help mobilize energy which leads to a higher effort overall. Higher effort leads to an increase in persistent effort.

Goals help motivate us to develop strategies that will enable us to perform at the required goal level.

Accomplishing the goal can either lead to satisfaction and further motivation or frustration and lower motivation if the goal is not accomplished.

Goal setting can be a very powerful technique, under the right conditions according to the research (Locke & Latham, 1991).

According to Lunenburg (2011), the motivational impact of goals may, in fact, be affected by moderators such as self-efficacy and ability as well.

In the 1968 article “ Toward a Theory of Task Motivation ” Locke showed us that clear goals and appropriate feedback served as a good motivator for employees (Locke, 1968).

Locke’s research also revealed that working toward a goal is a major source of motivation, which, in turn, improves performance.

Locke reviewed over a decade of research of laboratory and field studies on the effects of goal setting and performance. Locke found that over 90% of the time, goals that were specific and challenging, but not overly challenging, led to higher performance when compared to easy goals or goals that were too generic such as a goal to do your best.

Dr. Gary Latham also studied the effects of goal setting in the workplace. Latham’s results supported Locke’s findings and showed there is indeed a link that is inseparable between goal setting and workplace performance.

Locke and Latham published work together in 1990 with their work “ A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance ” stressing the importance of setting goals that were both specific and difficult.

Locke and Latham also stated that there are five goal-setting principles that can help improve your chances of success.

• Task Complexity

Clarity is important when it comes to goals. Setting goals that are clear and specific eliminate the confusion that occurs when a goal is set in a more generic manner.

Challenging goals stretch your mind and cause you to think bigger. This helps you accomplish more. Each success you achieve helps you build a winning mindset.

Commitment is also important. If you don’t commit to your goal with everything you have it is less likely you will achieve it.

Feedback helps you know what you are doing right and how you are doing. This allows you to adjust your expectations and your plan of action going forward.

Task Complexity is the final factor. It’s important to set goals that are aligned with the goal’s complexity.

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

Goal setting and task performance were studied by Locke and Latham (1991). Goal setting theory is based upon the simplest of introspective observations, specifically, that conscious human behavior is purposeful.

This behavior is regulated by one’s goals. The directedness of those goals characterizes the actions of all living organisms including things like plants.

Goal-setting theory, according to the research, states that the simplest and most direct motivational explanation on why some people perform better than others is because they have different performance goals.

Two attributes have been studied in relation to performance:

In regard to content, the two aspects that have been focused on include specificity and difficulty. Goal content can range from vague to very specific as well as difficult or not as difficult.

Difficulty depends upon the relationship someone has to the task. The same task or goal can be easy for one person, and more challenging for the next, so it’s all relative.

On average though the higher the absolute level is of a goal, the more difficult it is to achieve. According to research, there have been more than 400 studies that have examined the relationship of goal attributes to task performance.

According to Locke and Latham (1991), it has been consistently found that performance is a linear function of a goal’s difficulty.

Given an adequate level of ability and commitment, the harder a goal, the higher the performance.

What the researchers discovered was that people normally adjust their level of effort to the difficulty of the goal. As a result, they try harder for difficult goals when compared to easier goals.

The principle of goal-directed action is not restricted to conscious action, according to the research.

Goal-directed action is defined by three attributes, according to Lock & Latham.

• Self-generation
• Value-significance
• Goal-causation

Self-generation refers to the source of energy integral to the organism. Value-significance refers to the idea that the actions not only make it possible but necessary to the organism’s survival. Goal-causation means the resulting action is caused by a goal.

While we can see that all living organisms experience some kind of goal-related action, humans are the only organisms that possess a higher form of consciousness, at least according to what we know at this point in time.

When humans take purposeful action, they set goals in order to achieve them.

Locke and Latham have also shown us that there is an important relationship between goals and performance.

Locke and Latham’s research supports the idea that the most effective performance seems to be the result of goals being both specific and challenging. When goals are used to evaluate performance and linked to feedback on results, they create a sense of commitment and acceptance.

The researchers also found that the motivational impact of goals may be affected by ability and self-efficacy, or one’s belief that they can achieve something.

It was also found that deadlines helped improve the effectiveness of a goal and a learning goal orientation leads to higher performance when compared to a performance goal orientation.

Research done by Moeller, Theiler, and Wu (2012) examined the relationship between goal setting and student achievement at the classroom level.

This research examined a 5-year quasi-experimental study, which looked at goal setting and student achievement in the high school Spanish language classroom.

A tool known as LinguaFolio was used, and introduced into 23 high schools with a total of 1,273 students.

The study portfolio focused on student goal setting , self-assessment and a collection of evidence of language achievement.

Researchers used a hierarchical linear model, and then analyzed the relationship between goal setting and student achievement. This research was done at both the individual student and teacher levels.

A correlational analysis of the goal-setting process as well as language proficiency scores revealed a statistically significant relationship between the process of setting goals and language achievement (p < .01).

The research also looked at the importance of autonomy or one’s ability to take responsibility for their learning. Autonomy is a long-term aim of education, according to the study as well as a key factor in learning a language successfully.

There has been a paradigm shift in language education from teacher to student-centered learning, which makes the idea of autonomy even more important.

Goal setting in language learning is commonly regarded as one of the strategies that encourage a student’s sense of autonomy (Moeller, Theiler & Wu, 2012)

The results of the study revealed that there was a consistent increase over time in the main goal, plan of action and reflection scores of high school Spanish learners.

This trend held true for all levels except for the progression from third to fourth year Spanish for action plan writing and goal setting. The greatest improvement in goal setting occurred between the second and third levels of Spanish.

In one study , that looked at goal setting and wellbeing, people participated in three short one-hour sessions where they set goals.

The researchers compared those who set goals to a control group, that didn’t complete the goal-setting exercise . The results showed a causal relationship between goal setting and subjective wellbeing.

Weinberger, Mateo, and Sirey (2009) also looked at perceived barriers to mental health care and goal setting amongst depressed, community-dwelling older adults.

Forty-seven participants completed the study, which examined various barriers to mental health and goal setting. These barriers include:

• Psychological barriers such as social attitudes, beliefs about depression and stigmas.
• Logistical barriers such as transportation and availability of services.
• Illness-related barriers that are either modifiable or not such as depression severity, comorbid anxiety, cognitive status, etc.

For individuals who perceive a large number of barriers to be overcome, a mental health referral can seem burdensome as opposed to helpful.

Defining a personal goal for treatment may be something that is helpful and even something that can increase the relevance of seeking help and improving access to care according to the study.

Goal setting has been shown to help improve the outcome in treatment, amongst studies done in adults with depression. (Weinberger, Mateo, & Sirey, 2009)

The process of goal setting has even become a major focus in several of the current psychotherapies used to treat depression. Some of the therapies that have used goal setting include:

• Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT)
• Cognitive and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CT, CBT)
• Problem-Solving Therapy (PST)

Participants who set goals, according to the study, were more likely to accept a mental health referral. Goal setting seems to be a necessary and good first step when it comes to helping a depressed older adult take control of their wellbeing.

Most of us have been taught from a young age that setting goals can help us accomplish more and get better organized.

Goals help motivate us and help us organize our thoughts. Throughout evolutionary psychology, however, a conscious activity like goal setting has often been downplayed.

Psychoanalysis put the focus on the unconscious part of the mind, while cognitive behaviorists argue that external factors are of greater importance.

In 1968, Edward A. Locke formally developed something he called goal-setting theory, as an alternative to all of this.

Goal-setting theory helps us understand that setting goals are a conscious process and a very effective and efficient means when it comes to increasing productivity and motivation, especially in the workplace.

According to Gary P. Latham, the former President of the Canadian Psychological Association, the underlying premise of goal-setting theory is that our conscious goals affect what we achieve. Our goals are the object or the aim of our action.

This viewpoint is not aligned with the traditional cognitive behaviorism, which looks at human behavior as something that is conducted by external stimuli.

This view tells us that just like a mechanic works on a car, other people often work on our brains, without us even realizing it, and this, in turn, determines how we behave.

Goal setting theory goes beyond this assumption, telling us that our internal cognitive functions are equally important, if not more, when determining our behavior.

In order for our conscious cognition to be effective, we must direct and orient our behavior toward the world. That is the real purpose of a goal.

According to Locke and Latham, there is an important relationship between goals and performance.

Research supports the prediction that the most effective performance often results when goals are both specific and challenging in nature.

A learning goal orientation often leads to higher performance when compared to a performance goal orientation, according to the research.

Deadlines also improve the effectiveness of a goal. Goals have a pervasive influence on both employee behaviors and performance in organizations and management practice according to Locke and Latham (2002).

According to the research, nearly every modern organization has some type of psychological goal setting program in its operation.

Programs like management by objectives, (MBO), high-performance work practices (HPWP) and management information systems (MIS) all use benchmarking to stretch targets and plan strategically, all of which involve goal setting to some extent.

Fred C. Lunenburg, a professor at Sam Houston State University, summarized these points in the International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration journal article “Goal-Setting Theory of Motivation” (Lunenburg, 2011).

Specific: Specificity tells us that in order for a goal to be successful, it must also be specific. Goals such as I will do better next time are much too vague and general to motivate us.

Something more specific would be to state: I will spend at least 2 hours a day this week in order to finish the report by the deadline . This goal motivates us into action and holds us accountable.

Difficult but still attainable : Goals must, of course, be attainable, but they shouldn’t be too easy. Goals that are too simple may even cause us to give up. Goals should be challenging enough to motivate us without causing us undue stress.

Process of Acceptance : If we are continually given goals by other people, and we don’t truly accept them, we will most likely continue to fail. Accepting a goal and owning a goal is the key to success.

One way to do this on an organizational level is to bring team members together to discuss and set goals.

Feedback and evaluation : When a goal is accomplished, it makes us feel good. It gives us a sense of satisfaction. If we don’t get any feedback, this sense of pleasure will quickly go away and the accomplishment may even be meaningless.

In the workplace, continuous feedback helps give us a sense that our work and contributions matter. This goes beyond measuring a single goal.

When goals are used for performance evaluation, they are often much more effective.

Learning beyond our performance : While goals can be used as a means by which to give us feedback and evaluate our performance, the real beauty of goal setting is the fact that it helps us learn something new.

When we learn something new, we develop new skills and this helps us move up in the workplace.

Learning-oriented goals can also be very helpful when it comes to helping us discover life-meaning which can help increase productivity.

Performance-oriented goals, on the other hand, force an employee to prove what he or she can or cannot do, which is often counterproductive.

These types of goals are also less likely to produce a sense of meaning and pleasure. If we lack that sense of satisfaction, when it comes to setting and achieving a goal, we are less likely to learn and grow and explore.

Group goals : Setting group goals is also vitally important for companies. Just as individuals have goals, so too must groups and teams, and even committees. Group goals help bring people together and allow them to develop and work on the same goals.

This helps create a sense of community, as well as a deeper sense of meaning, and a greater feeling of belonging and satisfaction.

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.

A goal properly set is halfway reached.

Everybody has their own Mount Everest they were put on this earth to climb.

You cannot change your destination overnight, but you can change your direction overnight.

It’s better to be at the bottom of the ladder you want to climb than at the top of the one you don’t.

Stephen Kellogg

If you don’t design your own life plan, chances are you’ll fall into someone else’s plan. And guess what they have planned for you? Not much.

All who have accomplished great things have had a great aim, have fixed their gaze on a goal which was high, one which sometimes seemed impossible.

Orison Swett Marden

The greater danger for most of us isn’t that our aim is too high and miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it.

Michelangelo

Give me a stock clerk with a goal and I’ll give you a man who will make history. Give me a man with no goals and I’ll give you a stock clerk.

J.C. Penney

Intention without action is an insult to those who expect the best from you.

Andy Andrews

This one step – choosing a goal and sticking to it – changes everything.

Setting goals can help us move forward in life. Goals give us a roadmap to follow. Goals are a great way to hold ourselves accountable, even if we fail. Setting goals and working to achieving them helps us define what we truly want in life.

Setting goals also helps us prioritize things. If we choose to simply wander through life, without a goal or a plan, that’s certainly our choice. However, setting goals can help us live the life we truly want to live.

Having said that, we don’t have to live every single moment of our lives planned out because we all need those days when we have nothing to accomplish.

However, those who have clearly defined goals might just enjoy their downtime even more than those who don’t set goals.

For more insightful reading, check out our selection of goal-setting books .

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

• Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (3), 501-519.
• Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.  Organizational Behavior and Human Performance ,  3 (2), 157-189.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1991). A theory of goal setting & task performance. The Academy of Management Review, 16 (2), 212-247.
• Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705-717.
• Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Goal-setting theory of motivation. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 15 (1), 1-6.
• Moeller, A. J., Theiler, J. M., & Wu, C. (2012). Goal setting and student achievement: A longitudinal study. The Modern Language Journal, 96 (2), 153-169.
• Murphy, M. (2010). HARD goals: The secret to getting from where you are to where you want to be. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
• Weinberger, M. I., Mateo, C., & Sirey, J. A. (2009). Perceived barriers to mental health care and goal setting among depressed, community-dwelling older adults. Patient Preference and Adherence, 3 , 145-149.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

I really love how the lesson teaches us how to set goals more often

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

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 [...]

How to Assess and Improve Readiness for Change

Clients seeking professional help from a counselor or therapist are often aware they need to change yet may not be ready to begin their journey. [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (49)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (25)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (23)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (21)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (19)
• Positive Parenting (15)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (17)
• Relationships (43)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

3 Goal Achievement Exercises Pack

6 Strategic Ways to Increase Research Productivity

Transkriptor 2024-05-23

Researchers, including scholars and scientists, employ various strategies to increase their research productivity, enhancing their output and research skills. Increasing productivity maximizes the output of research and improves the research skills.

Researchers contribute to the expansion of knowledge and increasing research productivity gives a greater scientific enhancement. Researchers set themselves apart from their peers by increasing their productivity. Advanced research productivity gives visibility to the researchers.

6 strategic ways to increase research productivity are listed below.

• Goal-Setting and Milestone Planning in Research: Setting goals and milestones keeps the researcher on track and measures progress.
• Time Management Techniques in Research: The techniques include Pomodoro and Gantt Charts to manage time in research.
• Advanced Research Technologies and Digital Tools: Technologies and digital tools enhance the research process.
• Fostering Collaborative Research Networks: Collaborative research expands access to resources and expertise.
• Get Transcriptions with Transkriptor: Transkriptor is a cutting-edge AI-driven tool designed to revolutionize the way we generate transcriptions.
• Effective Research Data Management: Data management software increases productivity and integrity.

1. Goal-Setting and Milestone Planning in Research

Goal-setting and milestone planning in research help researchers maintain focus, measure progress, and navigate the research process. Adopt a structured approach by setting specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals to maximize research productivity.

Begin by defining the objectives of the research to set SMART goals. Specific goals provide a clear direction and purpose for the work. Goals must be measurable.

Measurable goals allow researchers to track progress. Ensure that the goals are realistic and achievable. Do not set overly ambitious goals to avoid frustration and burnout.

Goals must be relevant to the overall purpose of the research project. Make sure the goals are relevant to the field of study. Assign deadlines to the goals to create a sense of urgency and structure. Timeframes ensure that researchers stay on track and avoid procrastination.

Milestones serve as checkpoints along the research process and help researchers track the progress. Milestones include specific tasks, deadlines, or achievements. Break the SMART goals into smaller and manageable milestones.

2. Time Management Techniques in Research

Time management techniques in research allow researchers to allocate, prioritize, and utilize their time to maximize research productivity. Effective time management techniques help researchers to increase productivity. Using time management techniques optimizes work hours and ensures a structured approach.

Time management techniques minimize procrastination and help researchers set clear goals. One effective time management technique in research is the Pomodoro Technique. The technique encourages focused work through short, timed intervals. Another effective time management technique is using Gantt Charts. Gantt Charts provide a visual representation of the research project’s timeline.

Pomodoro Technique

The Pomodoro Technique is a time management method that encourages focused work through short and timed intervals. The timed intervals typically are 25 minutes and a short break follows them. The intervals are “pomodoros”.

The Pomodoro Technique helps researchers break their work into manageable and focused segments. Pomodoro prevents burnout and increases the overall productivity.

Gantt Charts

Gantt Charts provide a visual representation of the research project’s timeline. The charts outline tasks and their respective deadlines. Gantt Charts allow researchers to track progress and allocate time efficiently. Researchers effectively manage their research activities and identify potential delays by using Gantt Charts.

3. Advanced Research Technologies and Digital Tools

Advanced research technologies and digital tools enhance various aspects of research such as data analysis and collaborative work. Advanced data analysis tools enable researchers to derive meaningful insights from complex data. The tools automate data processing and visualization.

Experiment simulation software is for predicting outcomes and optimizing experimental designs. Online collaboration platforms provide seamless communication and document sharing. These platforms enable researchers to work together effectively.

Transkriptor is an innovative transcription tool that utilizes speech recognition technology to convert spoken language into text. User feedback highlights its accuracy and time-saving capabilities. Researchers who conduct interviews, focus groups, or qualitative research use Transkriptor to automate the transcription process. Researchers save hours of manual work by using Transkriptor.

Speaktor is a text-to-speech technology that uses artificial intelligence to speak the written text aloud. Researchers use Speaktor to listen to the written knowledge instead of reading it. Reading long articles is a tiresome activity and researchers need to read many of them. They, thus, use Speaktor’s text-to-speech technology instead of reading for long hours.

4. Fostering Collaborative Research Networks

Fostering collaborative research networks is a strategy for researchers seeking to increase the impact of their work. Collaborative research networks take various forms and each of them serves specific purposes. The network types are cross-disciplinary research networks, resource-sharing networks, and co-authoring networks.

Cross-disciplinary research networks span multiple disciplines. The networks bring together researchers from diverse backgrounds and offer unique insights and methodologies. Researchers leverage a broader knowledge base and new approaches by engaging in cross-disciplinary research networks.

Resource-sharing networks enable researchers to pool their resources, reduce duplication of efforts, and gain access to tools. The networks provide access to specialized equipment, data entries, and research funding opportunities.

Co-authoring networks allow for the collective sharing of knowledge, expertise, and workload. Co-authoring networks enhance the visibility and impact of the research as they reach a broader audience.

5. Transkriptor: Revolutionizing Your Research Workflow

Transkriptor utilizes cutting-edge speech recognition technology to convert spoken language into text with remarkable accuracy. Using Transkriptor eliminates the need for time-consuming manual transcription. Researchers transcribe their recordings in a fraction of the time with Transkriptor. Transkriptor allows researchers to focus on more critical aspects of their research instead of the transcription process.

Transkriptor offers flexibility by allowing users to customize the transcription to meet specific research requirements. Users adjust settings, select language preferences, and fine-tune transcription accuracy. This ensures that the transcribed text meets their standards. Researchers seamlessly integrate the transcribed texts into their data analysis workflow once transcription finishes.

Using Transkriptor involves a few simple steps. First, open Transkriptor and create an account. Next, upload the audio file. Then, select the language of the audio file and start the transcription process.

Edit and save the transcribed text once the transcription finishes. Download the transcribed file to integrate it into the research project. Transkriptor provides various file formats. Choose the file format that is suitable for the research project. Try it for free!

6. Effective Research Data Management

Effective research data management ensures organized, secure, and accessible data throughout the research process. Effective research data management involves the adaptation of best practices for systematic documentation of research findings. The top 3 research data management software are LabArchives, REDcap, and Mendeley Data.

LabArchives

LabArchives is a digital lab notebook and research data management platform. It allows researchers to record and manage their data efficiently. LabArchives provides a secure and collaborative environment for researchers.

LabArchives provides a digital workspace for researchers to create and maintain electronic lab notebooks. The notebooks capture experimental details, observations, and data.

Researchers upload, store, and manage research data within LabArchives. LabArchives offers version control, data organization, and search capabilities. The features keep research data organized and accessible.

LabArchives supports collaboration among research team members. Users share notebooks, data, and research findings with colleagues. It provides seamless teamwork and knowledge sharing.

REDcap is a widely used data management and collection tool. REDcap is for research studies and clinical trials. REDcap offers secure data storage, data validation, and user-friendly data entry forms.

REDcap is a web-based software platform developed by Vanderbilt University. REDcap provides researchers with a powerful tool for designing data forms. Researchers manage and store research data within REDcap.

REDcap’s interface allows researchers to create and customize data entry forms without extensive technical skills. Researchers set rules and constraints to ensure data accuracy and integrity.

Researchers manage user access and permissions to control who is able to view or edit data within projects. REDcap provides various data export formats. The providing makes it easy to analyze and share research data with other applications.

Mendeley Data

Mendeley Data is a part of the Mendeley platform. Mendeley Data allows researchers to store and share research data in a structured and organized manner. Mendeley integrates with other Mendeley features. The integration makes it a comprehensive solution for research data management and collaboration.

Mendeley Data uses cloud-based storage. Cloud-based storage ensures that data is accessible from anywhere with an internet connection. Mendeley Data provides tools for organizing and managing research data.

Users share their datasets with other researchers. Mendeley Data provides access options and users choose who is able to see or edit their datasets. Mendeley Data allows researchers to publish their datasets to make them accessible to the global research community.

Why Researchers Need to Increase Productivity?

Researchers need to increase productivity to stay ahead in a competitive research environment. Researchers have to embrace rapid changes in research methodologies and optimize resource use in research projects.

Productivity sets researchers apart and plays a pivotal role in a career in the highly competitive world of research. Increasing research productivity contributes to the advancement of knowledge and the generation of innovative solutions.

Productivity optimizes the allocation of resources such as funding and time. It fosters collaboration and knowledge transfer. Enhanced productivity fulfills the research goals.

• Staying Ahead in a Competitive Research Environment: Researchers must stay ahead to compete with other researchers.
• Embracing Rapid Changes in Research Methodologies: Research methodologies are evolving and researchers must adapt to these changes.
• Optimizing Resource Utilization in Research Projects: Optimizing resource utilization enables efficient project management, reduces cost, and minimizes waste.

Staying Ahead in a Competitive Research Environment

Staying ahead in a competitive research environment is a crucial concern for researchers. Researchers have to stay ahead because of the importance of productivity for academic success and recognition. Researchers must contribute new knowledge to their fields through scholarly publications.

Visibility within the academic community directly links to productivity. Researchers establish themselves as authorities in their respective fields by producing a substantial body of work.

Researchers who consistently show high productivity gain a competitive edge. The competitive edge enhances researchers’ chances of securing research grants. Staying ahead is a driving force behind the advancement of knowledge.

Embracing Rapid Changes in Research Methodologies

Embracing rapid changes in research methodologies helps researchers remain at the forefront of their fields. Research methodologies and technologies are in a state of constant evolution. Researchers have to embrace these evolutions to conduct more precise, efficient, and impactful research.

Embracing rapid changes allows researchers to conduct more efficient experiments, and enhances the quality of the research. Embracing rapid changes opens doors to new discoveries and breakthroughs.

Optimizing Resource Utilization in Research Projects

Optimizing resource utilization in research projects allows researchers to maximize efficiency, achieve research objectives, and access the available resources. Efficient resource utilization minimizes unnecessary expenditures and ensures that research projects are cost-effective.

Optimizing resource utilization enables researchers to allocate funding to critical aspects of projects. Optimizing resource utilization contributes to the timely completion of research goals and the generation of high-quality data.

Frequently Asked Questions

Establish clear communication, define roles and responsibilities, use collaborative tools for sharing information, promote a culture of openness and constructive feedback, and value diversity to enhance research outcomes. Regular meetings and agreed-upon goals can help maintain focus and productivity.

Transkriptor automates the transcription process, converting audio to text quickly and accurately, saving researchers time and effort. This allows for more focus on data analysis and interpretation, making qualitative research more efficient and less labor-intensive.

Researchers can utilize statistical software like SPSS or R, data visualization tools like Tableau, and programming languages like Python. These tools help in organizing, analyzing, and visualizing data, making complex analyses more accessible and understandable.

Effective data management faces challenges such as ensuring data security, maintaining data integrity, organizing large datasets, adhering to regulations, and facilitating collaboration. Overcoming these requires robust data management plans and the right tools.

Speech to Text

Transkriptor

Convert your audio and video files to text

Audio to Text

Video Transcription

Transcription Service

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Contact Information

[email protected]

© 2024 Transkriptor

Goal Setting Research

There might be affiliate links on this page, which means we get a small commission of anything you buy. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Please do your own research before making any online purchase.

There is impressive science behind the theory of goal setting. This post is a sampling of the research on goal setting, in chronological order.

This goal setting research list contains most of the high points on our understanding of the importance of goal setting found by scientists, psychologists and other researchers over the past 40+ years.  Enjoy.

To learn more about achieving great things and the importance of goals check out goal setting theory .

Table of Contents

Improving Job Performance Through Training in Goal Setting

20 tree logging operators were randomly assigned to either a 1-day training program in goal setting or a control group. The additional wood cut over the following 3 months by those in the goal-setting group was estimated to be worth a quarter of a million dollars. Absenteeism fell and production increased.

A Review of Research on The Application of Goal Setting in Organizations

“Twenty-seven studies on goal setting were reviewed to evaluate the practical feasibility of goal setting in organizations and to evaluate Locke's theories of goal setting . The organizational research reviewed provides strong support for Locke's proposition that specific goals increase performance and those difficult goals, if accepted, result in better performance than do easy goals.”

Joint Effect of Feedback and Goal Setting on Performance: A Field Study of Residential Energy Conservation

In this study, the effect of goal difficulty and frequent feedback for encouraging energy conservation was assessed.

80 families were placed into one of four groups:

Those in the difficult goal group were asked to cut their energy consumption by 20%, while those in the easy group were asked to cut their consumption by 2%. Those in the frequent feedback group were told three times a week how much their consumption had declined.

The only group whose consumption fell a significant amount was the frequent feedback + difficult goal group. For the duration of the study, their consumption fell an average of 14%.

Abstract here .

Interrelationships Among Employee Participation, Individual Differences, Goal Difficulty, Goal Acceptance, Goal Instrumentality, and Performance

Over a ten-week period, weekly productivity goals were either assigned by the manager or set jointly with the employee.

As all 41 subjects were typists, the performance was easy to measure (e.g. it's easy to measure the number of pages typed, the frequency of errors, and so on). The primary purpose of the study was to show that goals that are jointly set will generate more motivation than those which are ‘forced'. This hypothesis was proven wrong. Later studies would show that goal acceptance requires understanding the reasons why a goal was set, not being a part of the goal-setting process .

Other findings from this study:

• Those who had difficult goals performed higher.
• Those with a high need for achievement and an internal locus of control set more difficult goals.
• Goal setting was more effective for those employees with high self-esteem, and for those who felt working harder would be rewarded.

Goal Setting and Task Performance

“Results from a review of laboratory and field studies on the effects of goal setting on the performance show that in 90% of the studies, specific and challenging goals led to higher performance than easy goals, “do your best” goals or no goals. Goals affect performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, increasing persistence, and motivating strategy development. Goal setting is most likely to improve task performance when the goals are specific and sufficiently challenging, Ss have sufficient ability (and ability differences are controlled), feedback is provided to show progress in relation to the goal, rewards such as money are given for goal attainment, the experimenter or manager is supportive, and assigned goals are accepted by the individual. No reliable individual differences have emerged in goal-setting studies, probably because the goals were typically assigned rather than self-set. Need for achievement and self-esteem may be the most promising individual difference variables.”

Goal Difficulty vs. Performance

“A previous review of the goal-setting literature found strong evidence for a linear relationship between goal difficulty and task performance (assuming sufficient ability), and more recent studies have supported the earlier findings. Four results in three experimental field studies found harder goals led to better performance than easy goals:”

• Increasing Productivity With Decreasing Time Limits: A Field Replication of Parkinson's Law , 1975 (tree logging).
• Interrelationships Among Employee Participation, Individual Differences, Goal Difficulty, Goal Acceptance, Goal Instrumentality, and Performance, 1978 (typists).
• A Study of The Effects of Task Goal and Schedule Choice on Work Performance, 1979.

“Twenty-five experimental laboratory studies have obtained similar results with a wide variety of tasks:”

• Knowledge of Score and Goal Level as Determinants of Work Rate, 1969 (addition).
• Studies of The Relationship Between Satisfaction, Goal Setting, and Performance, 1970 (reaction time and addition).
• The Effects of Participation in Goal Setting on Goal Acceptance and Performance, 1975 (coding task).
• A Two-Factor Model of The Effect of Goal-Descriptive Directions on Learning From Text, 1975 (prose learning).
• Additive Effects of Task Difficulty and Goal Setting on Subsequent Task Performance 1976 (chess).
• Role of Performance Goals in Prose Learning, 1976 (prose learning).
• The Motivational Strategies Used by Supervisors: Relationships to Effectiveness Indicators, 1976 (card sorting).
• Effects Achievement Standards, Tangible Rewards, and Self-Dispensed Achievement Evaluations on Children's Task Mastery, 1977 (color discrimination).
• Systems Analysis of Dyadic Interaction: Prediction From Individual Parameters, 1978 (figure selection task).
• The Interaction of Ability and Motivation in Performance: An Exploration of The Meaning of Moderators, 1978 (perceptual speed).
• Effects of Goal Level on Performance: A Trade-off of Quantity and Quality, 1978 (brainstorming, figure selection and sum estimation tasks).
• Importance of Supportive Relationships in Goal Setting, 1979 (brainstorming).
• The Effects of Holding Goal Difficulty Constant on Assigned and Participatively Set Goals, 1979.
• The Effect of Beliefs on Maximum Weight-Lifting Performance, 1979.
• Another Look at The Relationship of Expectancy and Goal Difficulty to Task Performance, 1980 (perceptual speed).

Goal Specificity vs. Performance

“Previous research found that specific, challenging (difficult) goals led to higher output than vague goals such as “do your best”. Subsequent research has strongly supported these results… Twenty four field experiments all found that individuals are given specific, challenging goals either outperformed those trying to “do their best”, or surpassed their own previous performance when they were not trying for specific goals:”

• Improving Job Performance Through Training in Goal Setting, 1974 (tree logging).
• Changes in Performance in a Management by Objectives Program, 1974 (marketing and production workers).
• Assigned Versus Participative Goal Setting With Educated and Uneducated Woods Workers, 1975 (tree logging).
• The “Practical Significance” of Locke's Theory of Goal Setting, 1975 (truck loading).
• Effects of Goal Setting on Performance and Job Satisfaction, 1976 (sales personnel).
• Effects of Assigned and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Job Satisfaction, 1976 (typists).
• Effect of Performance Feedback and Goal Setting on Productivity and Satisfaction in an Organizational Setting, 1976 (customer service).
• The Role of Proximal Intentions in Self-Regulation of Refractory Behavior, 1977 (dieting).
• Performance Standards and Implicit Goal Setting: Field Testing Locke's Assumption, 1977 (keypunching).
• Blue Collar to Top Executive, 1977 (ship loading).
• Different Goal Setting Treatments and Their Effects on Performance and Job Satisfaction, 1977 (maintenance technicians).
• Importance of Participative Goal Setting and Anticipated Rewards on Goal Difficulty and Job Performance, 1978 (engineering and scientific work).
• The Effects of Assigned Versus Participatively Set Goals, and Individual Differences When Goal Difficulty is Held Constant, 1979 (clerical test).
• and performance appraisal activities, coding, managerial training, card sorting, die casting, customer service, and pastry work (see the study for citations).

“Twenty laboratory studies supported the above results either partially or totally (see the study for list).”

Feedback vs. No Feedback

“Integrating the two sets of studies points to one unequivocal conclusion: neither [feedback] alone nor goals alone is sufficient to affect performance. Both are necessary. Together they appear sufficient to improve task performance.”

Why Does Goal Setting Often Lead to Improved Performance?

“1. Direction. Most fundamentally goals direct attention and action. 2. Effort. Since different goals may require different amounts of effort, an effort is mobilized in proportion to the perceived requirements of the goal or task. Thus, more effort is mobilized to work on hard tasks (which are accepted) than easy tasks. Sales (1970) found that higher workloads produce the higher subjective effort, faster heart rates, and higher output per unit time than lower workloads. 3. Persistence . Persistence is nothing more than directed effort extended over time; thus it is a combination of the previous two mechanisms. 4. Strategy Development. While the above three mechanisms are relatively direct in their effects, this last mechanism is indirect. It involves developing strategies or action plans for attaining one's goals.”

Participatory vs. Forced

“Participation has long been recommended by social scientists as a means of getting subordinates or workers committed to organizational goals and/or of reducing resistance to change. However, an extensive review of the participation in decision-making literature by Locke and Schweiger (1979), found no consistent difference in the effectiveness of top-down (“autocratic”) decision making and decisions made with subordinate participation:”

• Goal Characteristics and Personality Factors In a Management By-Objectives Program, 1970.
• Effects of Goal Setting on Performance and Job Satisfaction, 1976.
• Different Goal Setting Treatments and Their Effects on Performance and Job Satisfaction, 1977.
• Assigned Versus Participative Goal Setting With Educated and Uneducated Woods Workers, 1975.
• Effects of Assigned and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Job Satisfaction, 1976.
• Importance of Participative Goal Setting and Anticipated Rewards on Goal Difficulty and Job Performance, 1978.
• The Effects of Assigned Versus Participatively Set Goals, KR, and Individual Differences When Goal Difficulty is Held Constant, 1979.
• The Effects of Participation in Goal Setting on Goal Acceptance and Performance, 1975.
• Importance of Supportive Relationships in Goal Setting, 1979

“There appear to be two possible mechanisms by which participation could affect task motivation. First, participation can lead to the setting of higher goals that would be the case without participation. Second, participation could, in some cases, lead to greater goal acceptance than assigned goals.”

“Likert has pointed out that when assigned goal setting is effective as in the above studies, it may be because the supervisors who assign the goals behave in a supportive manner. It may be that being supportive is more crucial than participation in achieving goal acceptance. Participation itself, of course, may entail being supportive.”

“Further, it is possible that the motivational effects of participation are not as important in gaining performance improvement as are its cognitive effects . Locke found that the single most successful field experiment on participation to date stressed the cognitive benefits; participation was used to get good ideas from workers as to how to improve performance efficiency.” -Participative Decision-Making: An Experimental Study in a Hospital, 1973.

Full study here .

The Importance of Union Acceptance for Productivity Improvement Through Goal Setting

“Interviews were conducted with union business agents on conditions necessary for their support of a goal-setting program. Subsequent to the interviews, goals were assigned to 39 truck drivers. The results were analyzed using a design that included a comparison group (N= 35). The results showed a significant increase in productivity for the drivers who received specific goals. When the conditions necessary for the union's support of the goal-setting program were no longer met, there was a wildcat strike.” – Abstract

The study was estimated to have saved the company $2.7 million dollars through increased productivity.

The Effect of Goal-Setting and Daily Electronic Feedback on In-Home Energy Use

300 households were assigned to one of six groups, with 4 of those groups being given a goal to reduce household energy consumption by 10% during the following year. Of those four groups, one received daily feedback (IND), another monthly feedback (MEF), another was instructed to monitor their energy consumption by themselves (SMO), and another received only information about how to conserve energy, receiving no feedback (INF).

As can be seen in the chart below, over the following year the groups reduced their energy consumption in proportion to how frequently they received feedback, with the daily feedback group going above and beyond the 10% goal and reducing consumption by 12% for some time.

Improving Safety Performance With Goal Setting and Feedback

Three departments that were lagging behind in their compliance with safety guidelines were selected for this year-long study. During the 3 month baseline period, average safety compliance (e.g. wearing leather gloves while welding; clearing away tripping hazards, etc…) was around 55%. Compliance was estimated using four observers, who made a total of 167 observations throughout the entire study. After the baseline period, employees were given an hour-long safety training session. Compliance increased by about 10%.

After another three months, employees were told to set the challenging goal of increasing compliance to 90%. During the following 4 months, compliance once again increased by about 10%. Finally, a large graph was hung in a prominent location in each department, containing the department's average safety compliance (similar to the graph below). Compliance immediately shot up above the goal target, showing that a goal is much more likely to be successfully pursued when frequent feedback is provided (the graph was updated three times a week).

“People tend to subconsciously set their own goals when they receive performance feedback.”

 Goal Setting Research:  1997

Integrating “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: a hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation..

This study introduces the trichotomous model of achievement motivation, combining the mastery/performance model with the approach/avoidance model into the trichotomous mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance model:

“Thus, three independent achievement goals are posited: A mastery goal focused on the development of competence or the attainment of task mastery, a performance-approach goal focused on the attainment of competence relative to others, and a performance-avoidance goal focused on the avoidance of incompetence relative to others. Master and performance-approach goals are construed as approach orientations… whereas performance-avoidance goal is construed as an avoidance orientation.”

“Performance goals were presumed to lead to the “helpless” response pattern upon failure because failure directly implies a lack of ability; learning goals , on the other hand, were posited to lead to the “mastery” response pattern, because failure feedback could simply be construed as helpful information in the process of developing competence or mastering a task.”

“Individuals high in need for achievement are drawn to achievement activities because they anticipate the pride that they will experience if successful, whereas those high in fear of failure find achievement activities averse because they anticipate the shame that they will experience if unsuccessful.”

This model was later expanded by others into a 2×2 framework (performance-approach, performance-avoidance; mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance).

 Goal Setting Research:  2000

The effects of goal setting and self-instruction training on the performance of unionized employees.

“This study assesses the effectiveness of goal setting, goal setting plus training in self-instruction, and being urged to do one's best on the performance of unionized employees (n = 32). Appraisals were made prior to and 10 weeks following three interventions. ANCOVA indicated that employees who set specific, difficult goals had significantly higher performance than those in doing one's best and those doing goal setting plus self-instruction.” – Abstract

However, despite the claims of the abstract, while the results are statistically significant, the effect size is small enough to call into question the effectiveness of the intervention (e.g. the numbers all look pretty much the same):

 Goal Setting Research:  2001

A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework..

Until 2001, when this study was published, goals were divided into three types: mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance

A mastery goal was one where a person tried to accomplish something in absolute or intrapersonal terms, e.g. setting a new personal best or learning a new skill. A performance-approach goal was one where a person tried to do better than their peers, e.g. scoring higher or getting promoted. A performance-avoidance goal was one where a person tried to avoid doing worse than their peers, e.g. avoid embarrassment or negative feedback.

Until this study, it was assumed that mastery goals were the best, performance-approach goals were sometimes good and sometimes bad, and performance-avoidance goals were always bad. The implicit assumption was there were no bad mastery goals (in other words, no mastery-avoidance goals.)

This study challenged that assumption by first proving that master-avoidance goals exist, and second proving that each goal type can be useful, depending on the circumstances.

Study details here . Full study here .

Goal Setting Research:  2002

Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation.

This is another of Locke's goal-setting literature reviews.

“We found a positive, linear function in that the highest or most difficult goals produced the highest levels of effort and performance. Performance leveled off or decreased only when the limits of ability were reached or when commitment to a highly difficult goal lapsed.”

“We found that specific, difficult goals consistently led to higher performance than urging people to do their best. In short, when people are asked to do their best, they do not do so. This is because do-your-best goals have no external referent and thus are defined idiosyncratically. This allows for a wide range of acceptable performance levels, which is not the case when a goal level is specified.”

“Other factors being equal, expectancy is said to be linearly and positively related to performance. However, because difficult goals are harder to attain than easy goals, the expectancy of goal success would presumably be negatively related to performance. The apparent contradiction between the two theories is resolved by distinguishing expectancy within versus expectancy between goal conditions. Locke, Motowidlo, and Bobko (1986) found that when goal level is held constant, which is implicitly assumed by valence–instrumentality–expectancy theory, higher expectancies lead to higher levels of performance. Across goal levels, lower expectancies, associated with higher goal levels, are associated with higher performance.”

“Goals affect performance through four mechanisms. First, goals serve a directive function; they direct attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities and away from goal irrelevant activities…Second, goals have an energizing function. High goals lead to greater effort than low goals. This has been shown with tasks that (a) directly entail physical effort, (b) entail the repeated performance of simple cognitive tasks, such as addition; (c)include measurements of subjective effort, and (d) include physiological indicators of effort. Third, goals affect persistence. When participants are allowed to control the time they spend on a task, hard goals prolong effort. Fourth, goals affect action indirectly by leading to the arousal, discovery, and/or use of task-relevant knowledge and strategies.”

“An assigned goal is as effective as one that is set participatively provided that the purpose or rationale for the goal is given. However, if the goal is assigned tersely (e.g., “Do this . . . ”) without explanation, it leads to performance that is significantly lower than for a participative set goal… the primary benefit of participation in decision making is cognitive rather than motivational in that it stimulates information exchange. For example, Latham et al. (1994) found that with goal difficulty level controlled, participation in goal setting had no beneficial effect on performance. However, people who participated with others in formulating task strategies performed significantly better and had higher self-efficacy than those who did not participate in formulating strategies.”

“When the goal is very difficult, paying people only if they reach the goal (i.e., a task-and-bonus system) can hurt performance. Once people see that they are not getting the reward , their personal goal and their self-efficacy drop and, consequently, so do their performance. This drop does not occur if the goal is moderately difficult or if people are given a difficult goal and are paid for performance (e.g., piece rate) rather than goal attainment.”

“Self-efficacy enhances goal commitment. Leaders can raise the self-efficacy of their subordinates (a) by ensuring adequate training to increase mastery that provides success experiences, (b) by role modeling or finding models with whom the person can identify, and (c) through persuasive communication that expresses confidence that the person can attain the goal.”

“For goals to be effective, people need summary feedback that reveals progress in relation to their goals. If they do not know how they are doing, it is difficult or impossible for them to adjust the level or direction of their effort or to adjust their performance strategies to match what the goal requires. If the goal is to cut down 30 trees in a day, people have no way to tell if they are on target unless they know how many trees have been cut. When people find they are below target, they normally increase their effort or try a new strategy.”

“As the complexity of the task increases and higher-level skills and strategies have yet to become automatized, goal effects are dependent on the ability to discover appropriate task strategies.”

“Goals are, at the same time, an object or outcome to aim for and a standard for judging satisfaction… People with high goals produce more because they are dissatisfied with less. The bar for their satisfaction is set at a high level. This is why they are motivated to do more than those with easy goals… The highest degree of anticipated satisfaction averaged across all grade outcomes, was for students with a goal of C, and the lowest was for students with a goal of earning an A.”

“Numerous studies have shown that setting a specific difficult goal leads to significant increases in employee productivity.”

“We noted earlier that on tasks that are complex for people, learning goals can be superior to performance goals. However, there have been almost no studies examining the use of both together. Intriguing findings have been obtained by Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, and Elliott (1997) with college students. Performance goals improved grades but did not affect interest, whereas learning goals enhanced interest in the class but did not affect grades.”

 Goal Setting Research:  2005

Avoidance goals can be beneficial: a look at smoking cessation.

In this study, the authors examined the use of avoidance goals for helping 591 smokers quit. Avoidance goals have already been repeatedly shown to do worse than approach goals. The reason the authors tried again was that they split avoidance goals into two types: prevention and cure.

“As with traditional conceptualizations of avoidance goals, some avoidance goals involve preventing a negative state from occurring (e.g., I do not want to get cancer). However, other avoidance goals involve curing a negative state that already exists (e.g., I want to get rid of chronic cough).”

The reason why cure-avoidance goals might be more effective than prevent-avoidance goals:

“Researchers have argued that trying to stay away from a state elicits anxiety, which in turn undermines how much effort people will put forth to work on the goal. Moreover, even if progress is made on a prevent goal, the difficulty of detecting the continued absence of something may make the progress hard to recognize. For example, people trying to prevent developing cancer may find it difficult to detect a reduction in the risk of developing cancer and thus have a hard time determining whether they have made any progress on their goal.

In contrast, to prevent goals, it may be easier to detect progress when working to meet a cure goal.”

In this study, the smokers were asked why they wanted to quit. From what they wrote, their goals were coded:

“Goals were coded as an approach when the goal described something the participants wanted to get as a result of quitting (e.g., I want to get healthy). Goals were coded as prevent when the goal described something that was not currently true that they wanted to avoid (e.g., I do not want to develop lung cancer). Goals were coded as a cure when the goal described something that was currently true that the participant wanted to get rid of (e.g., I want to stop others from nagging).”

Those with a higher percentage of cure-avoidance goals were more likely to have quit:

 Goal Setting Research:  2006

The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation.

This is a high-level review paper. See Integrating “Classic” and “Contemporary” Approaches to Achievement Motivation , 1997, for an introduction to the hierarchical model.

“Approach motivation may be defined as the energization of behavior by, or the direction of behavior toward, positive stimuli (objects, events, possibilities), whereas avoidance motivation may be defined as the energization of behavior by, or the direction of behavior away from, negative stimuli (objects, events, possibilities). Five aspects of this definition are considered further in the following.”

“A core premise of the hierarchical model is that the approach-avoidance distinction is fundamental and basic to motivation, so much so that it may be used as a conceptual lens through which to view the structure and function of self-regulation.”

“Goals are posited to serve a directional function in motivation. That is, goals focus on a specific, cognitively represented endpoint, and serve to guide the individual’s behavior toward or away from that endpoint. Goals are conscious, intentional commitments, although once in place in the cognitive system, they may be activated and may operate in automatic, non-conscious fashion”

“In the hierarchical model, goals are not sufficient to account for motivated behavior, it is also necessary to consider the motivation underlying goals. This motivation comes from many different sources and many be represented in many different ways.”

Integrating Theories of Motivation

In this paper, the authors highlight their new theory of motivation – temporal motivation theory. This theory combines several other motivation theories into one. In particular:

• Expectancy Theory , which states that the more likely a goal is to be accomplished and the larger the potential reward, the greater the motivation (e.g. if a student thinks he is stupid, he might not put in any effort to study, thinking the endeavor to be pointless).
• Hyperbolic Discounting , which states that the further away a reward is into the future, the less it is worth now (e.g. receiving $150 ten years from now would be worth much less to most people than receiving $150 in the next five minutes).
• Impulsivity , which states that for people who are more impulsive, future rewards are worth a lot less than for those who are less impulsive (e.g. impulsive kids have trouble studying because the future is worth less to them).

More on temporal motivation theory here .

Goal Setting Science: 2007

Improving motivation and goal setting for return to work in a population on sick leave: a controlled study.

“The objective of this study was to examine the effect of an intervention focused on motivation, goal setting, and planning of return to work. A total of 2,795 people, across 6 municipalities, on sick leave for at least 21 days received a questionnaire; 1,256 with a self-assessed poor prognosis for fast return to work were eligible for the study. An examination by a specialist in social medicine, followed by additional counseling by a social worker, was offered to 510 residents in two municipalities and accepted by 264 (52%). The goal was to enhance motivation, goal setting, and planning of return to work. The duration of the sick leave and the chance of being gainfully employed were analyzed. The intervention neither shortened sick leave periods nor increased the likelihood of gainful employment after one year. A low-cost counseling program addressing motivation, goal setting, and planning of return to work did not improve vocational outcomes or reduce the duration of sick leave.” – Abstract

The actual goal-setting intervention used was not discussed in the study, making it difficult to learn useful information (e.g. certain kinds of goal setting could be more or less useful for helping people get employment).

Goal Setting Science:  2008

Self-efficacy and resource allocation: support for a nonmonotonic, discontinuous model.

The relationship between goal difficulty and motivation is complex. There are four different theories that attempt to describe that relationship. What is problematic is that there is evidence for each of the theories. This study provides a brief review of the conflicting literature, as well as providing its own support for one of the theories.

The positive model is the most widely believed, perhaps in part because it is also the most intuitive. The easier a task, the more likely it can be accomplished. There is no point in expending energy (motivation) if it will just be wasted. Conversely, if the goal is certain to be achieved, it makes sense to expend energy trying to accomplish it – the energy won't be wasted, as the reward will definitely be acquired.

The negative model stands in direct contradiction of the positive model. The idea is that in order for a more difficult goal to be accomplished, more energy must be expended (e.g. in improving one's skills). On the other hand, if success is all but guaranteed, it would be a waste to allocate more than the minimum (e.g. there's no point getting excited and motivated about the goal of eating breakfast – that's a waste of mental energy and glucose; if you want to eat breakfast, it will probably happen, excitement or not).

According to the inverted U model, motivation is a function of expectations of success multiplied by the value of the incentive, which in turn is the inverse of expectations of success. Although this model would seem to be a compromise of the positive and negative models, it would be more accurate to consider it an extension of the positive model. This is because it makes one of the same assumptions as the positive model, which is that low expectations of success are de-motivating and that high expectations of success are motivating. The reason this model is an extension is because of the second assumption that it makes – if a goal is easy to accomplish, it must offer a small reward; conversely, if a goal is hard to accomplish, it must offer a large reward.

The inverse U comes from the multiplication of goal difficulty with implied reward size:

Low difficulty is good, but implies low reward, and thus low motivation (.9 * (1-.9) = .09).High difficult is bad, but implies high reward, and thus low motivation (.1 * (1-.01) = .09).Medium difficulty is OK, but implies medium reward, and thus high motivation (.5 * (1 – .5) = .25).

The discontinuous model should be considered an extension of the negative model. Motivation is low for easy goals because the brain is frugal – there is no point getting excited and wasting energy on something simple and easy, like eating breakfast, taking a shower, sending an e-mail, etc… As goal difficulty increases, motivation rises in step – for example, getting a training certification requires more energy than taking a shower, which the brain provides by increasing motivation. Note, an implicit assumption this model makes is that more difficult goals are also more rewarding. For self-set goals, this is a reasonable assumption (e.g. memorizing the entire dictionary is hard but not motivating… of course, what reasonable person would set a goal like that?)

This model is an extension in that after a certain level of difficulty, motivation immediately drops to near zero. The assumption is that past a certain point, people will feel the task is too challenging – that even with a high level of motivation, their resources or abilities are not enough.

I personally believe the discontinuous model is the most accurate, in part because it best fits with my life experience, and in part, because it is supported by Piers Steel, the motivation scientist I respect the most. Ironically, the positive model better fits Piers's own theory of motivation, so I'm not sure why he supports the discontinuous model in his book, The Procrastination Equation , instead.

According to Edwin Locke, “The apparent contradiction between the two theories is resolved by distinguishing expectancy within versus expectancy between goal conditions. Locke, Motowidlo, and Bobko (1986) found that when goal level is held constant, which is implicitly assumed by valence–instrumentality–expectancy theory, higher expectancies lead to higher levels of performance. Across goal levels, lower expectancies, associated with higher goal levels, are associated with higher performance.”

Said differently, the contradiction can be reconciled by treating goal difficulty and goal expectancy as separate constructs – to maximize motivation, you want high expectancy, but also high perceived difficulty. How to have high expectancy and also the high difficulty is another matter, as usually, the two constructs have an inverse relationship (e.g. becoming a billionaire is a high difficulty but very low expectancy).

Goal Setting Science: 2009

The relationship of procrastination with a mastery goal versus an avoidance goal.

Goals can be classified into many different dimensions. One of the most popular models is the 2×2, approach vs. avoidance vs. mastery vs. performance model:

To better understand what each of these dimensions mean, you can read this page on goal setting  or this study which first proposed this model . Although past research agreed that mastery goals are negatively correlated with procrastination (that is, those who make mastery goals are less likely to procrastinate), while avoidance goals are positively correlated with procrastination (that is, those who make avoidance goals are more likely to procrastinate), there has been no consensus on which dimension is more important – mastery/performance or avoidance/approach.

As can be seen in the table below, the avoidance/approach dimension is more important for predicting procrastination than the mastery/performance dimension. Specifically, those with a mastery-approach orientation were the least likely to procrastinate, while those with a mastery-avoidance orientation were the most likely to procrastinate.

Study details here . Abstract here .

Goal Setting Science: 2011

Performance and learning goals for emotion regulation.

In an attempt to feel better after experiencing negative emotions , different people use different strategies. Some talk about their problems with others, other try to distract themselves from thinking those negative thoughts, others try to find something positive from the experience.

There are two strategies that people can use on their own, without help from others: a cognitive reappraisal, and thought suppression/rumination. Cognitive reappraisal is a strategy so effective in dealing with negative emotions that an entire field of psychotherapy has developed around it – cognitive-behavioral therapy. Essentially, it involves re-framing negative events and thoughts into positive ones.

For example, since I was 13 I've experienced a wide variety of health problems. At first, I thought about the problem negatively. However, I gradually started looking for the ‘silver lining'. Because of those health problems, I developed a number of positive health habits , like regular exercise, I developed a degree of persistence and self-confidence I doubt I would have without having had such a large problem to tackle, and I learned how to think critically, having had to deal with dozens of doctors providing false information. Now when I think back to those years of physical pain, I see an experience to be proud of, rather than one to complain and feel bad about.

Thought suppression and rumination are as ineffective as cognitive reappraisal is effective. Rumination involves thinking through, over and over, what went wrong and why. Although one would think that ‘processing' the emotion would cause it to subside, usually the opposite happens, causing the negative emotion to persist. This is because what we focus on grows stronger. Expressing anger, for example, simply makes one angrier. However, that doesn't make suppression effective.

Thought suppression is a strategy of avoidance, e.g. watch TV and eat sugary food in an attempt to redirect attention elsewhere. It seems obvious that there are two strategies for dealing with negative emotion – either express it or suppress it. However, neither work. It's the third option – cognitive reappraisal, that does the job (or think about happy times, get support from friends, etc…).

Those with a performance-avoidance goal towards emotion regulation were most likely to use a rumination/suppression strategy, while those with a mastery goal towards emotion regulation were most likely to use a cognitive reappraisal strategy.

Achievement Motives and Emotional Processes in Children During Problem-Solving: Two Experimental Studies of Their Relation to Performance in Different Achievement Goal Conditions

What goal types are most effective for encouraging performance and happiness in children?

In this study, two personality variables and three experimental conditions were investigated. Those with a high motive to achieve success performed better and reported higher satisfaction and happiness than those with a high motive to avoid failure. In addition, those with a high motive to avoid failure reported higher anxiety and worry. As personality variables are difficult to change, while this information is interesting, it is not yet useful.

Of the three experimental conditions, those who were told to write a mastery goal did the best. Compare the mastery instructions with the performance instructions:

However, the personality type of participants impacted the effect of goal type (performance vs. mastery). Those high in motive to achieve success performed better in the mastery than in the performance conditions, and those with a high motive to avoid failure did even worse in the performance-avoidance condition.

Finally, one proven way to improve your happiness and life satisfaction is to focus on goals that truly matter. To get started, check out this FREE printable worksheet and a step-by-step process that will help you set effective SMART goals .

1 thought on “Goal Setting Research”

This is EXTREMELY helpful. Thank you!!!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

• Open access
• Published: 21 May 2024

Goal setting in later life: an international comparison of older adults’ defined goals

• Elissa Burton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6470-8305 1 , 2 ,
• Jill Chonody 3 ,
• Barbra Teater 4 &
• Sabretta Alford 5  

BMC Geriatrics volume  24 , Article number:  443 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

518 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Studies of goal setting in later life tend to focus on health-related goal setting, are pre-determined by the researcher (i.e., tick box), and/or are focused on a specific geographical area (i.e., one country). This study sought to understand broader, long-term goals from the perspective of older adults (65 + years) from Australia, New Zealand (NZ), United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, Canada, and the United States of America (USA).

Through a cross-sectional, online survey ( N  = 1,551), this exploratory study examined the qualitative goal content of older adults. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data, and bivariate analyses were used to compare thematic differences between regions and by participants’ sex.

Over 60% of the participants reported setting goals, and participants from the Australia-NZ and Canada-USA regions were more likely to set goals than the UK-Ireland region. The following six overarching themes were identified from the 946 goals reported: health and well-being; social connections and engagement; activities and experiences; finance and employment; home and lifestyle; and attitude to life.

Conclusions

This study supports previous research that demonstrates that older adults can and do set personal goals that are wide ranging. These findings support the need for health professionals to consider different methods for elucidating this important information from older adults that builds rapport and focuses on aspects viewed as more important by the older adult and therefore potentially produces improved health outcomes.

Peer Review reports

Ageist assumptions likely influence gerontological health care workers’ perceptions of personal goal setting in older people in that they may falsely believe that they are not intent on pursuing goals beyond those related to functional abilities (e.g., improved mobility) [ 1 ]. However, “new paradigms are needed to provide guidance and support as adults move into the later decades of life, strive to maintain their independence, intent upon aging in place” [ 2 , p.205]. This change in perspective is consistent with the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Active Aging Policy, which was developed to address the global growth in older adults and to facilitate and grow social and community connection [ 3 ]. “Active,” from the WHO’s position, is related to ongoing participation and was not meant to singularly describe health maintenance [ 4 ]. The aging process is influenced by six determinants—social, biological, behavioral, personal, health and social services, and economic—that act in concert to create individual experiences of growing older. Gender and culture are “cross-cutting determinants” given that each contributes to greater barriers and privileges. Moreover, aging is reframed as a life-long process, not something that happens at a predetermined age [ 4 ]. This framework directly informs a new paradigm of personal goal setting with its emphasis on self-determination that empowers individual decision making and inclusivity across the active aging spectrum.

Self-Determination Theory is “an empirically derived theory of human motivation and personality in social contexts that differentiates motivation in terms of being autonomous and controlled” [ 5 , p.416]. This theory emphasizes not just the need for goals, but also the content of one’s goals [ 6 , 7 ]. That is, goals may have an intrinsic motivation, such as personal growth, or health. On the other hand, goals may represent extrinsic content, such as social recognition, or financial success, which focuses on the positive evaluation of others [ 7 , 8 ]. Goal content is important given its association with subjective well-being. Those who are intrinsically motivated have greater well-being than those that are extrinsically motivated, which is associated with ill-being in at least some studies (e.g [ 6 , 7 ]).

Many contemporary studies address goal setting in later adult life stages; however, these studies tend to focus on health-related goal setting, such as care goals for serious illness (e.g., Ouchi, George [ 9 ]), health care preferences (e.g., Tinetti, Costello [ 10 ]) or diabetes (e.g., Kalyani, Golden [ 11 ]). Studies on personal goal setting are often dated (10 + years), and as the Baby Boomers enter older adulthood, shifts in personal goal setting is likely. The “me generation” may expect that choices are always readily available [ 12 ] and set their goals accordingly.

Personal goals have an important influence on life satisfaction and are often studied within this context. In a Canadian study of older adults, participants who had many future goals had less regret, which in turn supported a better quality of life [ 11 ]. Future goals also predicted greater life satisfaction for older people [ 13 ] as well as health and quality of life for frail older adults [ 14 ]. When examining goal content, older adults placed greater importance on intrinsic goals which were positively associated with well-being, whereas extrinsic goals were not [ 15 ].

Furthermore, studies exploring goal setting by older adults tend to be researcher driven in that pre-determined goals are provided and then rated for degree of importance, which creates a lacuna of research from the perspective of older people. For example, A study of older people in Hong Kong sought to understand differences for the young-old (i.e., 54–73 years old) and old-old (i.e., 74 years and up; Au, Ng [ 16 ]) with the six-domains of the “Goals Questionnaire Success Subscale” (as cited in Au et al. [ 16 ]). Thus, limiting respondents’ goals to these areas.

In addition, personal goal setting studies are typically conducted in a single country [ 13 – 18 ]. However, multi-country studies shed light on how culture may play a role and thus inform intervention development. Thus, there is much still to learn about personal goal setting by older adults. This study sought to address these gaps by elevating the voices of older people residing in Australia, New Zealand (NZ), the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, Canada and the United States of America (USA) by initially identifying if they set goals, and for those that did, qualitatively examining their personal goals.

This was a cross-sectional, exploratory study, distributed by online survey (using Qualtrics). This study on older adults’ goals was part of a larger survey that included questions about successful aging, living a long life, where older adults would like to live as they age, and what they need to do to stay living in their home for the rest of their life. The current analyses focuses on older adults’ goals. This study received ethical approval from [Curtin] University (HRE-2021-0587). The first question of the survey required participants to provide consent to being involved. Those who said no to giving consent were not permitted to continue completing the survey.

Setting and sample

Prior to the distribution of the survey, a pilot test was conducted with four older adults. Two were Australians living in a regional area, one was Australian living in the suburbs surrounding a capital city and one was Scottish. Changes suggested by the pilot participants were made, such as asking age rather than birth year. At the conclusion of the pilot study, the survey was sent out to older adults through multiple channels including: (1) to older adults who previously agreed to be included in a research participant database; (2) a link in the Council of the Ageing Western Australia newsletter and the Strength for Life newsletter; (3) an advert on the Injury Matters website; (4) multiple Facebook adverts that included Australia, NZ, the UK, Ireland, Canada and the USA; and (5) multiple X (formerly twitter) posts, posted from Australia and the USA accounts. These countries were included because they were all English speaking, included at least two countries within a region of the world, and had large Facebook memberships, which allowed a large sample of people to be surveyed. The survey was distributed, and data were collected between September 2021 until April 2022.

Participants were eligible to participate in the study if they were 65 years or older, able to understand and communicate in English, and had access to the internet and/or social media. If a person did not meet these criteria, they were unable to complete the survey. Sample size calculations were based on older populations (i.e., 65 years and over) of the three regions participating in the study: (1) Australia and NZ, (2) the UK (i.e., England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales) and Ireland, and (3) Canada and the USA. Considering a confidence interval of 95% and a 5% margin of error, a sample size of at least 385 survey completions was required for each region.

Instrumentation

Participants were asked to complete demographic questions that included age, sex, where they lived (i.e. capital city and surrounding suburbs; regional city; regional area (i.e. small town, farming, etc.) or remote), who they lived with, education level, employment status, number of children, number of prescribed medications and ability to complete activities of daily living such as going to the toilet, completing own shower or bath and dressing (i.e., no difficulty, some difficulty, moderate difficulty, need help). They were also asked to complete the following questions: “Have you set goals for yourself that you would like to achieve?” (yes/no). Those who answered yes, were then asked, “If you are happy to share, can you please describe what goals you are trying to achieve currently?” (open-ended). This reduced the opportunity for the researchers to influence their answers.

Additionally, a back button was also not included on the survey. As the pilot study participants moved through the survey and were asked different questions, they explained how they thought of additional answers to previous questions due to these new questions. The researchers did not want the participants’ previous answers to be led by these new questions and therefore did not allow the back button to be included in this final, distributed survey. No incentive was offered for completing the survey.

Data analysis

Participant demographic data were checked for normality of distribution and summarized using means and standard deviations for continuous data and frequency distribution for categorical data or non-parametric tests where required. T -tests, ANOVAs and chi-square tests were used for continuous and categorical group comparisons, respectively. SPSS v27 was used for data analysis, and significance levels were set at alpha = 0.05.

Qualitative data (i.e., open ended questions) were initially analyzed using thematic analysis [ 19 , 20 ]. Familiarization of the data was essential, and the data set was read multiple times prior to commencing analysis. Codes were then generated initially by one researcher (EB) across the entire data set, with many codes interconnected between each other. Codes were then developed into potential sub-themes and were reviewed and discussed amongst the four authors (EB, BT, JC, SA), these sub-themes were then reviewed multiple times, and themes were generated that encapsulated a number of sub-themes within each. These themes were then reviewed and discussed by the research team (EB, BT, JC, SA) and final names of themes were agreed. A thematic map was then developed illustrating how the sub-themes were placed within themes. Given the large number of survey participants involved, after completing the thematic analysis, (multiple) themes and sub-themes were then aligned to each participant in SPSS based on their answers, to allow for further analysis between sexes and regions. For example, ID1471 reported their goals were “ Stay active Travel Be open minded Listen to grandchildren Express gratitude.” In SPSS, ID1471’s answers were added to over-arching theme columns: Health and wellbeing; Social connection and engagement; Activities and experiences; and Attitude to life. These answers were then added to the sub-themes columns in SPSS, and for this participant included Exercise/physical activity/get fitter; Travel; Being positive and open; Spending time with family (or help them); Be kind-happy-respectful. This process was completed for each participant by the lead researcher and then checked by two authors (BT, JC).

Study participants

Fifteen hundred and fifty-one participants completed the online survey. The mean age was 72.6 (± 5.7) years, and three-quarters were female. A third (32.5%, n  = 530) of participants were born in the UK, 20.1% ( n  = 327) in Australia, 17.1% ( n  = 279) in Canada, 8.9% ( n  = 145) in the USA, 6.6% ( n  = 108) in NZ, and 6.7% ( n  = 110) in Ireland. Country they were living in when they completed the survey included Australia, 29.2% ( n  = 479), UK, 21.3% ( n  = 350), Canada, 20.9% ( n  = 342), USA, 7.6% ( n  = 124), Ireland, 7.9% ( n  = 129), New Zealand, 7.4% ( n  = 122). The full demographics data for the participants including a breakdown for each of the three regions: Australia/NZ; UK, Ireland and Europe; and Canada and the USA are in Table  1 . The number of participants from Europe was very small ( n  = 5, Italy = 4, Portugal = 1) and were therefore combined into the UK and Ireland region.

Statistically significant differences were found between the UK-Ireland region and Canada-USA region for age, with the Canada-USA region being older. Significantly more participants from the Australia-NZ region lived in a capital city or the surrounding suburbs compared to the other two regions. Significantly more from Australia-NZ, Canada-USA lived in regional cities compared to the UK-Ireland and significantly more participants from the UK-Ireland lived in a regional area compared to the other two regions. The UK-Ireland and Canada-USA regions both had significantly more participants who had completed an undergraduate degree than the Australia-NZ region. Whereas post-graduate degree completion was reported significantly more often by Australia-NZ participants compared to the other two regions. The Australia-NZ region reported significantly more children than the Canada-USA region. Australia-NZ also had significantly more participants who had help in the home compared to the UK-Ireland region. No significant differences for sex, employment status, medications prescribed and ability to complete activities of daily living were found.

Do older people set goals they would like to achieve?

Almost two-thirds (63.0%, n  = 977) of the survey participants stated they set goals they wanted to achieve. The Australia-NZ (67.1%; n  = 403) and Canada-USA (65.5%; n  = 305) regions were significantly more likely to set goals than the UK-Ireland region (55.6%; n  = 269), χ 2 (2, n  = 1,551) = 16.875, p  < 0.0001. Of the 63.0% who reported they set goals, 67.4% ( n  = 659) described their goals in an open-ended response. Many participants reported multiple goals within their response. In total, there were 1,773 goals themed, Australia-NZ averaged 1.66 per participant ( n  = 683 total number of goals), Canada-USA 1.42 per participant ( n  = 538), and UK-Ireland 1.12 per participant ( n  = 552) (see Table  1 ). UK-Ireland averaged significantly fewer goals per person than Australia-NZ and Canada-USA.

Types of goals – overarching themes

Six overarching themes were identified from 946 goals reported, these are presented in Table  2 . ‘Activities and experiences’ was the most frequently mentioned theme, followed by ‘health and wellbeing’ and ‘social connections and engagement.’ There was a statistically significant difference for ‘social connections and engagement’ with the UK-Ireland reporting these fewer times than participants from Australia-NZ and Canada-USA. Australia-NZ participants were significantly more likely to report ‘activities and experiences’ as a goal compared to Canada-USA and ‘home and lifestyle’ significantly more than both of the other regions. Canada-USA were significantly more likely to report goals around ‘finances and employment’ compared to the UK-Ireland.

Due to the small number of participants identifying as non-binary ( n  = 3), transgender ( n  = 1) and intersex ( n  = 1) the analysis only included those identifying as male or female for the differences between sexes questions. Females provided on average 2.06 responses and males 1.86. ‘Activities and experiences’, followed by ‘health and wellbeing’ and ‘social connections and engagements’ were the three highest reported goals respectively for females (see Table  2 ). Males reported ‘activities and experiences’, ‘social connections and engagements’ and then ‘health and wellbeing’ as their top three reported goals. There were significant differences between the sexes for ‘health and wellbeing’ and ‘home and lifestyle’ where it was more likely to be reported by females, whereas males were significantly more likely to report ‘finance and employment’ as part of their goals.

Types of goals – sub-themes

The overarching themes were derived from 38 sub-themes, which are illustrated in Fig.  1 Conceptual map. ‘Activities and experiences’ included the largest number of sub-themes with 10 identified. Examples included hobbies, learning new skills, gardening, writing books, breaking records, being useful, travel and doing things that are fun. ‘Social connection and engagement’ included eight sub-themes, such as spending time with family and friends, volunteering, engaging with the community or outdoors and having a pet. ‘Health and wellbeing’ and ‘attitude to life’ both had six sub-themes, whereas ‘finance and employment’ and ‘home and lifestyle’ included four sub-themes respectively.

Conceptual map of the goals

Table  3 presents the 38 sub-themes by region. The most prevalent sub-themes were exercise/physical activity/get fitter (35.6%), travel (28.6%), general health and wellbeing (22.6%) and spending time with family (or helping them) (20.6%). The Australia-NZ region was significantly more likely to report general health and wellbeing and gardening as important goals compared to both the UK-Ireland and Canada-USA. Australia-NZ and Canada-USA regions were also significantly more likely to state helping others and volunteering, and spending time with friends as goals compared to the UK-Ireland region. Healthy eating and maintaining weight was reported significantly more often by participants from Canada-USA than Australia-NZ. The Australia-NZ region was also significantly more likely to report spending time with family (or helping them) and stay living independently than participants living in the UK-Ireland region. Faith and spiritual connection, including going to church and meditating was reported significantly more often for Canada-US compared to both Australia-NZ and the UK-Ireland. However, the UK-Ireland were significantly more likely to state starting or completing educational courses and learning new skills as goals compared to those in the Canada-USA region. Finally, Canada-USA were more likely to report staying alive as a goal compared to the UK-Ireland.

Table  4 presents the sub-theme goals by sex, with 963 goals identified. Females identified exercise/physical activity/getting fitter (38.8%), travel (30.3%) and general health and wellbeing (22.3%) as their three most reported sub-theme goals. This was the same as the males, however only 23.8% of males reported exercise/physical activity/getting fitter as the most important sub-theme goal and 22.3% general health and wellbeing and travel, at equal second. Travel, healthy eating and maintaining weight, exercise/physical activity/getting fitter, losing weight, and learning new skills were all reported significantly more by females than males. Whereas males reported competing/breaking world records/challenging oneself, financial security/independence/getting out of debt, living to 100/growing old gracefully and in good health, remarrying/marry/relationships/sex life and staying alive significantly more often than females.

This study found that the majority of older adults, living in different regions of the world, are setting personal goals. Six over-arching themes were identified from the data and not only included “health and well-being,” like much of the previous research in this area, but also an array of other factors that were identified as important in an older person’s life. Additionally, some of the themes aligned with the six determinants of active aging identified in the WHO’s Active Aging Policy [ 4 ], such as health, social, personal, and economic factors.

“Health and well-being” were identified by more than half of the participants in this study, which is similar to other studies exploring older adults’ personal goals. However, many of the sub-themes, such as physical activity, exercise, improving nutrition, controlling pain, or maintaining function, were also identified as higher, overarching themes within previous research [ 2 , 17 , 21 ]. This may be because fewer goals were described by participants in previous research or closed questions (tick boxes) were used in data collection. Also, unlike previous research, this current study included multi-country perspectives using the same open-answer questionnaire during the same time period, which may have increased the breadth of goals that were provided when compared to single country studies.

Working with older people to create future goals has been found to increase life satisfaction and quality of life [ 13 ]; thus, this may be a key way to intervene after a health issue arises. However, health interventions geared toward older people tend to give them “what is considered to be needed, but not what they want or hope for” [ 22 , p. 299]. New ways to achieve goals that promote active aging continue to increase [ 2 ], and health care providers, social workers, and others may facilitate continued growth in this area by assisting older people in their goal setting and planning. For example, soliciting and focusing on self-defined goals when working with older adults can provide a sense of agency in creating a future that best supports and enhances their quality of life and overall well-being. Additionally, public health policies that aim to promote healthy aging could integrate elements of goal setting for older adults that focus on specific aspects of “activities and experiences” and “social connections and engagement” alongside health promotion and engagement. Those who work with older adults will need to shift their attitudes toward goal setting [ 2 ] by focusing their energy on self-determination and elevating the voices of older adults as well as moving beyond care goals. Arguably, health goals are essential to much of this work, but a holistic approach is needed to improve subjective well-being and overall life satisfaction and to build trust and rapport.

“Activities and experiences” was the most prevalent theme across the six regions, which have been described in previous research under the guise of leisure [ 22 ], cultural activities, volunteering, skill development [ 23 ], travel [ 21 ], and intellectual pursuits [ 2 ]. Yet none of this previous research covered the range of activities older people enjoy and how it differs depending on the country or sex of the participants. Nor have they illustrated that “activities and experiences” are perceived as more important as personal goals than “health and well-being” or “social connections and engagement” by older adults. This research illustrates the importance of “activities and experiences” for older adults and that they want to continue participating, and in some cases, achieving in activities they enjoy (e.g., breaking world records). Health professionals could consider discussing whether these are of importance to their older patients, and if so, linking their health and rehabilitative goals to the “activities and experiences” of their choice. This approach is often described in the reablement literature. Reablement being defined broadly as a person-centered approach aimed at enhancing a person’s physical and/or other functioning to increase or maintain independence in meaningful activities of daily living [ 24 ]. However, goals are often focused around health, function, or social connections rather than “activities or experiences” [ 24 , 25 ].

“Social connections and engagement” were also identified in the top three themes for both sex and region. Females in this current study placed greater emphasis on “health and well-being” (second highest) as a goal, whereas males identified “social connections and engagement” as more important than their “health and wellbeing” goals. This may be due to women already prioritizing “social connections and engagement” [ 26 ] and therefore not feeling a need to include it as a goal. Similarly, fewer males noted exercise or physical fitness as a priority, yet research shows older age males are often more physically active than females [ 27 ]. Thus, they may not include this as a personal goal if it is already being achieved. However, this is outside the scope of this study, and it is not possible to be certain on the reasons why these goals were prioritized by the different sexes. Focus groups or interviews could facilitate greater understanding of how gender influences goal-setting.

“Finance and employment” were perceived as important to participants in the Australia/New Zealand and Canada/USA regions, but not as much in the UK/Ireland. It is difficult to determine why this may be the case, but potentially the different pension systems and health and social care systems may play a role. Males were also significantly more likely to include financial security, independence, and getting out of debt as goals compared to females. This study did not explore reasons why, and we are therefore unable to speculate as to why this was the case. Perhaps traditional gender role socialization plays a role in personal goal setting. “Finances and employment” were not commonly described in previous research looking at personal goals of older adults, but it has been described within zero-sum, extrinsic frameworks [ 28 , 29 ]. Future research is needed to examine these connections, generationally and by gender identity.

The Australia/NZ region were significantly more likely to include “home and lifestyle” goals than both the UK/Ireland and Canada/USA regions. Also, the Australia/NZ region had almost twice the proportion of participants living in a capital city or regional city compared to the other two regions and far fewer in regional and remote areas. Study participants were not asked whether they owned their own home or rented, and this may have provided one reason as to why it was more of a goal for some than others. Other studies exploring personal goals of older adults rarely included “home and lifestyle” factors within their work. This is an area ripe for further examination as it relates to aging in place and what meaning the home has for older people as they age.

Enjoying life and having a positive attitude to life has been included in previous goals research for older adults [ 2 , 23 ], and like this current study, it was not of the highest priority when setting their goals. However, having a positive attitude, enjoying life, and being kind and respectful is viewed as important enough by older people to be included in their personal goals. Educating health care providers, social workers, and others who primarily work with older people through continuing education programs run by their disciplines (e.g., Australian Physiotherapy Association), online courses or webinars (national societies e.g., Gerontological Society of America) would allow them to think about goal setting beyond specific health care needs and promote greater generativity and well-being.

There are a number of strengths of this study, including open questions with no examples provided for types of goals to include, therefore reducing the opportunity for bias and only capturing the thoughts of the participants. Collecting data across multiple countries simultaneously using the same questionnaire has, to our knowledge, not been conducted previously in personal goal setting and provides an opportunity to directly compare perspectives of older people across three regions of the world. Multi-country studies have been undertaken previously, but they linked data between countries after data collection was completed, and often the questions being asked were not worded exactly the same across the different countries. Limitations included only involving English speaking countries in the questionnaire and predominantly including people with access to the internet and who were Facebook users. There was also an over-representation of females and ethnicity and income were not collected. There is also a chance that how we described where someone was living may have been misinterpreted between capital city and surrounding suburbs and how this is described across the different countries included in the study. We also combined countries to explore the three regions and there may have been differences between the countries, for example with USA and Canada having different healthcare systems.

This study supports the notion that older adults can and do set personal goals and that they are wide ranging. Goal setting is prevalent in health care, but research often states from the health professionals’ perspective that it is difficult to identify goals or that older adults either do not like or find it difficult to set goals [ 30 ]. Perhaps other factors, such as the approach to identifying these goals, the way the question about goal setting is phrased, or lack of time given to the older person to think about their goals are greater issues than their ability to identify them. Health professionals may like to consider different methods for elucidating this important information from their patients that solicits self-defined goals and includes programming that factor in elements of activities and experiences and social connections and engagement.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

New Zealand

Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences

United Kingdom

United States of America

World Health Organization

Giosa JL, Byrne K, Stolee P. Person- and family-centred goal-setting for older adults in Canadian home care: a solution-focused approach. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30:e2445–56.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Howard EP, Louvar KE. Examining life goals of community-dwelling, low-income older adults. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2017;10(5):205–14.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Walker A. Active aging in employment: its meaning and potential. Asia-Pacific Rev. 2006;13(1):78–93.

Article   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. Active ageing: a policy framework. World Health Organization; 2002.

Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology. 1. 2012;20:416–36.

Google Scholar  

Kasser T, Ryan RM. A dark side of the American dream: correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993;65(2):410–22.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kasser T, Ryan RM. Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1996;22(3):280–7.

Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. 2000;55(1):68–78.

Ouchi K, George N, Schuur JD, Aaronson EL, Lindvall C, Bernstein E, et al. Goals-of-care conversations for older adults with serious illness in the emergency department: challenges and opportunities. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;74(2):276–84.

Tinetti ME, Costello DM, Naik AD, Davenport C, Hernandez-Bigos K, Van Liew JR, et al. Outcome goals and health care preferences of older adults with multiple chronic conditions. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e211271–e.

Kalyani RR, Golden SH, Cefalu WT. Diabetes and aging: unique considerations and goals of care. Diabetes Care. 2017;40(4):440–3.

Teater B, Chonody J. Reconsidering how successful aging is defined: perspectives from community-dwelling aging adults. Adv Social Work, 2020;20(3), 694–708. https://doi.org/10.18060/24218 .

Wrosch C, Bauer I, Scheier MF. Regret and quality of life across the adult life span: the influence of disengagement and available future goals. Psychol Aging. 2005;20(4):657–70.

Yuri Y, Takabatake S, Nishikawa T, Oka M, Fujiwara T. The effects of a life goal-setting technique in a preventive care program for frail community-dwelling older people: a cluster nonrandomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):1–11.

Gomez V, Allemand M, Grob A. Neuroticism, extraversion, goals, and subjective well-being: exploring the relations in young, middle-aged, and older adults. J Res Pers. 2012;46(3):317–25.

Au A, Ng E, Lai S, Tsien T, Busch H, Hofer J, et al. Goals and life satisfaction of Hong Kong Chinese older adults. Clin Gerontol. 2015;38(3):224–34.

Saajanaho M, Rantakokko M, Portegijs E, Törmäkangas T, Eronen J, Tsai LT, et al. Life resources and personal goals in old age. Eur J Ageing. 2016;13(3):195–208.

Saajanaho M, Viljanen A, Read S, Eronen J, Kaprio J, Jylhä M, et al. Mobility limitation and changes in personal goals among older women. Journals Gerontol Ser B: Psychol Sci Social Sci. 2016;71(1):1–10.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Braun V, Clarke V, Gray D. Collecting qualitative data: a practical guide to Textual, Media and virtual techniques. Cambridge: UK: Cambridge University Press; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Terrell CA, Martins SL, Delkoski SL, Torkelson CJ. What do women want? Identifying life goals in a community-based sample of women aged ≥ 60 years. J Gerontol Nurs. 2022;48(12).

Lapierre S, Bouffard L, Bastin E. Personal goals and subjective well-being in later life. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 1997;45(4):287–303.

Joly-Burra E, Gallerne E, Van der Linden M, Ghisletta P. Goals do not buy well-being, but they help. Swiss J Psychol. 2020;79(3–4):137–48.

Metzelthin SF, Rostgaard T, Parsons M, Burton E. Development of an internationally accepted definition of reablement: a Delphi study. Ageing Soc. 2022;42(3):703–18.

Sims-Gould J, Tong CE, Wallis-Mayer L, Ashe MC. Reablement, reactivation, rehabilitation and restorative interventions with older adults in receipt of home care: a systematic review. JAMDA. 2017;18:653–63.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Naud D, Généreux M, Bruneau J-F, Alauzet A, Levasseur M. Social participation in older women and men: differences in community activities and barriers according to region and population size in Canada. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1124):1–14.

Lounassalo I, Salin K, Kankaanpää A, Hirvensalo M, Palomäki S, Tolvanen A, et al. Distinct trajectories of physical activity and related factors during the life course in the general population: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(271):1–12.

Headey B. Life goals matter to happiness: a revision of set-point theory. Soc Indic Res. 2008;86:213–31.

Headey B, Muffels R, Wagner GG. Long-running German panel survey shows that personal and economic choices, not just genes, matter for happiness. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107(42):17922–6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zingmark M, Kylén M. Feasibility of a reablement-program in a Swedish municipality. Scand J Occup Ther. 2023;30(1):53–64.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the thousands of older adults who participated in the research study and completed the survey.

This work was support by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant for Associate Professor Burton [Grant Number: APP1174739]. The funders had no role in this research outside of funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

enAble Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, Australia

Elissa Burton

Curtin School of Allied Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

College of Health Sciences, School of Social Work, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

Jill Chonody

College of Staten Island, Department of Social Work, City University of New York, Staten Island, NY, USA

Barbra Teater

The Graduate Center, PhD in Social Welfare, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

Sabretta Alford

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

EB, JC, BT conceptualized the study, EB collected the data, EB analyzed the data, all authors interpreted the findings after initial analysis. EB, JC wrote the first draft, all authors read, edited and approve the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elissa Burton .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval was received from Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee University (HRE-2021-0587). The first question of the survey required participants to provide consent to being involved. Those who said no to giving consent were not permitted to continue completing the survey. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that we have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Burton, E., Chonody, J., Teater, B. et al. Goal setting in later life: an international comparison of older adults’ defined goals. BMC Geriatr 24 , 443 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05017-x

Download citation

Received : 29 January 2024

Accepted : 26 April 2024

Published : 21 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05017-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Comparative research
• Multi-country

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Weird But True
• Sex & Relationships
• Viral Trends
• Human Interest
• Fashion & Beauty
• Food & Drink
• Health Care
• Men’s Health
• Women’s Health
• Mental Health
• Health & Wellness Products
• Personal Care Products

trending now in Lifestyle

This is what happens to your body when you stop having sex

Better than Ozempic? 'Very strong' new weight loss drug is 'so...

I'm a super-commuter — I travel across 4 states to work in NYC...

This is how Subway prepares its steak: 'I will never recover from...

Baby steals hearts by saying she wants to stay at Four Seasons...

Bikini model reveals the detail about her marriage that made 'the...

Bride calls out wedding guest's 'ridiculous' RSVP: 'Nothing I can...

Competitive eating legend retires, says he can no longer feel...

Breaking news, steps vs. minutes: study reveals best way to track exercise.

• View Author Archive
• Follow on Twitter
• Get author RSS feed

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Just for good measure, researchers at a Boston hospital have determined whether it’s better to measure exercise goals in minutes or steps .

“We recognized that existing physical activity guidelines focus primarily on activity duration and intensity but lack step-based recommendations,” said lead study author  Dr. Rikuta Hamaya, who works in the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

“With more people using smartwatches to measure their steps and overall health, we saw the importance of ascertaining how step-based measurements compare to time-based targets in their association with health outcomes — is one better than the other?” Hamaya continued.

According to the  Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans , adults should aim for 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity and two days of muscle strengthening a week. Step recommendations from experts, meanwhile, have varied based on research.

For the latest analysis, published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine , 14,399 healthy women 62 years and older wore devices to record their physical activity for seven consecutive days between 2011 and 2015.

Researchers found that participants typically engaged in 62 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week, accumulating 5,183 steps a day.

During the nine-year follow-up period, some 9% of participants had died and about 4% had developed cardiovascular disease .

The most active 25% of participants — by step counts or time — reduced their risk for death or cardiovascular disease by 30% to 40% compared with the least-active quarter.

And those in the top 75% of physical activity outlived those in the bottom quartile by about two months.

Ultimately, researchers found that choosing between steps or minutes may not be as important as setting a fitness goal that fits into your lifestyle.

“For some, especially for younger individuals, exercise may involve activities like tennis, soccer, walking or jogging, all of which can be easily tracked with steps,” Hamaya said. “However, for others, it may consist of bike rides or swimming, where monitoring the duration of exercise is simpler.”

“That’s why it’s important for physical activity guidelines to offer multiple ways to reach goals. Movement looks different for everyone, and nearly all forms of movement are beneficial to our health,” Hamaya added.

Hamaya aims to collect more data on time- and step-based metrics and expand the sample size, which was mostly white women of higher socioeconomic status.

Get the latest breakthroughs in medicine, diet & nutrition tips and more.

Subscribe to our weekly Post Care newsletter!

Thanks for signing up!

Please provide a valid email address.

By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy .

Never miss a story.

Hamaya’s team notes that the next iteration of the federal physical activity guidelines is planned for 2028.

“Our findings further establish the importance of adding step-based targets, in order to accommodate flexibility of goals that work for individuals with differing preferences, abilities and lifestyles,” said senior study author I-Min Lee, an epidemiologist in the Division of Preventive Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Share this article:

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Handwashing
• Hand Hygiene as a Family Activity
• Hand Hygiene FAQs
• Handwashing Facts
• Publications, Data, & Statistics
• Health Promotion Materials
• Global Handwashing Day
• Clean Hands and Spaces: Handwashing and Cleaning in Educational Facilities
• Life is Better with Clean Hands Campaign
• Clinical Safety
• Healthcare Training
• Clean Hands Count Materials

About Hand Hygiene for Patients in Healthcare Settings

• Patients in healthcare settings are at risk of getting infections while receiving treatment for other conditions.
• Cleaning your hands can prevent the spread of germs, including those that are resistant to antibiotics, and protects healthcare personnel and patients.
• Patients and their loved ones can play a role in asking and reminding healthcare personnel to clean their hands.

Your hands can spread germs.

• Hands have good germs that your body needs to stay healthy. Hands can also have bad germs on them that make you sick.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizer kills most of the bad germs that make you sick.

• Alcohol-based hand sanitizers kill the good and bad germs, but the good germs quickly come back on your hands.

Alcohol-based hand sanitizer does not create antimicrobial-resistant germs.

• Alcohol-based hand sanitizers kill germs quickly and in a different way than antibiotics.
• Using alcohol-based hand sanitizers to clean your hands does not cause antimicrobial resistance.

Steps to take

When patients and visitors should clean their hands.

• Before preparing or eating food.
• Before touching your eyes, nose, or mouth.
• Before and after changing wound dressings or bandages.
• After using the restroom.
• After blowing your nose, coughing, or sneezing.
• After touching hospital surfaces such as bed rails, bedside tables, doorknobs, remote controls, or the phone.

How to clean hands

With an alcohol-based hand sanitizer:.

• Put product on hands and rub hands together.
• Cover all surfaces until hands feel dry.
• This should take around 20 seconds.

With soap and water:

• Wet your hands with warm water. Use liquid soap if possible. Apply a nickel- or quarter-sized amount of soap to your hands.
• Rub your hands together until the soap forms a lather and then rub all over the top of your hands, in between your fingers and the area around and under the fingernails.
• Continue rubbing your hands for at least 15 seconds. Need a timer? Imagine singing the "Happy Birthday" song twice.
• Rinse your hands well under running water.
• Dry your hands using a paper towel if possible. Then use your paper towel to turn off the faucet and to open the door if needed.

Clean Hands Count Campaign Materials‎

Ask your healthcare provider to clean their hands.

• Wearing gloves alone is not enough for your healthcare provider to prevent the spread of infection.
• "Before you start the exam, would you mind cleaning your hands again?"
• "Would it be alright if you cleaned your hands before changing my bandages?"
• "I didn't see you clean your hands when you came in, would you mind cleaning them again before you examine me?"
• "I'm worried about germs spreading in the hospital. Will you please clean your hands once more before you start my treatment?"

Speak up for clean hands in healthcare settings

• Clean your own hands and ask those around you to do the same.
• Don't be afraid to use your voice: it's okay to ask your healthcare provider to clean their hands.
• "I saw you clean your hands when you arrived some time ago, but would you mind cleaning them again?"

Frequently asked questions

Is there such a thing as too clean.

• Germs are everywhere. They are within and on our bodies and on every surface you touch. But not all germs are bad. We need some of these germs to keep us healthy and our immune system strong.
• Your hands have good germs on them that your body needs to stay healthy. These germs live under the deeper layers of the skin.
• Your hands can also have bad germs on them that make you sick. These germs live on the surface and are easily killed/wiped away by the alcohol-based hand sanitizer.
• Using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer is the preferred way for to keep your hands clean.

Washing with soap and water: 15 versus 20 seconds

• Wash your hands for more than 15 seconds, not exactly 15 seconds.
• The time it takes is less important than making sure you clean all areas of your hands.
• Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are the preferred way to clean your hands in healthcare facilities.

Which one? Soap and water versus alcohol-based hand sanitizer

An alcohol-based hand sanitizer is the preferred method for cleaning your hands when they are not visibly dirty because it:

• Is more effective at killing potentially deadly germs on hands than soap.
• when moving from soiled to clean activities with the same patient or resident.
• when moving between patients or residents in shared rooms or common areas.
• Improves skin condition with less irritation and dryness than soap and water.

Guidelines for Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings Published 2002

Core Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Safe Healthcare Delivery in All Settings

What CDC is doing

CDC's Clean Hands Count campaign offers posters, factsheets, and brochures for healthcare providers and patients.

Keep reading: Clean Hands Count materials

Healthcare personnel

When and how to practice hand hygiene. Learn more .

New Training and Education Resources available for Healthcare Professionals.

Hand Hygiene in Healthcare Settings Video Series link: Education Courses | Hand Hygiene | CDC

Clean Hands

Having clean hands is one of the best ways to avoid getting sick and prevent the spread of germs to others.

For Everyone

Health care providers.