Goal setting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2010) |
 | This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (June 2010) |
Goal setting involves establishing specific, measurable and time-targeted objectives[citation needed]. Goal setting features as a major component of personal development literature. Goals perceived as realistic are more effective in changing behavior.
Work on the theory of goal-setting suggests that it's an effective tool for making progress by ensuring that participants in a group with a common goal are clearly aware of what is expected from them if an objective is to be achieved[citation needed]. On a personal level, setting goals is a process that allows people to specify then work towards their own objectives – most commonly with financial or career-based goals[citation needed].
"Goals provide a sense of direction and purpose" (Goldstein, 1993, p. 96).[vague]
Much personal development writing is based on goal setting, including the work of Jim Rohn, Zig Ziglar, and Douglas Vermeeren.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Concept
Goals that are difficult to achieve and specific tend to increase performance more than goals that are not.[1] A goal can become more specific through quantification or enumeration (should be measurable), such as by demanding "increasing productivity by 50%"; or by defining certain tasks that need completing.
Setting goals affects outcomes in four ways:[2]
- Choice: goals narrow attention and direct efforts to goal-relevant activities, and away from perceived undesirable and goal-irrelevant actions.
- Effort: goals can lead to more effort; for example, if one typically produces 4 widgets an hour, and has the goal of producing 6, one may work more intensely than one would otherwise in order to reach the goal.
- Persistence: An individual becomes more prone to work through setbacks if pursuing a goal.
- Cognition: goals can lead an individual to develop cognitive strategies to change their behavior.
[edit] Goal setting in business
In business, goal setting has the advantages of encouraging participants to put in substantial effort; and, because every member has defined expectations set upon him or her (high role perception), little room is left for inadequate effort going unnoticed.
Managers cannot be constantly able to drive motivation and keep track of an employee’s work on a continuous basis. Goals are therefore an important tool for managers since goals have the ability to function as a self-regulatory mechanism that acquires an employee a certain amount of guidance Shalley, 1995[3] and Locke and Latham (2002)[4] have distilled four mechanisms through which goal setting is able to affect individual performance:
- Goals focus attention towards goal-relevant activities and away from goal-irrelevant activities.
- Goals serve as an energizer; higher goals will induce greater effort while low goals induce lesser effort.
- Goals affect persistence; constraints with regard to resources will affect work pace.
- Goals activate cognitive knowledge and strategies which allows employees to cope with the situation at hand.
[edit] Goal–performance relationship
Locke et al. (1981) examined the behavioral effects of goal-setting, concluding that 90% of laboratory and field studies involving specific and challenging goals led to higher performance than did easy or no goals.[5]
While some managers[who?] would believe it is sufficient to urge employees to ‘do their best’, Locke and Latham have a clear contradicting view on this. The authors state that people who are told to ‘do their best’ will not do so. ‘Doing your best’ has no external referent which implies that it is useless in eliciting specific behavior. To elicit some specific form of behavior from others, it is important that this person has a clear view of what is expected from him/her. A goal is thereby of vital importance because it facilitates an individual in focusing their efforts in a specified direction. In other words; goals canalize behavior (Cummings & Worley p. 368)[vague]. However when goals are established at a management level and thereafter solely laid down, employee motivation with regard to achieving these goals is rather suppressed (Locke & Latham, 2002 p. 705)[vague]. In order to increase motivation the employees not only need to be allowed to participate in the goal setting process but the goals have to be challenging as well (Cummings & Worley p. 369)[vague].
[edit] Moderators
| This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (June 2010) |
Through an understanding of the effect of goal setting on individual performance organizations are able to use goal setting to benefit organizational performance. Locke and Latham have therefore indicated three moderators which indicate the success of goal setting:[6]
- Goal commitment
- People will perform better when they are committed to achieve certain goals [citation needed]. Goal commitment is dependent of:
- The importance of the expected outcomes of goal attainment and;
- Self-efficacy – one's belief that they are able to achieve the goals;
- Commitment to others – promises or engagements to others can strongly improve commitment
- Feedback
- Keep track of performance to allow employees to see how effective they have been in attaining the goals. Without proper feedback channels it is impossible to adapt or adjust to the required behavior.
- Task complexity
- More difficult goals require more cognitive strategies and well developed skills. The more difficult the tasks ahead, a smaller group of people will possess the necessary skills and strategies. From an organizational perspective it is thereby more difficult to successfully attain more difficult goals since resources become more scarce.
- Employee motivation
- The more employees are motivated, the more they are stimulated and interested in accepting goals.
These success factors are not to be seen independently. For example the expected outcomes of goals are positively influenced when employees are involved in the goal setting process. Not only does participation increase commitment in attaining the goals that are set, participation influences self-efficacy as well. In addition to this feedback is necessary to monitor one's progress. When this is left aside, an employee might think (s)he is not making enough progress. This can reduce self-efficacy and thereby harm the performance outcomes in the long run.[7]
- goal-commitment, the most influential moderator[citation needed], becomes especially important when dealing with difficult or complex goals. If people lack commitment to goals, they will lack motivation to reach them. In order to become committed to a goal, one must believe in its importance or significance.
- attainability: individuals must also believe that they can attain — or at least partially reach — a defined goal. If they think no chance exists of reaching a goal, they may not even try.
- self-efficacy:[8] the higher someone’s self-efficacy regarding a certain task, the more likely they will set higher goals[citation needed], and the more persistence they will show in achieving them[citation needed].
[edit] Feedback
The enhancement of performance through goals requires feedback[citation needed]. Goal-setting may have little effect if individuals cannot check where the state of their performance is in relation to their goal.[citation needed] Note the importance[citation needed] of people knowing where they stand in relation to achieving their goals, so they can determine the desirability of working harder or of changing their methods.
Advances in technology can make for giving feedback more effectively. Systems analysts have designed computer programs to track goals for numerous members of an organization. Such computer systems may maintain every employee’s goals, as well as their deadlines for achieving them. Separate methods may check the employee’s progress on a regular basis, and other systems may require perceived slackers to explain themselves, and/or account for how they intend to improve the perception.
[edit] Limitations
Goal-setting theory has its limitations. In an organization, a goal of a manager may not align with the goals of the organization as a whole. In such cases, the goals of an individual may come into direct conflict with the employing organization. Without aligning goals between the organization and the individual, performance may suffer. Moreover, for complex tasks, goal-setting may actual impair performance. In these situations, an individual may become preoccupied with meeting the goals, rather than performing tasks.
Some people[who?] feel that one possible drawback of goal setting is that implicit learning may be inhibited. This is because goal setting may encourage simple focus on an outcome without openness to exploration, understanding or growth.[citation needed]
[edit] History
The first empirical studies were performed by Cecil Alec Mace in 1935.[9] Edwin A. Locke began to examine goal setting in the mid-1960s and continued researching goal setting for thirty years. Locke derived the idea for goal-setting from Aristotle’s form of final causality. Aristotle speculated that purpose can cause action; thus, Locke began researching the impact goals have on individual activity of its time performance.
[edit] See also
- Motivation
- Performance measurement
- Remuneration
- I-Change Model
- SMART criteria
- Big Hairy Audacious Goal
- Purpose
[edit] References
- ^ Swezey, Robert W.; Meltzer, Andrew L.; Salas, Eduardo (1994). "Some Issues Involved in Motivating Teams". in O'Neil, Harold F.; Drillings, Michael. Motivation: theory and research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 146. ISBN 0805812873.
- ^ Latham, Gary P.; Budworth, Marie-Hélène (2007). "The Study of Work Motivation in the 20th Century". in Koppes, Laura L.. Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 366. ISBN 0805844392.
- ^ Shalley, Christina E. (April 1995), "Effects of Coaction, Expected Evaluation, and Goal Setting on Creativity and Productivity", Academy of Management Journal 38 (2): 501, http://www.jstor.org/pss/256689, retrieved 2010-06-01
- ^ Latham, G.; Locke, Edwin A. (2002), "Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation", The American Psychologist 57 (9): 705–17
- ^ Locke, Edwin A.; Shaw, Karyll N.; Saari, Lise M.; Latham, Gary P. (1981), "Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969–1980", Psychological Bulletin (American Psychological Association) 90 (1): 125–152, http://datause.cse.ucla.edu/DOCS/eal_goa_1981.pdf, retrieved 2010-06-01
- ^ Latham, G.; Locke, Edwin A. (2002), "Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation", The American Psychologist 57 (9): 707–9
- ^ Bandura, A. (March 1993), "Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning", Educational Psychologist 28 (2): 119–20
- ^ Goal-setting theory might define "self-efficacy" as an impression that one has the capability of performing in a certain manner or of attaining certain goals. Or one could define "self-efficacy" as a belief that one has the capabilities to execute the courses of actions required to manage prospective situations. Unlike efficacy (defined as the power to produce an effect — in essence, competence), self-efficacy consists of the belief (whether or not accurate) that one has the power to produce that effect. For example, a person with high self-efficacy may engage in a more health-related activity when an illness occurs, whereas a person with low self efficacy may succumb to feelings of hopelessness. Compare David Sue, Derald Wing Sue, Stanley Sue, Understanding Abnormal Behavior, 8th edition, p. 214. — Note the distinction between self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self-esteem in this context relates to a person’s sense of self-worth, whereas self-efficacy relates to a person’s perception of their ability to reach a goal. For example, take the case of an incompetent rock-climber. Though probably afflicted with poor self-efficacy in regard to rock climbing, this hypothetical person could retain their self-esteem unaffected — most people don’t invest much of their self-esteem in this activity. Compare http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/efftalk.html, retrieved 2007-11-24
- ^ Cecil alec mace: The man who discovered goal-setting, by Paula Phillips Carsona; Kerry D. Carsona; Ronald B. Headya; DOI: 10.1080/01900699408524960; International Journal of Public Administration, Volume 17, Issue 9 1994 , pages 1679 - 1708
[edit] Further reading
- Locke, Edwin A. (1968) “Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives” Organizational behavior and human performance, (3)2: 157-189.
- Locke, Edwin A. (1996) “Motivation Through Conscious Goal Setting,” Applied and Preventive Psychology, 5:117-124.
- Locke, Edwin A. (2001) “Motivation by Goal Setting,” Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 2: 43-54.
- Robert F. Mager, Goal Analysis, 3rd. edition, 1997.
- Douglas Vermeeren, "Guerrilla Achiever", 1 Edition, 2010
Access Content Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal_setting
***********************************************************************
http://dreamlearndobecome.blogspot.com This posting was made my Jim Jacobs, President & CEO of Jacobs Executive Advisors. Jim also serves as Leader of Jacobs Advisors' Insurance Practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment