Goal Setting and Task Performance: 1969–1980

Abstract

Results from a review of laboratory and field studies on the effects of goal setting on 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. (3½ p ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Full text

UCASFE
I
TtF
SI
REDINSTRUCTIONS
REPORT
DOCUME
TATION
PAGEeoE
COMPL.TG
FoRM
"Ii
t.
RepoR~r
It..U;§R
"
2.ROVT
ACCESSION
NO.
3.
P.EC;;-,NT'S
CATALOG
NUMIER
GS-
1
r/
4.
TITLE
(and
S*ublhio,)
9.
TYPE
OFI
RErPORT
&
PERIOD
COVERED
Goal
Settii;
and
Task
Performance:
T
0-1980.
Tehna
Report
/
Technical
Report
(.
PERFORMING
ORG.
REPORT
NUMBER
GS-I
7.
AUTNOR(e)
I.
CONTRACT OR GRANT
NUMBER@e)
Edwin
A.
Locke,
Karyll
N.
Shaw,
Lise
M.
Saari,
and
Gary
P.
Latham
N00014-79-C-0680
-
S.
P'RFORMIIG
ORGANIZATION
NAME
AND
ADDRESS
tO.
PROGRAM
ELEMENT.
PROJECT, TASK
College
of
Business
A
•anagement.
Univ.
of
Md.
RInLA
&
WORK
UNIT
NUMUERS
College
Park,-D-2=42-.
NR
170-890
II.
CONTROLLING
OFFICE
NAME
AND
ADDRESS
12.
REPORT
OATE
Organizational
Effectiveness
Research
Programs
June
1.980
r'=
Office
of
Naval
Research
(Code
452)
IS.
NUMBER
OF
PAGES
Arlington,
VA
22217
ninety
(90)
14.
MONITORING
AGENCY
NAME
4
AoDRESS(•U
different
frou
Controlling
Office)
15.
SECURITY
CLASS.
(of
thie
-rar,)
Umr.LASSIFIED
I
aOEC.ASII
FPICA
TION/
DOWNGRADING
S
C
I
4 E D
U
I j
IS.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
(of thie
Report)
Approved
for
public
release;
distribution
unlimited
17.
DISTRIISUT.ON
-STATEMIENT
(of
the
abstat
eter
a.ed
In
Block
20.
It
different
from
Rwet,)
IELEC:TE
IS.
SUPPLEMENTARY
NOTES
II.
KI[n
WOPDS
(C'othwe
on
•evere
aide
it
neceel.,W
and
Identify
by
blocic
number.)
Gaol
setting
Incentives Individual
differences
Task
difficulty
Rewards
Nced
for
achievement
Knowledge
of
Results
Participation
Self
esteem
>j
Feedback
Supportiveness
20.
AIDSTMACT
(Cmnltmnae
an
revri'ae
aed.
It
necoeeaey
ad
Identity
by
Neck
bloc
e)
.k'
--
.A
review
of
both
laboratory
and
field
studies
on
the
effect
of
setting
LLJ
goals
when
learning or
pecforming
a
task,;ound~specific,challenging
goals
led
,•
-J
to
higher
performance
than
easy
goals,
"do
your
best"
goals
or
no
goals.
'
L
This
is
one
of
the
mast
robust
and
replicable
findings
in
the
psychological
literature
with
90%
of
the
studies
showing
positive
or
partially
positive
Sresults.
The
main mechanisms by
which
goals
affect
performance
are
by/r
directing attention,
mobilizing
effort,
increasing
persistence
and
,
1473
EDITION
OF
I
NOV
.1
IS
OBSOLETE
'JAN")
S/N
01
02.LF-.01
4-6601
SECURITY
CLASSIIICATION
OF
TWIS
PAGE
(•lan
.4
Gnge,#)
I

UNCLASSIFIED
SgCURITV
CL&ASS1rICATIOM
Oi
TmIS
PACI
so,..
Date
Unfee..
-motivating
strategy
development.
Goal
setting
is
most
likely to
improve
task
I
performance
whený
the goals
are
specific
and
sufficiently
challenging,
when
the
subjects
haie
sufficient
ability
(and
ability
differences
are
con-
trolled)
;'
when
feedback
is
provided
to
show
progress
in
relation
to
the
goal)
when
rewards
such
as
money
are
given
for
goal
attainmentl
when
the
ex-
erimenter
manager
is
supportive;
"and
when
the
assigned
goals
are
actually
accepted
by
the
individual.
No
reliable
individual
differences
have
emerged
in
goal
setting
studies,
probably-due
t6
ýei-•ct-.that'goals
were
typically
assigned
rather
than
self-set).
need
for
achievement
and
self
esteem
may
be
the
most
promising
individual
difference
variables.
SECUMITY
CLASIFICATION
Of
THIS
PAOR(Wlw Date
ZamWO•

Goal
Setting
and
Task
Performance:
1969-198
-
-
Edwin
A.lLocke'
Karyll
N.
/Shaw!
SUn,
.•f:
land
A
Aooeasion
For"
UnLM.Aa..ed
P/Latham
Justifiation
Un
ive
rs-y
•bfVahh'gtr)n
B__
_
I~
krvail
and/or
DIst.
special
LA
CHNCAL
RET ,J
Reproduction
in
whole
or
in
part
is
permitted
for
any
purpose
of
the
U.S.Government.
This
report
vas
sponsored
by
the Organizatioral
Effectivene
ss
Program,
office
of
Naval
Research(Code
452),under
Contract
No.1
Nh7-C-FT
APPROVED
FOR
PUBLIC
RELIASE:
DISTRIBUTION
UNL~IMITEDl
807
7
041
uK /,,,-:_
-
•" . . '

Abstract
A
review
of
both
laboratory
and
field
studies
on
the
effects
of
setting
goals
when
performing
a
task
found
that:
specific~challenging
goals
lead
to
higher
performance
than
easy
goals,
"do
your
best"
goals
or
no
goals.
This
is
one
of
the
most
robust
and
replicable
findings
in
the
psychological
literature
with
90%
of the
studies
showing
positive
or
partially
positive
results.
The
main
mechianisms
by
which
goals
affect
performance
are
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
;the
subjects
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
issupportive;
and
the
assigned
goals
are
actually
accepted
by
the
individual.
No
reliable
individual
differences
have
emerged
in
goal
setting
studies,
probably
because
goals
are
typically
assigned
rather
than
self-set;
need
for
achievement
and
self-esteem
may
be
the
most
promising
individual
difference variables.
__ '1

Goal
Setting
and Task
Performance:
1969-1980
Climb
high
Climb
far
Your
goal
the
sky
Your
aim
the
star.
(Inscription
at
Williams
College,
quoted
by
Masters,
Furman
and
Barder,
1977,
p.
217)
The
concept
of
goal
setting
falls
within
the
broad
domain
of
cognitive
psychology
and
is
consistent
with
recent
trends
in
the
field
as
a
whole
such
as
cognitive
behavior
modification
(Meichenbaum,
1977).
The
present
interest
of
researchers
in
goal
setting
has
two
sources,
one
academic
and
the
other
organizational.
The
academic
source
goes
back
from
Ryan
(1970)
and
Miller,
Galanter
and
Pribram
(1960),
through
Lewin
to
the
Wurzburg
School,
and
their
concepts
of
intentiontask
and
set
(see
Ryan,
1970,
for
a
summary).,
The
organizational
source
traces
from
Management
by
Objectives,
a
process
now
widely
used
in
industry
(see
Odiorne,
1978,
for
a
3ui'mary),
back
to
the
Scientific
Management movement
founded
by
Frederick
W.
Taylor
(1911/1967).
Both
strains
of
thought
come
together
in
the
more
recent
work
of
Locke
(1968),
Latham
(Latnam
&
I
Yukl,
1975a)
and
others
on
the
relation
of
goal
setting
and
task
performance.
Goal
setting
is
also
an
important
component
of
"social
learning
theory"
(Bandura,
1977),
1
I
II

2
a
theory
which
has
become
increasingly
influential
in
recent
yearsý
Even
the
so-called
"organizational
behavior
modification"
literature
can
be
interpreted
largely
within
a
goal
setting
framework
(Locke,
1977).
Rerearch
on
goal
setting
is
proliferating
so
rapidly
that
recent
reviews
of
the
literature
(Latham
&
Yuk]
,
1975a;
Locke,,
1968;
Steers
&
Porter,
1974)
are
now
outdated.
To
provide
a
longer
term
perspective,
the
present
review
will
include
goal
setting
research
published
since
1968.
'However,
studies
which
are
explicitly
clinical
and
social-
iJ
psychological
in
nature
are not
included
(for
a
detailed
review
of the
latter,
see
Fishbein
and
Ajzen,
1975).
The
Concept
of
Goal
Setting
Goal
setting
is
a
cognitive
concept.
A
goal
is
what
the
individual
is
trying
to
accomplish,
the
object
or
aim
of
an
action.
It is
similar
in
meaning
to
the
concepts
of
purpose
and
intent
(Locke,
1969).
Other
frequently
used
concepts
which
are
similar
in
meax'ing
to
that
of
goal
include:
performance
standard
(a
measuring
rod
for
evaluating
performance);
quota
(
a
minimum
amount
of
work
or
production);
work
norm
(a
standard
of
acceptable
behavior
defined
by
a
work
group);
task
(a
piece
of
work
to
be
accomplished);
objective
(the
ultimate
aim
of
an
action
or
series
of
actions);deadline
(a
time
limit
for
completing
a
task);
and
budget
(a
spending goal
or
limit).
II

3
Earlier
attemnpts
of
behaviorists
to
reduce
concepts
like
goal
and
purpose
to
physical
events
have
been
severely
criticized
(e.g.,
see
Locke,
1969,
1972).
Goal
setting
might
be
called
"stimulus
control"
by
a
modern
behaviorist,
but
the key
question
then
becomes:
What
is
the
stimulus?
If
it
is
an
assigned
goal
only
(an
environmental
event),
then
it
igr'ores
the
importance
of
goal
acceptance;
an
assigned
goal
which
is
rejected
can
hardly
regulate
performance.
If
goal
acceptance
is
considered
relevant,
then
the
regulating
stimulus must
be
a
mental
event--
ultimately
the
individual's personal
goal.
The
environment,
of course,
can
influence
goal
setting
as
well
as
goal
acceptance,
an
issue
which
is
dealt
with
in
some
of
the
recent
research
to
be
reported
below.
The
basic assumption
of
goal
setting research
is
that
goals
are
immediate
regulators
of
much
human
action.
However,
no
one
to
one
correspondence
between
goals
and
action
is
assumed,
since
people may
make
errors,
lack
sufficient
ability
to
attain their
objec~tives
(Locke,
1968),
or
have
subconscious conflicts
or
premises which subvert
their
conscious
goals.
The
precise degree
of
association
between
goals and
action
is
an
empirical
question
and
is
the subject
of
the
research
to
be
reviewed
here. We
shall
specifically
look
for
the
fActors
upon
which
goal-action
correlepondence
is
contingent.

4
A
corollary
of
the
premise
that
goals
are
immediate
regulators
of
action
is
that they
mediate
the
effects
of
extrinsic
incentives
such
as
money,
feedback
and
participation
(Locke,1968)
on
behavior. Research
relevrant
to
these
incentives
is
also
included
in this
review,
Goal
Setting
Attributes
2
4
Mental
processes have
two
major
attributes, content
and
intensity
(Rand,?
1967)
.
The
content
of
a
goal
pertains
to
the
objects
or
results
which
are
being
sought. The
main
dimensions
of
goal
content
which
have
been
studied
so far
are:
specificity
or clarity,
the
degree
of
quantitative
precision with which
the
aim
is
specified;
and
difficulty,
the
degree
of
proficiency
or
level
of
performance
sought.
The terms
task
difficulty
and
goal
difficulty
are
often
used
interchangeably, but
a
distinction between
them
can
be
made.
As
stated
above
a
task
is
a
piece
of
work
to
be
accomplished.
A
difficult
task
is
one
which
is
hard
to
do.
One
reason
a
task
can
be
hard
is
because
it
is
complex,
i.e.,
it
requires
a
high
level
of
skill
and
knowledge.
For example,
writing
a
book
on
physics
is
a
harder
task
than
writing
a
thank
you
note.
A
task
can
a~so
be hax&
because
a
great
deal
of
effort
is
required
to
complete
it.
For
example,
digging
the
foundation
for
a
pool takes
more effort
than

digging
a
hole
to
plant
a
flower
seed.
i
A
goal
is
the
object
or
aim
of
an
action.
Thus
it is ]
possible
to
have
as
a
goal,
the
completion
of
a
task.
However,
as
used
in
most
goal
setting
studies,
the
term
goal
refers
to
attaining
a
specifi'c
standard
of
proficiency
on
a
task, usually
within
a
specified
time
limit.
For
example,
two
individuals
are
given
the
same
task
(e.g.,
simple
addition),
but
one
is
asked
to
complete
a
large
number
of
problems
within
the
next
30
minutes
while
the
other
is
told
to
complete
a
small
number
of
problems.
In
this
case
the
harder
goal
would
be
achieved
by
expending
I
greater
effort
and
attention,
as
compared
to
the
easy goal.
Harder
goals,
like
harder
tasks, also
can
require
more
knowledge and
skill
than
easier
goals
(e.g.,
winning
a
chess
tournament
versus
coming
in
next
to
last).
To
summarize
the
above
distinction,
the
term
goal
difficulty
specifies
a
certain
level
of
task
proficiency,
measured
againet
a
standard,whereas
task
difficulty
refers
simply
to
the
nature
of
the
work
to
be
accomplished.
Put
Irore
briefly,
the
task
specifies
what
is
to
be
done,
the
goal
how
well
cr
how
fast
it
is
to
be
done.
While
greater
task
difficulty
should
lead
to
greater
effort
(Kahneman,
1973;
Kaplan
&
Rothkopf,
1974;
Shapira,
Note
5),
the
relationship
of
task
difficulty
to
performance

6
is
problematic.
If
more work
is
translated
into
a
goalI
to
get
more
done,
task
difficulty
may
be
positively
related
jto
performance
(Sales,
1970).
On
thecther
hand,
if
harder
.
tasks
require more
ability
or
knowledge,
most
people
%Till
perform
less
well
on
them,
even
if
they
try
harder,
than
they
would
perform
on
easier
tasks
(e.g.,
Shapira,
Note
5).I
However,
Campbell
and Ilgen
(1976)
found
that
training
people
on
a
hard
task
.Led
at
first
to
poorer
task
performance
but
subsequently
to
better
performance
than
training
on
an
easy tar%.
Presumably
this
effect
was
due
to the
greater
:1
knowledge
and
skill
developed
by
initially
working
on
the
hard
task.
While
there
has
been
extensive
research
on the
effects
of
goal
specificity
and
difficulty
on
performance,
little
attention
has
been paid
to
two
other
dimensions
of goal
content:
goal
complexity
(the
number
and
interrelationship
of
the
results
aimed
for)
and
conflict
(the
degree
to
whichI
attaining
one
goal
negates
or subverts
attaining
another).
The
sec-ond
attribute,
intensity,
pertains
to
the
process
of
setting
the goal or
the
process
of
determining
how
to
reach
it.
Intensity
would
be
measured
by
such
factors
as:
the
scope
of
the
cognitive
process,
the
degree
of
effort
required,
the
importance
of
the
goal,
the
context
in
which
it
is
set,
etc.

7
Goal
intensity
may
be
related
to
goal content;
for
example,
a
more intense
psychological
process
is
needed
to set
and
to
figure
out
how
to
attain
complex
goals
than
simple
goals.I
Thus
far
goal
intensity
has not
been studied
as
such,
although
a
related
concept,
goal
commitment,
has
been measured
in
a
number
of
experiments.
Relation
of
Goal
Attributes
to
Performance
Goal
Difficulty
Aprevious
review
of
the
goal
setting
literatureI
(Locke,
1968)
found
strong
evidence
for
a
linear
relation-
ship
between
goal
difficulty
and
task
performance
(assuming
sufficient
ability),
and
more
recent studies
have
supported
the
earlier
findings.
rour results
in
threeI
experimental
field
studies
found
harder
goals
led to
better
performnance
than
easy
goals:
Latham
and
Locke
(1975)
with
logging
crews;
Yukl
and
Latham
(1978)
with
typists;
and
a
simulated
field
study
by
Bassett
(1979).
In
a
separate
manipulation, Bassett
also
found
that
shorter
time
limits
led
to
a
faster
work
pace than
longer
time
limits.
Twenty
five
experimental
laboratory studies
have
obtained
similar
results
with
a
wide
variety
of
tasks;
Bavelas
(1978)
with
a
figure
selection
task;
Bavelas
and
Lee
(1978)
in
five of
six
experiments
involvinig
brainstorming,

figure
selection
and
sum
estimation
tasks;
Campbell
and
Ilgen
(1976)
with
chess;
Hann
(1975)
with
a
coding
(credit
applications)
task;
LaPorte
and Nath
(1976)
with
prose
learning;
Latham
and
Saari
(1979a)
with
brainstorming;
Locke
and
Bryan
(1969a)
with
simp13
addition;
Locke,
Cartledge
and
Knerr
(1970)
in
four
studies,
three
with
reaction
time
and
one
with
simple
addition
;
LockepMento
and
Katcher
(1978)
with
perceptual
speed;
London
and Oldham
(1976)
with
card
sorting;
Masters,
Furman
and Barden
(1977)
in
two
studies
of
4
and
5
year
old
children
working
on
a
color,
discrimination
task;
Mento,
Cartledge
and
Locke
(1980
) in
two
experiments
using
a
perceptual
speed
task;
Rothkopf
and
Billington
(1975)
and
Rothkopf
and
Kaplan
(1972)
in
more
complex
prose
learning
studies
than
that
of
LaPorte
and Nath
(1976);
and
Sales
(1970)
using
anagrams
in
which,
strictly
speaking,
task
rather
than
goal
difficulty
was
manipulated
by
means
of
varying
the
workload
given
to
the
subjects.
Presumably
subjects
developed
implicit
goals
based
on
the
amount
of
work
assigned
to
them.
Ness and
Patton
(1979)
also
found
that
a
harder
task
led
to
better
weightlifting
performance
than
an
easier
task
when
subjects
were
deceived as
to
the
actual
weights.
Four
laboratory
studies
found
conditional
3
support
for
the
goal
difficulty-performance
relationship.
Becker
(1978)
iiI
7--
2 _
__
_ _ _ _
__ ___ _ _ __ _

1! 9
with
an
energy
conservation
task, Erez
(1977)
with
a
clericalI
task,
and Strang,
Lawrence
and
Fowler
(1978)
witha
computation
task
all
found
that
onily
subjects
who
had
high
goals
and
who
received
feedback
regarding
their
performance
in
celatior.
to
those goals
during
task
performance
or
between
trials
performed
better
than subjects
with
low
goals.I
This
pattern
of
results
seems
also to
have
been present
in
Frost
and~
Mahoney's
(1976)
first~
study
using
a
reading
task
(see
their
Table
1).
Subjects
with high and
moderately
I
high
goalp
wh)
apparently received
frequent
feedback
performed
better
than
those
with
average
goals
whereasI
the
opposite pattern
was
obtained
for
subjects
given
noj
feedback
during
the
42
minute
work
period
(interaction p=.11,
t-tests
not
performed).
Six
e~xperimental
laboratory
studies found
no
relation-
ship
between
goal
level
and
task
performance.
Bavelas
and
Lee
(1978)
allowed
tAxy
15 minutets
for
an
addition
task and
gave
subjects
no
information either
before
or
during
the task
of
how
fast
they
needed
to
go
to
zittain
the goal.
Frost
and
Mahoney
(1976)
found
negative
results1
with
a
jigsaw
puzzle
task,
although
their
range
of
goal
difficulty
was
limited:
from
medium
to
hard
to
very
hard
(actual
probabilities
of
success
were
respectively:
.50,1
.135
and
.026).
The
same
narrow
range
of
difficulty
(very

10
difficult
to
moderately
difficult)
may
explain
the
negacive
results
of
Oldham (1975)
using
a
time
sheet
computation
ii
task.
Moreover,
not
all
subjects
accepted
the
assigned
goals
in
that
study,
and
it is
not
clear
that
ability
was
controlled
when
Oldham
did
his
post
hoc
analysis
by
personal
goal
level
(1975,
pp.
471-472).
Organ
(1977)
too
compared
moderate
with
hard
goals
using
an anagram
task.
However,
since
no
group
average
reached
even
the
level
of
the
moderate
goal,
the
hard
goal
may
have been
totally
unrealistic.
The
fifth
negative
study
by
Motowidlo,
Loehr
and
Dunnette
(1978),
usLnq
a
complex
computation
task,
examined
the
goal
difficulty-expectancy
(VIE)
theory
controversy.
Goal
theory
predicts
harder
goals
lead
to
better
performance
than
easy
goals,
despite
their
lower
probability
of
being
fully
reached.
In
contrast,
VIE
theory
predicts
(other
things
being equal),
a
positive
relation
between
expectancy
and
performance,
the
opposite
of
the
goal
theory
prediction.
Motowidlo,
et
al
found
a
positive relationship
between
expectancy
and
performance
in
agreement
with
VIE
theory.
One
possible
confounding
factor
is
that
Motowidlo,
et
al's
aubjects
did
not
make
their
expectancy
ratings
conditional
-
upon
trying
their
hardest
to
reach
the
goal
or
to
win
(pointed
out
by
Mento,
et
al
,1980
!
%sed
on
Yates
and
Kulick,
1977,
among
others).
Thus
low
expectancy
ratings
ii
9 .,.. ... . .

11
could
rn-aan
that
a
subject
was
not
planning
to
exert
maximum
effort
whereas
high
ratings
would
mean
the
opposite.
This
would
yield
z
spurious
positive correlation
between
expectancy
and
performance.
Furthermore,
Motowidlo
et
al
did
not
provide
their
subjects
with
feedback
reqarding
how
close
they
were
coming
to
their
goals
during
task
performance.
The
importance
of
this
factor
will
be
documented
below.
The
two
studies
by
Mento,
et
al
(1980)
noted
above,
which
avoided
the
above
errors
and
which
incorporated
other
methodological
inprovements,
found
thk..
usual
positive
relationýhip
between
goal
level
and
performance
and
no
relationship.
between
expectancy
and
performance.
I
Forward
ý.-d
Zander
(1971)
used
goals
set
by
groups
of high
school
boys
as
both
independent
and
dependent
variables.
Success
and
failure
as
well
as
outside
pressures
were
j
covertly
manipulated
in
order
to
influence
goal
setting,
I
which
occurred
before
each
trial
of the the
task.
Under
these
somewhat
complex
conditions,
goal
discrepancy
(goal
minus
previous
peiformance
level)
either
was
unrelated
or
negatively
related
to
subsequent
performance.
I
The
results
of
15
correlational
studies
were,
to
varying
I
degrees,
supportive
of
the
results
of
the
experimental
studies.
I
Andrews
and
Farris
(1972)
found
time
pressure
(task
difficulty)
associated
with
high
performance
among
scientists
and
engineers.
Hall
and
Lawler
(1971),
with
a
similar
sample,

'
12
found
no
relation
between
time
pressure
and
performance
but
found
significant
relationships
between
both
quality
and
finan'ial
pressure
and
work
performance.
Ashworth
and
Mobley
(Note
1)
found
a
significant
relationship
between
performance
goal
level
and
training
performance
for
Marine
recruits.
Blumenf~ld
and
Leidy
(1969,
in
what
also
could
be
called
a
natural
field
experiment)
found
that
soft
drink
servicemen
assigned
higher
goals
serviced
more
machines
than
those
assigned
lower
goals.
Hamner
and
Harnett
(1974)
found
that
subjects
in
an
experimental
study
of
bargaining
who
expected
(tried
?)
to
earn
a
high
amount
of
money
earned
more
than
those
who
expected
(tried
?)
to
earn
less
money.
Locke,
et
al
(1970),
in
the
last
of
their
five
studies,
found
a
significant
correlation
between
grade
goals
on
an
hourly
exam
and
actual
grade
earned.
The
majority
of
the
correlational
studies
found
only
conditional
relationships
between
goal
difficulty
and
performance
and/or
effort.
Carroll
and
Tosi
(1970)
found
it
only
for
managers
who
were
mature
and
high
in
self-
assurance;
Dachler
and
Mobley (1973)
only
for
production
workers
(
studies
in
two
plants)with
long
(1
or
2
years
or
more)
tenure;
Dossett,
Latham
and
Mitchell
(1979),
in
two
studies
of
clerical
personnel,
only
for
those
who
set
goels
I
participatively;
Hall
and
Hall
(1976)
for
2nd
-
4th
grade
students'
class
performance
f o r
those
in
high
i
._
__
_

I...... .. . ........ -rha
mmain
-i
13
support
sthools;
and
Ivancevich
and
McMahon,in
three
studies,
(7.977a,
1977b,
1977c)
f
a
r
skilled
technicians
who
had
higher
order
(growth)
need
strength,
who
were
white
and
who
had
higher
levels
of
education.
Negative
results
were
obtained
by
Forward
and
Zander
'1971)
with
United
Fund
campaign
workers;
by
Hall
and
Foster
(1977)
with
participants
in
a
simulated
management
game;
and
by
Steers
(1975)
with
first
level
supervisors.
All
the
correlational
studies
are,
of
course,
open
to
multiple
causal
interpretations.
For
example,
Dossett,
et
al
(19,79)
imply
that
their
results:
may
be
an
artifact
of
ability,
since
ability
was
considered
when
setting
goals
in
the
participative
groups
but
not
in
the
assigned
groups.
In
fact,
none
of the
correlational
studies
had
controls
for
ability.
Also,
many
relied
on
self
ratings
of
goal
difficulty
and/or
performance.
The
Yukl
and
Latham
(1978)
study,
referred
to
earlier,
found
that
only
objecti'ye
goal
level,
and
not
subjective
goal
difficulty,
was
related
to
typing
performance.
None
of
the
correlational
studies
measured
the
individual's
personal
goal
lqvel--a
measure
which
Mento,
et
al
(
1980
)
found
to
be
the
single
best
motivational
predictor
of
performance.
Their
measures
of
subjective
goal
difficulty
did not explain
any
variance
in
performance
over
and
above
that
explained
by
objective
and
personal
goal
levels.
4
'"" " • •, . • • . ...,, • - •
.,.,.,,•,.•,,.....,,,.
• • - I,

14
Goal
SpecificLty
Specific
hard
goals
vs.
"do
best"
goals
or
no
goals.
Previous
research
found
that
specific,
challenging
(difficult)
goals
led
to
higher
output
than
vague
goals
such
as
"do
your
best"'
(Lc¢cke,
1968).
Subsequent
research
has
strongly
supported
these
results,
although
in
a
number
of
studies
no
distinction
was
made
between
groups
told
to"do
their
best"
and
those
assigned
no
specific
goals.
The
latter
were
typically
labeled.
"no
goal"
groups. Since
most
of
the
no
goal
groups
were
probably
trying
to
"do
their
best",
these
groups
are
considered
equivalent
for
the
purpose
of
comparing
them
to
groups
assigned
specific,
hard
goals.
Twenty
four
field
experiments
all
found
that
individi'als
given
specific,
challenging
goals
either
outperformed
those
trying
to
"do
theiz
best",
or
surpassed
their
own
previous
performance
when
they
were
not
trying
for
specific
goals:
Bandura
and
Simon (1977)
with
dieting;
Dockstader
(Note
2)
with
key
punching;
Do!.ssett, Latham
&
Mitchell
(1979)
in
two
studies,
one
using
a
-lerical
test
and
the
other
performance
evaluation for
clerical
workers;
Ivancevich
(1977)
with
maintenance
technicians;
Ivancevich
(1974)
in
two
plants
with
marketing
and
production
workers
(for
one
or
more
performance
criteria);
Ivancevich
(1976)
with
sales
personnel;
Kim
and
Hamner
(1976)
with telephone
service
jobs;
Kolb
&
Boyatzis
(Uq70)
with
p.ersonality
change
in
a
T-group;
Latham
&
Baldes
(1975)
with
truck
loading;
Latham
&
Kinne
(1974)
with
logging;
and
Latham
and
Yukl
(3.975b)
with
woods
workers
who
participated

A '
15
]
in
goal
settingi
Latham
and
Yukl
(1976)
with
typing;
Latham,
Mitchell
&
Dossett
(1978)
with
engineering
and
scientific
work;
Migliore
(1977)
with
canning
(press
department)
and
ship
loading
(two
studies);
Nemeroff
&
Cosentino
(1979)
with
performance
appraisal
activities;
Umstot,
Bell
&
Mitchell
(1976)
with
coding
land
parcels;
Wexley
&
Nemeroff
(1975)
with
managerial
trainingand
White,Mitchell
&
Bell
(1977)
Ji
with card
sorting.
The
studies
by
Adam
(1975)
with die
casters,
Feeney
with
customer
service
work,:s
("At
Emery
Air
Frieght",
1973)
and
Komaki,
Barwick
&
Scott
(1978)
with
pastry
workers
are
also
included
in
this
group.
While
these
latter
authors
claimed
that
they
were
doing
"behavior
i
modification",
the
major
technique
actually
used
was
goal
s tsetting
plus
feedback
regarding
goal
attainment
(Locke,
1977).
A
negative
result
was
obtained
by
Latham
and
Yukl
(1975b)
with
one
sample.
Either individual
differences
or
lack
of
firm
organizational
support
may
have
been
responsible
for
this
failure.
(Ivancevich,
1974,
also
cited
differences
in
organizational
support as
the
reason
for
obtaining
better
results
in
one
of
his
plants
than
the
other.)
Twenty
laboratory
studies
supported
the
above
results