Editing Goal setting (section)

{{short description|Development of an action plan in order to achieve a goal}}
{{Agency sidebar}}

'''Goal setting''' involves the development of an action [[plan]] designed in order to [[motivate]] and [[guide]] a person or group toward a [[goal]].<ref name="Grant 2012 p149">{{cite journal |last=Grant |first=Anthony M. |title=An integrated model of goal-focused coaching: an evidence-based framework for teaching and practice |date=September 2012 |journal=International Coaching Psychology Review |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=146–165 (149) |doi=10.53841/bpsicpr.2012.7.2.146 |s2cid=255938190 |url=http://coachingconsultinginternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/An-integrated-model-of-goal-focused-coaching-Grant-ICPR-2012.pdf |quote=Goal setting should be done in such a way as to facilitate the development and implementation of an action plan. The action plan should be designed to motivate the individual into action, and should also incorporate means of monitoring and evaluating performance, thus providing information on which to base follow-up coaching sessions. |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129080651/http://coachingconsultinginternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/An-integrated-model-of-goal-focused-coaching-Grant-ICPR-2012.pdf |archive-date=2014-11-29 }}</ref> Goals are more deliberate than desires and momentary intentions. Therefore, setting goals means that a person has committed thought, emotion, and behavior towards attaining the goal. In doing so, the goal setter has established a desired future state which differs from their current state thus creating a mismatch which in turn spurs future actions.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Inzlicht|first1=Michael|last2=Legault|first2=Lisa|last3=Teper|first3=Rimma|date=2014-08-01|title=Exploring the Mechanisms of Self-Control Improvement|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414534256|journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science|language=en|volume=23|issue=4|pages=302–307|doi=10.1177/0963721414534256|s2cid=3909434|issn=0963-7214|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Goal setting can be guided by goal-setting criteria (or rules) such as [[SMART criteria]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Grant |first=Anthony M. |title=An integrated model of goal-focused coaching: an evidence-based framework for teaching and practice |date=September 2012 |journal=International Coaching Psychology Review |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=146–165 (147) |doi=10.53841/bpsicpr.2012.7.2.146 |s2cid=255938190 |url=http://coachingconsultinginternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/An-integrated-model-of-goal-focused-coaching-Grant-ICPR-2012.pdf |quote=Whilst the ideas represented by the acronym SMART are indeed broadly supported by goal theory (e.g. Locke, 1996), and the acronym SMART may well be useful in some instances in coaching practice, I think that the widespread belief that goals are synonymous with SMART action plans has done much to stifle the development of a more sophisticated understanding and use of goal theory in the coaching community, and this point has important implications for coaching research, teaching and practice. |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129080651/http://coachingconsultinginternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/An-integrated-model-of-goal-focused-coaching-Grant-ICPR-2012.pdf |archive-date=2014-11-29}}</ref> Goal setting is a major component of [[personal development|personal-development]] and [[management]] literature. Studies by [[Edwin A. Locke]] and his colleagues, most notably, Gary Latham<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/FacultyAndResearch/Faculty/FacultyBios/Latham.aspx |title=Gary Latham}}</ref> have shown that more specific and ambitious goals lead to more [[performance improvement]] than easy or general goals. Difficult goals should be set ideally at the 90th percentile of performance,<ref name="Grant 2012 p149" /> assuming that motivation and not ability is limiting attainment of that level of performance.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2002">{{Cite journal|last1=Locke|first1=Edwin A.|last2=Latham|first2=Gary P.|s2cid=17534210|date=2002|title=Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.|journal=American Psychologist|volume=57|issue=9|pages=705–717|doi=10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705|issn=0003-066X|pmid=12237980|citeseerx=10.1.1.126.9922|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11152729}}</ref> As long as the person accepts the goal, has the ability to attain it, and does not have conflicting goals, there is a positive linear relationship between goal difficulty and task performance.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006">{{cite journal |last1=Locke |first1=Edwin A. |author-link1=Edwin A. Locke |last2=Latham |first2=Gary P. |title=New directions in goal-setting theory |journal=[[Current Directions in Psychological Science]] |date=October 2006 |volume=15 |issue=5 |pages=265–268 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x |hdl=10818/8239 |quote=Goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002) was developed inductively within industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology over a 25-year period, based on some 400 laboratory and field studies. These studies showed that specific, high (hard) goals lead to a higher level of task performance than do easy goals or vague, abstract goals such as the exhortation to 'do one's best'. So long as a person is committed to the goal, has the requisite ability to attain it, and does not have conflicting goals, there is a positive, linear relationship between goal difficulty and task performance. Because goals refer to future valued outcomes, the setting of goals is first and foremost a discrepancy-creating process. It implies discontent with one's present condition and the desire to attain an object or outcome. |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237602737|citeseerx=10.1.1.553.1396 |s2cid=17856375 }}</ref>

The theory of Locke and colleagues states that the simplest, most direct motivational explanation of why some people perform better than others is because they have different performance goals. The essence of the theory is:<ref>{{cite book |last=Latham |first=Gary P. |date=2009 |chapter=Motivate employee performance through goal-setting |editor-last=Locke |editor-first=Edwin A. |title=Handbook of principles of organizational behavior: indispensable knowledge for evidence-based management |edition=2nd |location=Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ |publisher=[[John Wiley & Sons]] |pages=161–178 |isbn=978-0-470-74095-8 |oclc=317456331 |doi=10.1002/9781119206422.ch9 |chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341638968}}</ref>
# Difficult specific goals lead to significantly higher performance than easy goals, no goals, or even the setting of an abstract goal such as urging people to do their best.
# Holding ability constant, and given that there is goal commitment, the higher the goal the higher the performance.
# Variables such as praise, feedback, or the participation of people in decision-making about the goal only influence behavior to the extent that they lead to the setting of and subsequent commitment to a specific difficult goal.