Editing Goal setting (section)

==Developments in theory==
===Self efficacy===
An important addition to goal setting theory was the incorporation of self-efficacy from Bandura's [[social cognitive theory]]. Broadly defined as task specific self-confidence, goal setting theory incorporates self-efficacy in the following ways:

# People with higher self-efficacy set harder goals which as per the terms of the theory lead to higher motivation and task performance
# People with higher self-efficacy are more committed to the goals they have set and in turn more likely to achieve them.
# People with higher self-efficacy are more likely to respond positively to negative feedback and use it productively rather than be discouraged.
# Appropriately challenging leader assigned goals and communicating these powerfully can increase follower self-efficacy as they directly imply that the leader has confidence in the employees' ability to achieve them.
# Leaders can also increase follower self-efficacy, and in turn goal commitment and task performance, by providing quality training and either modeling task performance themselves or providing appropriate performance models.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Locke|first1=Edwin A.|last2=Latham|first2=Gary P.|date=September 2002|title=Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705|journal=American Psychologist|language=en|volume=57|issue=9|pages=708|doi=10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705|pmid=12237980|s2cid=17534210 |issn=1935-990X|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
Self-efficacy levels can also influence how people react to not meeting specific challenging goals. People with high self-efficacy redouble their efforts whereas people with low self-efficacy expend less effort and coast along. Goal achievement also interacts with self-efficacy and goal achievement does not necessarily lead to increased efforts as after meeting challenging goals some can be reluctant to expend a similar level of effort again and will settle for the goal they have.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bandura|first1=Albert|last2=Cervone|first2=Daniel|date=1986-08-01|title=Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation|journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes|language=en|volume=38|issue=1|pages=92–113|doi=10.1016/0749-5978(86)90028-2|s2cid=3775458 |issn=0749-5978|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Goal choice===
Self-efficacy, past experiences, and various other social factors influence goal setting.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006" /> Failure to achieve previous goals often leads to setting more achievable goals.

===Learning goals===
There are times when having specific performance goals is not a best option; this is the case when the goal requires skills or knowledge that have not yet been acquired. [[Tunnel vision]] can be a consequence of specific performance goals; if a person is too focused on attaining a specific goal, they may ignore the need to learn new skills or acquire new information. This concept is illustrated well by the "basketball game task" study in which observers watched a video of a group of people wearing white shirts and black shirts who are passing a basketball back and forth, and the observers were instructed to count the number of times a basketball is passed between only the players wearing white shirts. During the video, a woman carrying an open umbrella walks across the screen. Of 28 observers who were focused on counting the number of passes between only the players wearing white shirts, only 6 reported noticing the woman carrying the umbrella. When observers watched the video without focusing on a specific task, all of the observers noticed the umbrella woman.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.drjoebio.com/uploads/1/8/1/3/1813500/gorrila_in_our_midst.pdf|title=Gorillas in our Midst|last=Simons & Chabris|date=1999|access-date=2018-09-26}}</ref> In situations where the risk of tunnel vision is high, the best option is to set a ''learning goal''. A learning goal is a generalized goal to achieve knowledge in a certain topic or field, but it can ultimately lead to better performance in more complex tasks related to the learning goals.<ref name="GrantLearningGoals"/><ref name="KeganLearningGoals"/>

Further to the above, learning goals can be more specifically operationalized as "''a desired number of strategies, processes, or procedures to be developed in order to master a task'"''<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/918944235|title=Advances in motivation science. Volume 2|date=2015|others=Andrew J. Elliot|isbn=978-0-12-802469-0|location=Waltham, MA|oclc=918944235}}</ref>''.''  Some specific examples of learning goals from the literature are below:

* "Discover and implement four shortcuts to performing a scheduling task'<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|last=Locke|first=Edwin A.|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203082744|title=New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance|date=2013-01-03|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-203-08274-4|edition=1|language=en|doi=10.4324/9780203082744}}</ref>
* "Find ten ways of developing a relationship with end-users of our products."<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Seijts|first1=Gerard H.|last2=Latham|first2=Gary P.|date=February 2005|title=Learning versus performance goals: When should each be used?|url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/ame.2005.15841964|journal=Academy of Management Perspectives|language=en|volume=19|issue=1|pages=124–131|doi=10.5465/ame.2005.15841964|issn=1558-9080|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

Locke and Latham (2006) attribute this response to [[metacognition]]. They believe that "a learning goal facilitates or enhances metacognition—namely, planning, monitoring, and evaluating progress toward goal attainment".<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/> This is necessary in environments with little or no guidance and structure. Although jobs typically have set goals, individual goals and achievement can benefit from metacognition. Some possible uses of learning goals follow:

* Learning goals are likely to help leaders of globally diverse organizations find ways to effectively manage social identity groups and minimize intolerance within a multicultural workforce. 
* Learning goals are likely to be effective when leaders confront a situation with a great deal of unknowns and need to make sense of problems, as the learning goals encourage employees to collaborate with others to bring multiple experiences to solve the problem.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Seijts|first1=G. H.|last2=Latham|first2=G. P.|last3=Tasa|first3=K.|last4=Latham|first4=B. W.|date=2004-04-01|title=Goal setting and goal orientation: an integration of two different yet related literatures|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=47|issue=2|pages=227–239|doi=10.2307/20159574 |jstor=20159574|issn=0001-4273}}</ref>

===Framing===
[[Framing (social sciences)|Framing]], or how goals are viewed, influences performance. When one feels threatened and or intimidated by a high goal they perform poorer than those who view the goal as a challenge.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/> Individuals who identify situations as challenge perform better under difficult performance goal conditions. Individuals who view situations as threats get better results using learning goals focused on developing strategy to achieve the task.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2002-07-01|title=Challenge versus threat effects on the goal–performance relationship|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597802000043|journal=Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes|language=en|volume=88|issue=2|pages=667–682|doi=10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00004-3|issn=0749-5978|last1=Drach-Zahavy|first1=Anat|last2=Erez|first2=Miriam|url-access=subscription}}</ref> These results connect goal setting theory to Folkman and [[Richard Lazarus|Lazurus]]' Transactional Model of Stress and Coping which focused on the subjective appraisal of stress as being crucial to performance under challenging conditions.

=== Habits ===
{{See also|Habit}}
Habits, defined as "behavioral tendencies tied to specific contexts, such as time of day, location, the presence of particular people, preceding actions, or even one's mood", habits develop through context, repetition, and reward and interact closely with goals to impact (often negatively) goal attainment. While goal setting can initiate behaviour change, it does appear likely that interventions combining goal setting with habit management strategies through disrupting bad habits by making them harder to fall into are more likely to be successful. Habits also reduce cognitive load and therefore good habit formation may be of benefit in particular to learning goal achievement which is often associated with more complex tasks by freeing up the cognitive resources needed to work towards the learning goal.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fiorella|first=Logan|date=2020-09-01|title=The Science of Habit and Its Implications for Student Learning and Well-being|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09525-1|journal=Educational Psychology Review|language=en|volume=32|issue=3|pages=603–625|doi=10.1007/s10648-020-09525-1|s2cid=216460117|issn=1573-336X|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

===Affect===
Realization of goals has an effect on [[Affect (psychology)|affect]]—that is, feelings of success and satisfaction. Achieving goals has a positive effect, and failing to meet goals has negative consequences.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/> However, the effect of goals is not exclusive to one realm. Success in one's job can compensate for feelings of failure in one's personal life.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/>

===Group goals===
The relationship between group goals and individual goals influences group performance; when goals are compatible there is a positive effect, but when goals are incompatible the effects can be detrimental to the group's performance.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/> There is another factor at work in groups, and that is the sharing factor; a positive correlation exists between sharing information within the group and group performance.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/> In the case of group goals, feedback needs to be related to the group, not individuals, in order for it to improve the group's performance.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/>

Goal concordance (agreement) among members of groups as well as concordance across hierarchies in organizations has positive performance impacts.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Vancouver|first1=Jeffrey B.|last2=Schmitt|first2=Neal W.|date=2006-12-07|title=An exploratory examination of person–organization fit: organizational goal congruence|journal=Personnel Psychology|volume=44|issue=2|pages=333–352|doi=10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00962.x|issn=0031-5826}}</ref> Research evaluating effects of goals on employee commitment found an indirect relationship mediated by employee perception of organizational support, suggesting that leaders directly support goal setting by individual employees.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hutchison|first1=Steven|last2=Garstka|first2=Mary L.|date=August 1996|title=Sources of perceived organizational support: goal setting and feedback|journal=Journal of Applied Social Psychology|volume=26|issue=15|pages=1351–1366|doi=10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb00075.x|issn=0021-9029}}</ref>

Overall, the available evidence suggests that group goals can have a robust effect on group performance. Less clearly, individual goals may promote group performance if used cautiously as in interdependent groups there is a potential for goal conflict between individual and group goals which could hinder group performance. There does appear to be a need for more work in this area.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Kleingeld|first1=Ad|last2=van Mierlo|first2=Heleen|last3=Arends|first3=Lidia|date=November 2011|title=The effect of goal setting on group performance: a meta-analysis|journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=96|issue=6|pages=1289–1304|doi=10.1037/a0024315|issn=1939-1854|pmid=21744940|s2cid=22191705 }}</ref>

=== Values ===
{{See also|Value-action gap}}
In goal setting terms, values can be defined as trans-situational goals with goals being more specific than values which are higher order and more general. In this sense goals can be defined further as the mechanism by which values lead to action.<ref name="Latham 2007" /> Goals can provide a vehicle for closing the value-action gap.

=== Sub-goals or proximal goals ===
Goal setting theory generally, but not always, supports the use of sub-goals (also known as proximal goals) which are intermediate/stepping stone goals on the way to goals (also known as distal goals). Proximal goals work by providing immediate incentives to maintain current performance, whereas distal goals are too far removed to have the same effect. In complex problem-solving tasks, setting subgoals increased initial self-efficacy and attaining proximal goals increased self-efficacy, performance satisfaction, and task persistence.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite journal|last1=Stock|first1=Jennifer|last2=Cervone|first2=Daniel|date=1990-10-01|title=Proximal goal-setting and self-regulatory processes|journal=Cognitive Therapy and Research|language=en|volume=14|issue=5|pages=483–498|doi=10.1007/BF01172969|s2cid=30258565|issn=1573-2819}}</ref> One of the ways to reduce self-defeating while accomplishing sub-goals is to make sure to have deadlines for each sub-goal. Setting these deadlines adds a factor of accountability and helps to check on ourselves. The main reason why we don't usually accomplish sub-goals is because we don't put a timeframe to them.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-01-11|title=What are Sub-Goals - How to Use Them for Your Advantage {{!}} BLEND|url=https://www.getblend.com/blog/goals-sub-goals/|access-date=2021-10-24|website=Localization Services by BLEND}}</ref>

While generally positive, setting too many sub-goals can have negative impacts such as reduced satisfaction (it's not an achievement to complete a goal that is too easy) and send the signal that managers do not have faith in employee ability to achieve challenging goals.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

===Goals and traits===
On a basic level, the two types of goals are ''learning goals'' and ''performance goals''; each possesses different traits associated with the selected goal.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/><ref name="GrantLearningGoals"/>

''Learning goals'' involve tasks where skills and knowledge can be acquired, whereas ''performance goals'' involve easy-to-accomplish tasks that will make one appear successful (thus tasks where error and judgment may be possible are avoided).

A more complex trait-mediation study is the one conducted by Lee, Sheldon, and Turban (2003),<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Felissa K. |last2=Sheldon |first2=Kennon M. |last3=Turban |first3=Daniel B. |title=Personality and the goal-striving process: the influence of achievement goal patterns, goal level, and mental focus on performance and enjoyment |journal=[[Journal of Applied Psychology]] |date=April 2003 |volume=88 |issue=2 |pages=256–265 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.256 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10773182 |pmid=12731709|s2cid=7832798 }}</ref> which yielded the following results:

*''Amotivated orientation'' (low confidence in one's capabilities) is associated with goal-avoidance motivation, and more generally, associated with lower goals levels and lower performance.
*''Control orientation'' (extrinsic motivation) is associated with both avoidance and approach goals. Approach goals are associated with higher goal levels and higher performance.
*''Autonomy goals'' (intrinsic motivation) leads to mastery goals, enhanced focus, and therefore enhanced performance.

=== Goal orientation ===
{{Main|Goal orientation}}
Whereas goal setting theory was developed in the sub-domain organizational psychology and primarily focuses on motivation and measuring task performance, the related but distinct literature around [[goal orientation]] was developed in the sub-domain of educational psychology and tends to focus on ability and trait measurement, this division has led to attempts to integrate the two literatures which in turn has led to the following conclusions:

* For complex tasks a specific, challenging learning goal has a significant positive impact on performance.
* In contrast, goal orientation affects performance when goals are vague rather than specific and challenging.

These conclusions have led to the following inferences:

* As goal setting skills, including how to set a hard, specific goal and when to set a performance rather than a learning goal, are trainable and have greater influence than goal orientation in terms of determining performance, then it follows that the usefulness of tests of goal orientation for recruitment are limited and perhaps most suitable for solitary jobs that offer little training. 
* As well crafted appropriate goals mask the effect of goal orientation it seems likely that new employees assigned specific, high learning goals rather than performance goals will have better job performance regardless of goal orientation.<ref name=":0" />

===Macro-level goals===
''Macro-level goals'' refer to goal setting that is applied to the company as a whole. Cooperative goals reduce the negative feelings that occur as a result of alliances and the formation of groups.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/> The most common parties involved are the company and its suppliers. The three motivators for macro-level goals are: self-efficacy, growth goals, and organizational vision.<ref name="Locke and Latham 2006"/>

=== Sub-conscious goals ===
{{See also|Priming (psychology)}}
Recent reviews of the available evidence suggests that goal setting theory applies to subconscious goals as well as consciously set goals. Subconsciously priming achievement goals through achievement related words and/or suitably triumphal photographs can significantly improve task and therefore job performance. Further enhancing this effect, context specific primes appear to induce substantially stronger goal effects. Furthermore, primed goals and consciously set goals work better together in improving task/job performance.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Chen|first1=Xiao|last2=Latham|first2=Gary P.|last3=Piccolo|first3=Ronald F.|last4=Itzchakov|first4=Guy|date=2021|title=An Enumerative Review and a Meta-Analysis of Primed Goal Effects on Organizational Behavior|url=https://iaap-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/apps.12239|journal=Applied Psychology|language=en|volume=70|issue=1|pages=216–253|doi=10.1111/apps.12239|s2cid=214187073|issn=1464-0597|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Inevitably the use of sub-conscious goal with employees to improve work performance carries with it many potential ethical issues and concerns.<ref name="Latham 2007" />

===General action and inaction goals===
Action goals encourage people to engage in more active behaviors, whereas inactive goals tend to result as inactive behaviors.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Albarracin |first1=Dolores |last2=Hepler |first2=Justin |last3=Tannenbaum |first3=Melanie |date=2011-04-01 |title=General Action and Inaction Goals: Their Behavioral, Cognitive, and Affective Origins and Influences |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=119–123 |doi=10.1177/0963721411402666 |issn=0963-7214 |pmc=3678837 |pmid=23766569}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Gupta|first=Rakesh|title=Education Technology in Physical Education and Sports|publisher=Friends Publications (India)|date=May 19, 2021|isbn=978-93-90649-80-8|location=India|pages=31}}</ref> Common action goals can be to do something, perform a certain act, or to go someplace, whereas typical inaction goals can take the form of having a rest or to stop doing something.

Goal-regulated overall activity and inactivity tendency result from both biological conditions and social-cultural environment.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hepler |first1=Justin |last2=Albarracin |first2=Dolores |last3=McCulloch |first3=Kathleen C. |last4=Noguchi |first4=Kenji |date=December 2012 |title=Being active and impulsive: the role of goals for action and inaction in self-control |journal=Motivation and Emotion |volume=36 |issue=4 |pages=416–424 |doi=10.1007/s11031-011-9263-4 |pmc=3678776 |pmid=23766548}}</ref>{{Page needed|date=December 2015}} Recent research revealed that most nations hold more favorable attitude towards action rather than inaction, even though some countries value action and inaction slightly differently than others.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zell |first1=Ethan |last2=Su |first2=Rong |last3=Li |first3=Hong |last4=Ho |first4=Moon-Ho Ringo |last5=Hong |first5=Sungjin |last6=Kumkale |first6=Tarcan |last7=Stauffer |first7=Sarah D. |last8=Zecca |first8=Gregory |last9=Cai |first9=Huajian |last10=Roccas |first10=Sonia |date=September 2013 |title=Cultural differences in attitudes toward action and inaction: the role of dialecticism |journal=[[Social Psychological and Personality Science]] |volume=4 |issue=5 |pages=521–528 |doi=10.1177/1948550612468774|pmid=30147848 |pmc=6103533 }}</ref>

Recent research suggested that people tend to choose inaction goals when they are making decisions among choices where uncertainty could result in negative outcomes, but they prefer action over inaction in their daily behaviors when no deliberation is needed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Byrne |first1=Ruth M. J. |last2=McEleney |first2=Alice |date=September 2000 |title=Counterfactual thinking about actions and failures to act |journal=[[Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition]] |volume=26 |issue=5 |pages=1318–1331 |doi=10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1318 |url=http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/22860594.pdf |pmid=11009260}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Roese |first1=Neal J. |last2=Hur |first2=Taekyun |last3=Pennington |first3=Ginger L. |date=December 1999 |title=Counterfactual thinking and regulatory focus: implications for action versus inaction and sufficiency versus necessity |journal=[[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]] |volume=77 |issue=6 |pages=1109–1120 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1109 |pmid=10626366}}</ref> [[Timothy D. Wilson]] and colleagues found that many people "preferred to administer electric shocks to themselves instead of being left alone with their thoughts".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wilson |first1=Timothy D. |author-link1=Timothy D. Wilson |last2=Reinhard |first2=David A. |last3=Westgate |first3=Erin C. |last4=Gilbert |first4=Daniel T. |last5=Ellerbeck |first5=Nicole |last6=Hahn |first6=Cheryl |last7=Brown |first7=Casey L. |last8=Shaked |first8=Adi |date=July 2014 |title=Just think: the challenges of the disengaged mind |journal=Science |volume=345 |issue=6192 |pages=75–77 |doi=10.1126/science.1250830 |pmc=4330241 |pmid=24994650|bibcode=2014Sci...345...75W }}</ref>

=== Combining learning and performance goals ===
In workplace settings employees are often expected to achieve performance outcomes at tasks that are moderately complex and require learning new things. As noted above, setting performance goals can cause difficulties and lower performance compared to a "do your best" condition when prerequisite skills, strategies and knowledge are not in place which may be due to a [[Cognitive load|cognitive load effect]] arising from the demands of complex tasks for relative novices.  For these sorts of complex task situations learning and performance goals can be used effectively in combination if logically connected.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Masuda|first1=Aline D.|last2=Locke|first2=Edwin A.|last3=Williams|first3=Kevin J.|date=2015-01-02|title=The effects of simultaneous learning and performance goals on performance: An inductive exploration|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.982128|journal=Journal of Cognitive Psychology|volume=27|issue=1|pages=37–52|doi=10.1080/20445911.2014.982128|s2cid=143855907|issn=2044-5911|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Furthermore, while learning goals do tend to be most effective for new and complex tasks requiring complex application of strategy to achieve the task this does not mean that learning goals will be motivational enough on their own to ensure that the new strategies are used and an additional performance goal could motivate employees to actually use the discovered or acquired strategies to attain the desired outcome.<ref name=":1" />

=== Stretch goals ===
Stretch or extremely hard to reach goals remain a subject of considerable debate with arguments both for and against their use. Among the potential negative side effects of stretch goals include them being dismissed as absurd or ignored by employees. Even if taken seriously, stretch goals can lead to employee burn out attempting to achieve them. Caveats aside, there are some ways that stretch goals can be valuable in spurring creative solutions to problems and new directions especially if used alongside more normal goals and without the need to achieve them but instead measure how much progress was made towards them.<ref name=":3" />