Editing Goal setting (section)

== Controversies, responses and resolutions ==
As a theory developed through induction there have been, and continue to be, circumstances where goal setting theory has been challenged and/or conflicting results have been reported. Specific examples of these controversies and resolutions to them are discussed below.

===Assigned goals versus participatively set goals ===
The question of whether or not participatively set goals are more motivating than supervisor set goals arose due to differences in findings between Erez and her colleagues and those of Latham and colleagues. Erez and her colleagues found evidence that under certain circumstances Latham's earlier conclusion that performance was the same regardless of whether or not goals were set by supervisors or participatively, was wrong. This disagreement was resolved through a process beginning with a conversation between Erez and Latham with Locke as the neutral interlocutor which in turn led to both Erez and Latham jointly designing an experiment to explore the reasons for their disagreement.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Latham|first1=Gary P.|last2=Erez|first2=Miriam|last3=Locke|first3=Edwin A.|date=1988|title=Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez–Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.753|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|language=en|volume=73|issue=4|pages=753–772|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.753|issn=1939-1854|url-access=subscription}}</ref> This collaboration of two researchers with differing views is an early example of [[adversarial collaboration]] and led to the following published findings that resolved the disagreement:

# Supervisor set goals are equally as motivating if they are accompanied by a reason for the goal. 
# Participation in goal setting and decision making improves employee performance through increasing self-efficacy and aiding the discovery of suitable task strategies to achieve goals.<ref name="Latham 2007" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Locke|first1=Edwin A.|last2=Latham|first2=Gary P.|last3=Erez|first3=Miriam|date=January 1988|title=The Determinants of Goal Commitment|url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.1988.4306771|journal=Academy of Management Review|language=en|volume=13|issue=1|pages=23–39|doi=10.5465/amr.1988.4306771|issn=0363-7425|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

=== Possible negative effects of goal setting ===

A 2009 article, "Goals Gone Wild" by Ordonez et al., sparked controversy by suggesting goal setting might lead to unethical behavior.<ref name=":2" /> The authors argued that the benefits of goal setting are often overstated, while its downsides are underreported.<ref>Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side of Overprescribing Goal Setting</ref>

One concern is that specific, challenging goals can lead to narrow thinking. Employees become laser-focused on achieving the goal, potentially neglecting other important aspects of their job. For instance, the article cites the case of Ford Motor Company. Under pressure to build a lighter car, safety measures were overlooked.<ref>Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side of Overprescribing Goal Setting  Lisa D. Ordo ́n ̃ez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky, and Max H. Bazerman</ref> This exemplifies how a singular focus on achieving a goal can have negative consequences.

Ordonez et al. further argue that setting too many goals or offering excessive rewards for quick results can pressure employees to prioritize quantity over quality and even resort to unethical shortcuts. Additionally, the authors suggest that goal setting might decrease intrinsic motivation by emphasizing extrinsic rewards.<ref name=":2" />

This perspective challenges the traditional view of goal setting as a universally positive tool. Locke and Latham countered these arguments, while leveling accusations of Ordonez et al. having violated principles of good scholarship.<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last1=Locke|first1=Edwin A.|last2=Latham|first2=Gary P.|date=February 2009|title=Has Goal Setting Gone Wild, or Have Its Attackers Abandoned Good Scholarship?|url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amp.2009.37008000|journal=Academy of Management Perspectives|language=en|volume=23|issue=1|pages=17–23|doi=10.5465/amp.2009.37008000|issn=1558-9080|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Locke and Latham emphasized the importance of goals in organizational behavior and for individual purpose setting.<ref name=":4" /> A further reply from Ordonez et al. disputed Locke and Latham's points.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Ordonez|first1=Lisa D.|last2=Schweitzer|first2=Maurice E.|last3=Galinsky|first3=Adam D.|last4=Bazerman|first4=Max H.|date=2009|title=On Good Scholarship, Goal Setting, and Scholars Gone Wild|url=http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1382000|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|language=en|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1382000|s2cid=233760637|issn=1556-5068}}</ref> The debate continues, with some scholars proposing learning goals as a potential solution to ethical concerns arising from performance goals.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Benzer|first1=Justin K.|last2=Creech|first2=Suzannah K.|last3=Mohr|first3=David C.|last4=Charns|first4=Martin P.|date=December 2014|title=Learning Goals May Prevent "Goals Gone Wild"|journal=American Journal of Public Health|volume=104|issue=12|pages=e1|doi=10.2105/AJPH.2014.302264|issn=0090-0036|pmc=4232136|pmid=25320875}}</ref>

While goal setting is a powerful tool for motivation and performance, it requires careful handling. Overemphasizing specific, challenging goals without considering potential downsides can lead to ethical lapses and counterproductive behavior. A more balanced approach is necessary, involving thoughtful goal design, awareness of potential side effects, and ongoing monitoring. By taking a critical look at goal setting, organizations can ensure it fosters both ethical conduct and successful outcomes.<ref name="OrdonezEtAl2009">
Lisa D. Ordóñez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky, and Max H. Bazerman (2009). "Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting." 
Academy of Management Perspectives. Retrieved from <i>Goals gone wild.pdf</i>.
</ref>