Task knowledge or skill). Whereas the first three are primarily motivational in nature, the fourth is cognitive. In short, (1) the choice of goal focuses attention on goal-relevant and away from goal-irrelevant activity; the higher the goal

A goal is an object or aim that an individual strives to attain (Locke & Latham, 1984). Goal-setting theory (Latham & Locke, 2007; Locke & Latham, 1990; 2002) states that goals are the immediate regulators of behavior. The theory was developed as a framework for predicting, explaining, and influencing an individual’s motivation in the workplace. The theory states that: (1) a specific high goal leads to higher performance than an easy goal, no goal or a vague goal such as “do your best”; (2) given goal commitment, the higher the goal, the higher the performance; and (3) variables such as feedback or knowledge of results, incentives, participation in decision-making, and competition only affect an employee’s performance to the extent that they lead to the setting of and commitment to a specific high goal.

The theory further states that four mediators explain the positive effect that a specific high goal has on job performance, namely choice, effort, persistence, and strategy (task knowledge or skill). Whereas the first three are primarily motivational in nature, the fourth is cognitive. In short, (1) the choice of goal focuses attention on goal-relevant and away from goal-irrelevant activity; the higher the goal, the greater the effort (2) and persistence (3) to attain it. Finally, goal pursuit motivates an employee (4) to draw upon one or more extant strategies or to discover new knowledge that facilitates goal attainment.

Moderator variables included in goal setting theory are a person’s (1) ability to reach the goal (task knowledge and skill) and (2) commitment to do so. In addition, (3) feedback is necessary for an individual to know whether to increase effort as well as to adhere to or change the strategy in order to ensure goal attainment. (4) Situational factors must be examined to ensure that an employee has the resources required for goal attainment. (5) Task complexity is a fifth moderator affecting the beneficial effects on performance due to goal-setting. As might be expected of a theory of motivation (as opposed to one of training), goal-setting has a greater effect on tasks that are straightforward rather than complex for people; however, this feature can be mitigated by ensuring that people working on complex tasks possess or acquire the needed skills.

Goal-setting theory is among the most, if not the most, practical theory for increasing performance (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Lee & Earley, 1992; Miner, 1984). More than 1,000 laboratory and field studies have found empirical support for it (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003).

]a[Individual Differences
]fo[With the exception of ability, goal-setting theory does not take into account individual differences in traits. This is because, as Adler and Weiss (1988) argued, assigned goal-setting, as a state, creates a strong situation (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010; Mischel, 1973). This is because the act of assigning a specific (clear) goal in the workplace leads employees to construe the goal in the same ways and, if there is commitment to the goal, to supersede trait influences. Traits may be more influential when goals are self-set because this is a weaker situation.

With regard to incentives, people self-administer intrinsic rewards on the basis of their own appraisals of their accomplishments in relation to their goals (Bandura, 1986). Among the most consistent findings in goal-setting research is the relationship between goal attainment and performance satisfaction. Locke and Latham (1990) found that the mean correlation across 12 studies was .51. Subsequent research has shown that goal attainment increases self-efficacy, as well as imparting a sense of pride and achievement (Mento, Locke, & Klein, 1992). A review of the literature revealed that the increase in self-efficacy resulting from goal attainment and from the satisfaction derived from it leads to the setting of increasingly higher goals (Bandura, 1997; Latham, Locke, & Fassina, 2002). Extrinsic incentives for goal attainment include recognition from supervisors. Consistent goal attainment may also increase the likelihood of people (1) retaining their jobs during an economic down-turn; (2) earning a promotion; and (3) receiving a monetary bonus, a salary increase, or both.

]b[Ability, Knowledge and Skill
]fo[When a person has the required knowledge or skill to perform a task, a specific high goal for job performance should be set (Winters & Latham, 1996). Moreover, setting a specific high-performance goal may have stronger effects on those with high rather than low ability (Locke, 1965, 1982). This is because those with high ability are able to draw upon more strategies for goal attainment than those who lack the requisite knowledge or skill are.

When a person lacks the requisite knowledge or skill to perform a task, Kanfer and Ackerman (1989) found that a vague goal, such as exhorting people to do their best, may result in higher performance than setting a specific, high-performance goal. This occurs when people scramble unsystematically to find ways to attain the goal before systematically exploring different strategies for attaining it. Mone and Shalley (1995) replicated this finding. Focusing just on the end result, goal attainment, interfered with learning the task-relevant strategies necessary for goal attainment.

Winters and Latham (1996) also replicated the above findings. People who were urged to do their best outperformed those who were given a specific high-performance goal. In contrast, those given a specific, high-learning goal had the highest performance. This is because a learning goal differs from a performance goal in that the emphasis of the former is on discovering or mastering new strategies, processes, or procedures—necessary strategies that people working on new, complex tasks may not initially possess. Winters and Latham’s findings regarding the benefit of setting a learning rather than a performance goal for tasks, when people initially lack the required knowledge, has been replicated by others. Drach-Zahavy and Erez (2002) found that individuals with a learning goal (which is referred to as a “strategy goal” in their study) had higher levels of performance than those with a performance goal on a highly complex stock-market prediction task. Seijts, Latham, Tasa, and Latham (2004) found that those who were assigned a specific high learning goal attained significantly more market share on an interactive, computer-based simulation of the U.S. cellular telephone industry than those who were assigned a specific, high-performance goal did. Kozlowski and Bell (2006) showed that an assigned learning goal significantly improved both affective and cognitive self-regulatory processes relative to a specific high-performance goal. Noel and Latham (2006) found that participants who had a learning goal kept their simulated business running far longer than those with a performance goal did. Cianci, Klein, and Seijts (2010) reported that people with a learning goal experienced less tension and performed better following negative feedback than did those individuals who had a performance goal.

Unlike in the findings regarding ability as a moderator of the goal–performance relationship, a learning goal appears to benefit people with lower rather than higher cognitive ability. This is presumably because people with lower ability are more likely to lack knowledge and the focus of a learning goal is to increase one’s knowledge, whereas the focus of a performance goal is to increase one’s motivation to apply one’s existing knowledge and ability. Therefore, although both learning and performance goals are neededin order to be successful, performance goals should only be set after an employee has the abilit y to attain it (Seijts & Latham, 2005)—unless the employees can discover the needed knowledge on his or her own.

Goal-setting is a powerful and effective state variable. Typical effect sizes range from .42 to .82 (Locke & Latham, 1990). In contrast, personality variables typically correlate with performance with an r of .20 or less (Cohen’s d = 0.41 or less). This should not be surprising, given that traits are general and states are task- and situation-specific. Generally, task- and situation-specific variables, if they are relevant to the outcome in question, predict performance better than general ones. The only general trait that has been found to have a significant correlation with performance across the vast majority of jobs and situations is intelligence (Schmidt, 2009)—but intelligence is not a personality trait. Assigned goals typically vitiate trait effects, because assigned goals constitute a strong situation. It might be that “strong traits” could offset strong situations created by assigned goals, but this has yet to be shown.

This does not mean that traits and states are unconnected, however. Traits, as we noted, have been found to affect goals. This occurs primarily in situations where goals are self-set rather than assigned. Goals can mediate trait effects because the specific typically mediates the general (Locke, 2001).

The way in which goals affect how assigned goals relate to action is less obvious, but traits such as achievement motivation or conscientiousness could affect goal commitment, a moderator of goal effects. This is another subject for further research.

A goal is an object or goal that an individual seeks to achieve (Locke & Latham, 1984). Goal setting theory (Latham & Locke, 2007; Locke & Latham, 1990; 2002) argues that goals are a direct regulator of behavior. The theory was developed as a basis for predicting, explaining, and influencing an individual’s motivation in the workplace. The theory emphasizes that: (1) a clear high goal leads to higher results than an easy goal, there is no goal, or an unclear goal such as “try your best”; (2) commitment to a given goal, the higher the goal, the higher the performance; and (3) variables such as feedback or information about outcomes, incentives, participation in decision-making, and competition only affect an employee’s performance to the extent that it leads to goal setting and commitment.

In theory, four more mediators argue that a certain high goal explains the positive impact on work efficiency, i.e., choice, effort, perseverance, and strategy (knowledge of tasks or ability). Although the first three are mostly motivational in nature, the fourth is cognitive. In summary, (1) goal selection is far from goal-oriented and non-goal-oriented activities; the higher the goal, the greater the effort (2) and determination (3) to achieve it. Finally, goal setting encourages the employee (4) to use one or more existing strategies or to discover new knowledge that makes it easier to achieve the goal.

The moderator variables included in goal setting theory are a person’s (1) ability to achieve a goal (task knowledge and skills) and (2) aspiration to achieve it. In addition, (3) feedback is necessary for the individual to know that the strategy needs to be followed or modified to increase effort as well as to achieve the goal. (4) Situation factors should be examined to ensure that the employee has the resources necessary to achieve the goal. (5) The complexity of the task is the fifth moderator that has a beneficial effect on performance due to goal setting. As expected from motivation theory (as opposed to training), goal setting is not complicated for people, but has a direct impact on tasks; however, this function can be mitigated by ensuring that people working on complex tasks acquire or acquire the required skills.

Goal setting theory is the most practical theory for increasing efficiency (Latham & Pinder, 2005; Lee & Earley, 1992; Miner, 1984). More than 1,000 laboratory and field studies have supported it empirically (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003).