Motivation constitutes one of the cornerstones of psychology. All consciously motivated behaviour is goal-oriented; goals can either be self-generated (internal) or assigned by others (external). Goal-Setting Theory is the most widely used and accepted motivation theory; it is based on motivation being created from the tension of not having achieved goals. Motivation is a function at the level of challenge. Goal commitment is most important and relevant when the goal is difficult; actually the more difficult a valued goal, the more intense the effort to attain it (Latham 2007).
Why do employees pursue goals? They may pursue a goal because they want to, because they think they should, because they must or some combination of the three (Latham 2007). So, goals provide employees with a sense of direction but not necessarily with a sense of choice. Employees may be motivated to pursue a goal when they can identify with it but this cannot apply when goals are coercive. Do we really care why people are motivated to pursue a goal as long as they do so? Yes, we do; we need to examine all the mediators that explain why goal-setting raises performance levels if we are to pursue a sustainable competitive advantage through our people.
Let’s focus first on self-efficacy, “an individual’s belief that he/she is capable of performing a hard task” (Bandura 1982, 1997). Self-efficacy has a direct effect on performance by raising motivation levels. Goals and self-efficacy relate positively with performance regardless of whether goals are internal or external. In other words, the theory holds that people with high self-efficacy beliefs are high performers because they are more likely to undertake difficult goals, to become committed to these goals and –presumably- work with more intensity to achieve their goals (Locke & Latham 1990, 2002). At this point, we shall make a distinction between self-efficacy and overconfidence; overconfidence can have detrimental effects on performance.
Another key mediating variable is ability. Latham’s (2007) provocative statement that “knowledge in the absence of goals is useless” can be reversed. What is the reason for goal-setting when people are incapable of pursue a certain goal? How can people be motivated to pursue a goal when they know that they do not have the knowledge and skills to proceed? Ability should not be taken for granted! As Kanfer & Ackerman (1989) explain, in the absence of knowledge/ability, setting a difficult goal can have a deleterious effect on a person’s performance, let alone the psychological effects. Obviously, ability and knowledge are a prerequisite that cannot be ignored.
What about mood & emotion? Do they affect goal-setting? On the one hand, goal-achievement produces a feeling of self-confidence, a sense of closure. On the other hand, failure to achieve a goal (failure due to what?) creates tension and a drive to finish the work. However, we have not identified clearly what types of emotional experience are associated with the goal-setting process. Which emotions affect the level of difficulty of goals selected, if not assigned, and the level of commitment? Is it fear? Anxiety? Joy? How do people deal with frustration and how does frustration affect their motivation levels? It seems like failure to achieve a certain goal would lead to lower motivation and performance in relation to the future, though expectancy motivation theory (Porter & Lawler, 1968) would predict the same thing. As Pinder (2008) suggests a systematic expansion of the Goal-Setting theory requires that much more research is done that fully integrated emotionality into the various staged of the overall goal experience.
All these mediating variables affect motivation and performance, each of them to a different extent on different occasions. No matter what, Goal-Setting theory remains the most dominant and empirically supported theory. Not only the research support is strong – though shall not be unchallenged – but the theory is widely used by hundred of practitioners worldwide. Its utility is left to the experts to decide, still, goals should be prescribed selectively and be closely monitored to avoid unpleasant or unethical side effects. If Goal-Setting is implemented inflexibly and without consideration of potential negative consequences, then certainly negative consequences can occur, but equally these could be avoided by more considered implementation. Still, goals are the most promising concepts around which to integrate motivation theories and link motivation to other important areas of organizational behaviour such as emotion and personality. Goals’ potential is far away from being exhausted… so use them with care.
