Bandura, A. (2013). The role of self-efficacy in goal based motivation. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal and task performance (pp. 51–64). New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Bargh, J. A. (1990). Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of thought and behaviour. Multiple affects from multiple stages. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behaviour (Vol. 2, pp. 93–130). New York: Guilford Press.Find this resource:
Dember, W. N. (1974). Motivation and the cognitive revolution. American Psychologist, 29(3), 161–168.Find this resource:
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Freer.Find this resource:
Frayne, C.A. & Latham, G.P. (1987). The application of social learning theory to employee self management of attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 387–392.Find this resource:
Howard, A. (2013). The predictive validity of conscious and subconscious motives on career advancement. In E. A., Locke & G. P., Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, Garcia.Find this resource:
Kramer, W. S., Thayer, A. L., & Salas, E. (2013). Goal setting in teams. In E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting and task performance. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P. (2012). Work motivation: History, theory, research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Find this resource:
Latham, G.P., & Baldes, J.J. (1975). The "practical significance" of Locke's theory of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 122–124.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Budworth, M. H. (2006). The effect of training in verbal self-guidance on the self-efficacy and performance of Native North Americans in the selection interview. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 516–523.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving scientific disputes by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application of the Erez-Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 73, 753–772.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Kinne, S. B. (1974). Improving job performance through training in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 187–191.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Lee, T. W. (1986). Goal setting. In E.A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings: Research findings for industrial-organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management, (pp. 101–117). Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1975). Increasing productivity with decreasing time limits: A field replication of Parkinson’s law. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 524–526.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goal-setting research. European Psychologist, 12(4), 290–300.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2009). Science and ethics: What should count as evidence against the use of goal setting? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 83–91.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (in press). Goal setting theory: Controversies and resolutions. In D. Ones, N. Anderson, C. Viswesvaran, & H. Sinangil (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology. Vol. 1. SAGE.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Marshall, H. A. (1982). The effects of self set, participatively set, and assigned goals on the performance of government employees. Personnel Psychology, 35, 399–404.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Dossett, D. L. (1978). The importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 163–171.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Piccolo, R. F. (2012). The effect of context specific versus non-specific subconscious goals on employee performance. Human Resource Management, 51, 535–538.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979a). The effects of holding goal difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 163–168.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979b). The importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 151–156.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., Seijts, H., & Crim, D. (2008). The effects of learning goal difficulty level and cognitive ability on strategies and performance. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40, 220–229.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., Stajkovic, A., & Locke, E. A. (2010). The relevance and viability of subconscious goals in the workplace. Journal of Management, 36, 234–255.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., & Steele, T. P. (1983). The motivational effects of participation versus goal setting on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 406–417.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., Steele, T. P., & Saari, L. M. (1982). The effects of participation and goal difficulty on performance. Personnel Psychology, 35, 677–686.Find this resource:
Latham, G. P., Winters, D. C., & Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49–63.Find this resource:
Lee, C., & Earley, P. C. (1992). Comparative peer evaluations of organizational behavior thoeries. Organizational Development Journal, 10, 37–42.Find this resource:
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Find this resource:
Locke E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.Find this resource:
Locke E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29, 388–403.Find this resource:
Locke E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2013). New developments in goal setting and task performance. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Mawritz, M., Folger, R., & Latham, G. P. (2014). Supervisors’ exceedingly difficult goals and abusive supervision: The mediating effects of hindrance stress, anger, and anxiety. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 358–372.Find this resource:
Mealiea, L. W., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Skills for managerial success: Theory, experience, and practice. Chicago: Irwin.Find this resource:
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.Find this resource:
Millman, Z., & Latham, G. P. (2001). Increasing re-employment through training in verbal self-guidance. In M. Erez, U. Kleinbeck, & H. K. Thierry (Eds.), Work motivation in the context of a globalizing economy. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Find this resource:
Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behaviour theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(3), 250–268.Find this resource:
Mone, M. A., & Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of task complexity and goal specificity on change in strategy and performance over time. Human Performance, 8, 243–262.Find this resource:
Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Industrial organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 225–254). New York: Wiley.Find this resource:
Ordonez, L., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A., & Bazerman, M. (2009). Goals gone wild: How goals systematically harm individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 6–16.Find this resource:
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation. Theory, issues, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Find this resource:
The motivation and goal-setting theory research of Dr. Edwin A. Locke is widely regarded among the top management theories. Small businesses can learn a lot from his principles of motivation and goal-setting theory. Without the most basic goals, employees wouldn't show up for work or see a purpose in holding a job. The management team that helps employees set more complex and effective goals could boost performance and profits beyond their wildest expectations.
History of Goal Setting Theory
American psychologist Edwin Locke from the University of Maryland at College Park has studied the power of goal setting since the late 1960s. He first posited that employees were motivated by goals and feedback in his 1968 article "Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives." He later fine-tuned his perspective to include that the difficulty and specificity of the task also was a good predictor of performance. In other words, if the goal was too easy, the motivation wasn't as compelling. Along with Dr. Gary Latham, Dr. Locke published his groundbreaking work in 1990 in a book called "A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance," which frequently is cited by business administrators, Ph.D. students, lecturers and associate professors around the globe.
The key points that Locke and Latham made were that motivational goals needed to have the following dimensions: clarity, challenge, commitment, feedback and complexity. Goals need to be clear and measurable such as: My goal is to reduce maintenance downtime by 15 percent. Secondly, goals must be challenging, with achievement as the final payoff. Thirdly, employees must feel like part of the goal-setting process to be committed to a clearly relevant goal. Next, there must be a program that involves feedback, recognition and progress reports. Lastly, the task must be complex but not overwhelming, with sufficient time and resources available.
Theories are nice, but what does all this mean to you, small business owner or manager? Consider how a company such as Moog, a manufacturer of precision air control components, has built its corporate culture around motivation and goal-setting theory. Moog credits its success with a "culture that unites and motivates" its workers. During their first days with the company, new interns sit down with management to discuss job expectations, skills and aspirations. All employees receive one-on-one time with managers for regular progress reports. Their performance is assessed and they are asked for suggestions regarding process improvement. They go over upcoming job openings that might suit the company and the individual's agenda. Employees are frequently trained in other divisions and offered different positions or promotions. In other words, employees are always being challenged with complex tasks and encouraged with clear feedback.
Locke, Latham and associates conducted numerous studies over the years to build a case for their motivation and goal-setting theory hypothesis. In a 1974-75 study, Latham found that unionized truck drivers increased the number of logs loaded onto their trucks from 60 percent to 90 percent of the legal allowable weight as a result of setting goals. They saved the company $250,000 in nine months. In 1982, another group of unionized drivers saved $2.7 million in 18 weeks by adhering to assigned goals of increasing their daily trips to the mill. These are just a few of the examples discussed in Locke and Latham's report, "Building A Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey."
There are still some limitations to motivation and goal-setting theory, Latham and Locke admit. For example, they say that the goals of the organization are not always the same as the goals of the individual. Perhaps the company's goal is to get workers trained in new safety protocols. However, the manager's bonus depends upon the company's financial performance, not the employee's grasping of the safety procedures. Therefore, the manager may not be motivated to take employees away from their tasks to complete the training. Another limitation is that learning goals do not always foster interest, and interest goals do not always facilitate learning. There also is the problem that individuals are more tempted to take risky actions in pursuit of their goals, which could potentially lead to failure rather than success.
About the Author
Jennn Fusion has been working as a professional writer for more than eight years. Her work has appeared online at USAToday.com, Chron.com, Business.com, Donklephant.com, BlogTO.com, Crawdaddy.com, MobileLifeToday.com and VicePresidents.com. She also has a variety of copy published on small business blogs and websites. Jennn holds a Bachelor of Journalism and English.
Suggest an Article Correction