Goal Setting
Effective goal setting for achieving success
"To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe." |
Why set goals?A number of studies have been conducted to examine the efficacy and success of goal setting on task performance and achievement. It appears that individuals who set goals and have specific plans often have higher rates of performance and accomplishment than those who don’t (Locke, Shaw, Sari and Latham, 1981). An early study conducted by Locke and colleagues in 1981 found that in 90% of cases, participants engaging in difficult and challenging goals reported significantly higher task performance rates than those who engaged in goals that were deemed “easy”, or no goals at all (Locke et al., 1981). The favourable findings in regard to goal setting do not just apply to individuals. A study conducted in 2011 by Kleingeld and colleagues looked at the effect of goal setting on performance in a group setting and discovered that when facing difficult tasks, including physical and intellectual challenges, groups showed higher rates of performance when group goals had been set (Kleingeld, van Mierlo and Arends, 2011).
Common reasons for goal settingPeople set goals for a number of reasons. As we will learn, the main purpose of goal setting is to help people move closer to their ideal state from their current state, and reduce the discomfort caused by the discrepancy between (Reeve, 2009). TheoryGoal setting theoryGoal setting theory was developed by Locke and Latham (2002), two organizational psychologists who conducted a number of studies observing the effects of planning and organising on planned performance. The basic goal setting theory premise is that people are more likely to action more effective performance rates on tasks that are specific and challenging as opposed to tasks that are non-specific and easy to complete (Kleingeld, van Mierlo and Arends, 2011). Specific and difficult tasks tend to yield better performance results for a number of reasons. One reason is that they encourage the development and implementation of strategies and prompt the individual to view the task from all sides in a problem solving manner. Another reason is that having specific set tasks generally results in increased and persistent motivation and effort toward that task. A third reason that specific and set goals show enhanced performance rates is that attention is directed toward the challenging task, and effort expended in order to complete it effectively and promptly (Kliengeld, van Mierlo and Arends, 2011; Locke and Latham, 2002). Goal setting theory takes into account a number of factors on which effective goal setting relies. These include commitment to the completion of the goal, goal complexity, and feedback throughout the goal attaining process (Kliengeld, va Mierlo and Arends, 2011). Additionally, self-efficacy, past performance, ability and incentives, both intrinsic and extrinsic, are also factors in the process of the initial goal choice, and any subsequent planning and strategising done in an effort to attain the goal (Locke and Latham, 2002; Reeve, 2009). Corrective motivationCorrective motivation (Reeve, 2009) occurs when discrepancy exists between a person's present state and ideal state, or where they currently are and where they want to be. It is the drive that encourages people to change, or at least want to change, in an effort to reduce the discrepancy between these two selves. Recognising and experiencing discrepancy between actual and ideal states results in motivation to move toward the ideal state by changing the present state.
DiscrepancyThere are two types of discrepancy: discrepancy reduction and discrepancy creation.
Self-discrepancy theorySelf-discrepancy theory suggests that we as humans have three types of self-schema that affect the way we view ourselves, and our behaviour (Higgins, 1987, as cited in Vaughan and Hogg, 2010). These three selves are: Regulatory focus theoryBuilding on from self-discrepancy theory, Higgins then developed regulatory focus theory to explain what occurs when we are trying to reduce self-discrepancy, and what approach can be taken in the process. The theory consists of two regulation systems, the prevention system and the promotion system. In basic terms, the theory suggests that we regulate our actions based on the type of task at hand (Higgins, 1997 as cited in Herman, and Reiter-Palmon, 2011).
Performance feedbackAn extremely important aspect of goal setting and task performance is performance feedback (Erez, 1977; as cited in Reeve, 2009). Feedback provides not only the information required to assess progress, but it also fosters a sense of interest and importance in the task. Without feedback, a sprinter with a goal of running one hundred metres in 10 seconds would have no information to track their progress, and as a result they would most likely experience a sense of dissatisfaction with the process of aiming toward their goal (Reeve, 2009). Feedback and performance have a reciprocal relationship in which the performance induces the feedback, which in turn induces the performance (Krenn, Würth, and Hergovich, 2013). Social cognitive theory of self-regulationAlbert Bandura’s theory of self-regulation is one of five sub-theories imbedded within social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1991), and is closely related to goal setting. Self-regulation theory explains the internal self-reflective abilities that humans possess, which allow us to exercise control over our thoughts and actions. This then motivates us to behave either in alignment with, or in contrast to, our social situations. Self-regulation quite literally is the phenomenon of regulating our thoughts and consequential behaviour through self-monitoring, self-diagnosing and self-motivating (Mann, 2013; Herman, 2011). Additionally, through self-regulation, we are able to develop personal standards through a simultaneous flow of social comparison and internal regulation (Bandura, 1991). Bandura’s cognitive theory of self-regulation recognises and encourages both forethought and internal reflection, and is a key factor in self-directed change. Theory of reasoned action/theory of planned behaviourTheory of reasoned action is a predictive model that suggests that a person's behaviour is determined by their intention to perform that behaviour (Azjen, 1991). The theory of planned behaviour, also developed by Azjen (1991), builds on the theory of reasoned action by factoring in a vital component of behaviour; behavioural control. A need for improvement was identified when it became apparent that despite the fact that, according to the theory of reasoned action, intention to behave in a particular way is a good predictor of behaviour, actual and perceived behavioural control can at times interfere with intention (Vallerand, Deshaies, Cuerrier, Pelletier, and Mongeau, 1992). Achieving successSMART goalsWhen setting goals, it is important to create a clear, accurate picture of exactly what it is that you’re aiming to achieve. A handy acronym that is widely used in goal setting after Locke’s 1990 publication, is the SMART approach. S – Specific. M – Measureable. A – Achievable. R - Realistic. T- Time-based.
ConclusionSetting goals is not just about deciding that you want something, or want to be something, and trying a few things out to achieve it. There's a little more to it than that. In fact, when setting goals, the more specific and challenging the task is, the more likely you are to perform better (Locke and Latham, 2002). Setting goals to achieve success requires thought, planning, organisation and dedication, but it doesn’t have to be a lengthy, involved, and overwhelming process. With some knowledge of the topic, handy hints and effective strategies, goal setting can become a part of everyday life, and so can success. See also
Related book chaptersReferencesAjzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. Herman, A., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2011). The effect of regulatory focus on idea generation and idea evaluation. Psychology Of Aesthetics, Creativity, And The Arts, 5(1), 13-20. doi:10.1037/a0018587 Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L. (2011). The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1289-1304. doi:10.1037/a0024315 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(9), 705-717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125-152. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.125 Mann, T., de Ridder, D., & Fujita, K. (2013). Self-regulation of health behavior: Social psychological approaches to goal setting and goal striving. Health Psychology, 32(5), 487-498. doi:10.1037/a0028533 Reeve, J. (2009). Understanding motivation and emotion (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Vallerand, R. J., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J., Pelletier, L. G., & Mongeau, C. (1992). Ajzen and Fishbein's theory of reasoned action as applied to moral behavior: A confirmatory analysis. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 62(1), 98-109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.98 Vaughan, G. M., & Hogg, M. A. (2010). Essentials of social psychology. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Publishing. External linkshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDbs3vh6KM&feature=share http://www.mindtools.com/page6.html |