There are days when you wake up ready to take on the world, make lists, check off milestones you were putting off and promise yourself that today is the day you will cross off every last task. And there are days – perhaps more often than not – when the list becomes a cruel reminder that human motivation is, to say the least, volatile. If on an individual level we already know how difficult it can be to keep the compass pointing north, imagine when it comes to steering it collectively, in a team with different priorities, talents and ways of thinking.

Setting clear and ambitious goals has been presented to us for decades as a superpower of business management: an almost infallible recipe for coordinating wills and triggering motivation. But what lies behind this promise? What nuances should we not lose sight of so that goals don’t become a boomerang? Today, with the permission of science, we open the Pandora’s box of organisational goals.

What am I going to read about in this article?

 

The evidence: setting clear and specific goals works (almost always)

The enthusiasm for goals was born not from a consultancy slogan, but from mountains of data. At the beginning of this century, two leading figures in organisational psychology, Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, analysed more than a thousand studies on the relationship between goals, performance and motivation. The conclusion is compelling: when people know exactly what’s expected of them – and when that what is not trivial, but challenging – the likelihood that they will try harder, persist longer and perform better skyrockets.

The principle is simple and deeply human: our attention and energy are best organised when we have a tangible goal. A fuzzy goal such as “do your best” is often an invitation to ambiguity and procrastination. In contrast, clear, high-difficulty goals act as a beacon: they force us to prioritise, plan and measure progress.

 

“Our attention and energy are best organised when we have a tangible goal”.

 

It’s no coincidence that this approach has permeated so many modern management methodologies: from Google’s famous OKR (Objectives and Key Results) to the traditional KPIs, the idea of setting specific and ambitious goals is now part of the DNA of many organisations that aspire to excellence. The science supports their effectiveness, provided they’re combined with regular feedback, adequate resources and an environment that allows learning from mistakes.

 

infografia-metas-que-suman-en

The cracks in the model: when the goal eclipses the journey

However, as with any good remedy, dosage and context matter. In the last decade, organisational psychology has begun to speak out about the side effects of goal fervour. These aren’t speculations: they’re findings backed by solid research.

One of the most recurrent criticisms points to the myopia that goals can induce. By focusing all attention on a quantifiable goal, there’s a risk of overlooking equally relevant but less visible or urgent issues. For example, a sales team may become obsessed with reaching a quarterly figure and neglect the quality of the customer relationship, or even ignore early signs of dissatisfaction that could lead to bigger problems.

Other studies suggest that setting clear and ambitious goals may tempt people to take unnecessary risks or, at worst, resort to unethical practices to achieve them. The corporate scandals of recent decades have more in common than greed: in many cases, there were disproportionate goals and incentive systems that rewarded performance over integrity.

Learning is another potential casualty. When the pressure to achieve the goal is extreme, teams may choose familiar and safe strategies to stick to the plan, rather than explore new ways of working that might bring more value in the long run. Ultimately, this limits innovation and stunts organisational flexibility.

Finally, we cannot ignore the emotional cost. Goals, when they become obsessions or weapons of constant comparison, can transform the work environment into a competitive battleground. Collaboration suffers, distrust grows and team culture – that intangible asset that nurtures resilience and creativity – erodes.

 

So, what do we do about goals?

It’d be simplistic to conclude that we should/shouldn’t set clear goals. The more interesting question is how to design and manage them intelligently and humanely. Several research studies agree on some practical principles for a more balanced approach:

* Combine performance goals with learning goals: this way, not only the end result is rewarded, but also the acquisition of new competences and continuous improvement.

* Encourage flexibility: allowing for adjustments when circumstances change helps to avoid frustration and opportunistic behaviour.

flecha marchando direccion

* Value the process, not just the outcome: recognising effort and collaboration reduces the temptation for ethical shortcuts.

* Encourage transparency and dialogue: talking openly about goals and their implications helps to align expectations and detect unintended effects early.

Looking beyond metrics

Perhaps the most valuable lesson we can draw from decades of research is this: setting clear goals remains an indispensable tool, but it’s not a substitute for leadership or organisational culture. No number on a dashboard replaces a team’s ability to talk, adapt and take care of itself.

In a world that idolises productivity and optimisation, remembering that we work with human beings – and not machines – is, paradoxically, what elevates our collective potential the most. So yes: let’s keep dreaming big, let’s set the bar high… but let’s also look around and remember that the real goal, the one that doesn’t fit in any quarterly report, is to sustain work that’s worth living.

 

Sources:

  • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8490751/
  • 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.
  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268.
  • Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6–16.
  • Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34–49.
  • Knight, D., Durham, C. C., & Locke, E. A. (2001). The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 326–338.
  • Schweitzer, M. E., Ordóñez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 422–432.
  • Earley, P. C., Northcraft, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1989). Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 87–105.
  • Cervone, D., Jiwani, N., & Wood, R. (1991). Goal setting and the differential influence of self-regulatory processes on complex decision-making performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 257–266.
  • Mitchell, T. R., & Silver, W. S. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Effects on task strategies and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 185–193.