ConceptsNest

  ***Continued from Chapter 01 (Covered previously: Case Studies on Goals going Awry, Inappropriate Calibration of Goals, Impact of Time Horizon on Goals,) Link to Chapter -01 Link to Chapter 01: https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/5539914399812618370/9134115350792616570 Goals Becoming Too Challenging Proponents of goal setting claim that a positive linear relationship exists between the difficulty of a goal and employee performance. Specifically, they argue that goals should be set at the most challenging level possible to inspire effort, commitment, and performance—but not so challenging that employees see no point in trying. This logic makes intuitive sense, yet stretch goals also cause serious side-effects like:- Shifting Risk Attitudes:->   Goal-setting often distorts risk preferences. People motivated by specific and challenging goals adopt riskier strategies and choose riskier gambles than do those with less challenging or vague goals. Related literature has found

  For decades, goal setting has been used as a tool for improving employee motivation and performance in organizations. Across hundreds of experiments, dozens of tasks, and thousands of people across four continents, the results are clear. Compared to vague, easy goals (e.g., “Do your best”), specific and challenging goals boost performance. Locke (1964) is credited with the very first Goal Setting Theory, where he focused on goal setting within the workplace.   He found that employees were motivated more by clearly set goals and actionable feedback to help them achieve those goals. Locke also found that motivation is key to achieving our goals, and we feel more motivated when we’re not 100% certain we can achieve the goal we’ve set for ourselves. Taking on challenges is highly motivational as it allows us to develop our skills, flex our problem-solving muscles, and gain a deeper sense of personal achievement. But has the systematic harm caused by goal setting been largely ignor