The Dark Side of Goal Setting | Human Performance (2024)

Goal setting is trendy. It's everywhere, in all domains where people pursue success. It has been that way for a long time, and you’ll find very few voices countering its elite status amongst management experts and business talking heads. Look at the acronym S.M.A.R.T.; specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound1. It makes you want to make it yours, after all, it is smart. Therefore smart people use this tool to get what they want. Goal setting is the starting point for all worldly achievement and material gain powerfully driving behaviour and boosting performance. We don’t doubt its theoretical foundation or its efficacy in achieving personal success in life. This idea has ingrained itself in the Western industrialised mind. It is pervasive and unquestioned in business & management literature and the popular press. But goal setting has a dark side, and as we shall see, blind pursuit of goals can bring about catastrophic results.

Introduction

Mitchell & Daniels in the handbook on motivation from 20022 suggested that goal setting is, “quite easily the single most dominant theory in the field, with over a thousand articles and reviews published on the topic in a little over 30 years.”

Since Goal-Setting Theory first reared its head, we have been told persistently that those who have specific, challenging, and non-conflicting goals consistently achieve higher results in life than those without goals. Both research and practice insist almost without question, that with goal-setting, the higher the goal, the higher the outcome, and the greater our personal growth and contribution to society.

“[with goal-setting] rewards result in high satisfaction as well as high self-efficacy regarding perceived ability to meet future challenges through the setting of even higher goals. 

Latham & Pinder, 20053

Little to concern ourselves with then. Goal-setting seems to be the secret potion for personal and societal achievement, the panacea for the pains of all human desire.

Blinkers on

An old bloke on the building site one day told me laughing, that assumption is the mother and father of all f*ck-ups. He wasn’t an academic; he was a tradesman — a skilled and experienced man near retirement who had lived enough life to know confirmation bias when he saw it. Assuming by the sheer weight of momentum behind an idea, that the idea is unquestionably accurate, is like walking around with blinkers on. And when it comes to Edwin Locke’s goal-setting theory and all those who reinforced it, we acquired the mother and father of all assumptions.

As with Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Black Swan Theory, the absence of evidence to the contrary does not prove the infallibility of a theory. It merely means we haven’t found evidence yet, so proceed tentatively. But proceeding with caution is not what happens with goal-setting. The message is still strong; if you want to achieve something in life, set a goal, lay out the steps you’ll take towards it, work your bollocks off, and hey presto! It assumes linear cause and effect; it blinkers us to the potential for harm and disruption, and it assumes a simplistic version of reality. In short, goal-setting turns us into dopes and means begin to justify ends.

The Blind Pursuit ofGoals

In a 2009 article in the Academy of Management, the authors argue that we have overstated the beneficial effects of goal setting and that we have ignored the fact that goal setting has caused systematic harm. There are specific side effects associated with goal setting, including a narrow focus that neglects non-goal areas, a rise in unethical behaviour, distorted risk preferences, corrosion of organisational culture, and reduced intrinsic motivation. The article highlights several cases where the blinkered pursuit of corporate goals resulted in unscrupulous behaviour, disaster, and even injury and death. 4 One such case was that of the Ford Pinto.

The PintoCase

Consider the case of leadership at the Ford Motor Company in the late 1960s. In the '60s, US car manufacturers were losing market share to cheap Japanese imports and the pressure on Ford executives from shareholders was high. In response, the dynamic and charismatic Ford CEO, Lee Iacocca, introduced the specific, measurable and challenging goal of producing and delivering to the market, a vehicle that was “under 2,000 pounds and under $2,000” within two years. Enter the subsequently highly successful Ford Pinto.

Within the limits of the focused and results-driven goal, they had settled on the design and had tooled their assembly lines. Coupled with a tight deadline, this meant that any changes resulting from testing would be impossible. Management signed off on production despite a critical fuel tank safety failure. They positioned it behind the rear axle in a tight space, and tests showed the tank was prone to rupturing on impact. Executives knew about the fault and subsequent investigations revealed they remained steadfastly committed to their goal instead of correcting the faulty design. Their decision is as remarkable upon reflection as it was catastrophic for thousands of people who would be subsequently affected by Ford's decision. Apparently, a favourite saying of Lee Iacocca was, “safety doesn’t sell.”

“You have to keep in mind, that the price elasticity on these subcompacts is extremely tight. You can price yourself right out of the market by adding $25 to the production cost of the model. And nobody understands that better than Iacocca.”

 Engineer atFord.

The Cost Benefit Analysis

Their calculations revealed that the costs of lawsuits to Ford coming from the Pinto collision fires would be less than that of the cost of fixing the design. Lawsuits show that 53 people lost their lives in fires resulting from Pinto ruptured fuel tanks, and countless were physically and emotionally damaged. However, an article in Mother Jones magazine suggests that by conservative estimates, Pinto crashes caused at least 500 burn deaths, although the figure could be as high as 9005.

The remarkable thing about Ford’s decision was that the cost of correcting the fault would have only been a few dollars per unit. However, the narrowness of their specific and measurable goal closed them off to the human cost. Speed to market, fuel efficiency, and cost were the only factors worth considering. Safety, ethical behaviour, and personal and company reputation didn’t come into the decision-making process. This example is extreme. Nonetheless, it illustrates the problem that the pursuit of outcomes has on people.

The Flaws And Side-effects of Goal-setting

The authors of the Academy of Management study suggest that too often, the systematic flaws and serious side-effects of goal-setting are ignored for the sake of short-term gain. They say that goal setting can degrade our performance, motivate risk-taking and unethical behaviour, inhibit learning, reduce intrinsic motivation, and erode healthy organisational culture.

Quite the opposite of what you might have thought previously, perhaps. Here’s a bit more on the problems they highlight and some lessons we might learn from them.

Goals That Are Too Narrow

In research by Simons and Chabris examining the omission of important information in decision-making6, they highlighted inattentional blindness as a distinct feature. Have you ever seen their monkey suit experiment? You can check it out here. In essence, what this research shows is that when our attention is too narrowly focused, we omit information that can prove vital. With the Ford Pinto, this played out to disastrous ends.

Goals inform us about what behaviours superiors value and what ones are appropriate in a given situation. Recognising what behaviour is desired can lead us to focus on short-term gains while losing sight of the potential for devastating long-term effects.

Having Too ManyGoals

When we have multiple goals, we are prone to concentrate on only one goal. In the workplace, for example, where goals may be quality or quantity-based, human beings have a tendency to prioritise the number. This was shown in research by Gilliland and Landis in 1992[/efn_note]Gilliland, S. W., & Landis, R. S. (1992). Quality and quantity goals in a complex decision task: Strategies and outcomes.Journal of Applied Psychology,77(5), 672.[/efn_note]. They gave participants both quality-based goals and quantity-based goals under various conditions. The researchers found that when quantity and quality goals were both difficult, participants were willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. In other words, goals that we find easier to achieve, tend to get more attention than other goals.

Setting An Inappropriate TimeHorizon

Here we go back to the time component. Mistakes are made under pressurised situations. Even where we set goals to the appropriate aspect — quantity or quality — our expectation for completion may be inappropriate. Studies from the business world show us that goals emphasising immediate performance such as this month’s sales targets, prompt short-term based behaviour that harms the organisation in the long run. Cheng, Subramanyam, and Zhang showed in their research that companies frequently issuing quarterly earnings tended to meet or beat expectations. However, they also had a tendency to invest less in research and development and were at the expense of long-term growth.

Goal-setting Increases Risk-taking

Goal setting distorts our preference and appetite for risk. Evidence shows that when we are motivated by specific, challenging goals we tend towards riskier strategies and gamble on outcomes. It’s not so with less challenging or vague goals.

A high-profile example is the Mount Everest disaster on 10 May 1996, which resulted in eight climbers, including two guides, losing their lives. Reports of the disaster suggest that the decisions of two team leaders were an example of a “destructive goal pursuit.” The high-altitude guides, Rob Hall and Scott Fischer, were so immersed in their goal to reach the summit, that they were prepared to play roulette with their own lives and that of six of their clients’.

Goal-setting Increases Unethical Behaviour

There’s no doubt about it, the Ford Pinto case highlighted in very clear terms that rigid goals leave no room for correcting our course. As such, all kinds of crazy behaviour creep in. As the ends justify the means, we become contemporary Niccolo Machiavellis.

Consider the 1990s case of US company Sears, whose executives set sales goals for its car mechanics of $147 per hour. This specific, challenging goal encouraged workers to overcharge for their work and to carry out unnecessary repairs to customers’ vehicles. The problem extended company-wide and Edward Brennan, Sears chairperson, acknowledged that the goal set for staff had motivated the deception of their customers.

Goal-setting Creates a Culture of Competition

This negative aspect of goal-setting and the previous one are linked. As with the Sears case of over-charging, the drive for profit overshadowed the importance of collective effort, comradeship, and empathy. The Sears staff might have had concerns for the human being at the end of the transaction, but the goal laid down by bosses took precedence. We don’t know the nature of the instruction, but it seems that management had linked job security to the rate workers charged. It made the individual’s survival paramount over the quality of service and pitted workers against one another.

Setting Goals The SMART(er) Way

Cognitive behavioural therapies such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)8 suggest that setting goals which are guided by our values is of critical importance. When we identify and understand our values and reflect on them when making important decisions, it is more likely that we will act in accordance with them. In the absence of value-driven decision-making, the promise of extrinsic rewards may overwhelm us. Therefore, before any goal setting, is important to clarify what values underly these goals.

There are several different versions of the SMART acronym. In Harris' version taken from the book The Happiness Trap, SMART stands for;

Specific:

Specify the actions you will take, when and where you will do so, and who or what is involved. Example of a vague or non-specific goal: “I will spend more time with my kids.” A specific goal: “I will take the kids to the climbing wall on Saturday.” A non-specific goal: “I will write that book this summer.” A specific goal: “I will have the outline of my book written by the end of June.”

Meaningful:

Your goal should be personally meaningful to you if your values are genuinely guiding it instead of trying to please others or avoid pain. If it lacks a sense of meaning or purpose, check in and see your values are really guiding it.

Adaptive:

Does the goal help you to take your life forward in a direction that, as far as you can predict, is likely to improve the quality of your life and that of others?

Realistic:

The goal should be realistically achievable. Take into account your health, competing demands on your time, financial status, and whether you need to develop new skills to achieve it.

Time-bound:

To increase the specificity of your goal, set a day, date and time for it. If this is not possible, set as accurate a time limit as you can.

The SMART(er) Goal Setting Process

Choose a domain of life that is important to you, an area where you wish to establish greater meaning and purpose (e.g. Work, Family, Romantic Relationships, Friendships, Citizenship, Spirituality etc). Write down a graduated series of goals, from small, simple goals that you can achieve immediately. Then write long-term goals that you may not achieve for months or years but that you will be working towards.

FinalThoughts

I’ve had a problem with goal-setting for a long time but I just couldn’t put my finger on why. Goal-setting felt shallow, materialistic and unsubstantial to me, and most times I attempted to execute the process I fell flat. It didn’t work for me so I quit trying. I decided instead to throw myself into things I enjoyed and see what happens instead of trying to plan my life to the end degree. In essence, I was detoxing myself from shallow material-based striving that didn’t serve me.

My daily work needed to be more than a mere transaction. It needed to have inherent value to me first. And that’s the problem with modern work, the dominant narrative around value and expertise, and our sense of personal worth. It’s far too materialistic and quantity-driven. All sizzle and no steak, as the saying goes. Work doesn't have to be this way, and setting goals can result in positive outcomes. But we've got to set our values first – to what extent are we prepared to pursue this goal? What sacrifices are we prepared to make, or not, and how far will we go in its pursuit?

I believe that without that inherent personal value, our work becomes soulless and sterile — a means to an end. Whether you work as a solo operator or are the head of a larger ongoing concern, the work itself needs to be the reason we get up in the morning and not some measurable outcome. The work must be process-based rather than outcome-based. In this way, work sustains us and retains meaning and purpose. As Aristotle proclaimed in Nicomachean Ethics9, “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence,”

References

1. 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.
2. Klimoski, R. J., Ilgen, D. R., & Borman, W. C. (2003). Handbook of Psychology, vol 12-Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
3. Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century.Annu. Rev. Psychol.,56, 485-516.
4. 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.
5. Dowie, M. (1977).Pinto madness(pp. 18-32). September/October: Mother Jones.
6. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events.perception,28(9), 1059-1074.
7. Teger, A. I. (2013).Too Much Invested to Quit: Pergamon General Psychology Series(Vol. 83). Elsevier.
8. Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour research and therapy, 44(1), 1-25.
9. Crisp, R. (Ed.). (2014). Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge University Press

Related