While management literature tends to declare almost universally that goal setting “might be the most effective managerial tool available” (Schweitzer, Ordóñez, & Douma, 2004, p. 422), some organizational analysts consider goals “among the most slippery and treacherous” (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 184) tools used in the organization. Part of the confusion seems to come from different definitions of goals. Just as management writers have difficulty recognizing or defining differentiation between vision and mission, groups and teams, and strategies and plans, academics and practitioners seem to have trouble defining and differentiating goals from vision, mission, and objectives.
Further fueling confusion is that most contemporary scholars and practitioners seem to focus on the functions and mechanics of goals without understanding the dynamics of goals. For example, SMART is a standard tool that provides an easily remembered tool for formulating goals that are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-oriented. While the SMART goals formula serves a purpose for developing certain kinds of goals for certain situations, it does not consider all factors that make effective goals, while it limits the definition of goals to something that may not apply for many situations.
For example, people can be coerced to achieve goals. However, effective goal setting requires that the people involved accept the goal and feel confident that they can achieve it (Locke & Latham, 2002; Seijts & Latham, 2005). To accommodate the missing elements, managers might change the SMART goals formula by replacing “Achievable” with “Accepted” or by changing the formula to IM SMART, with “IM” reflecting “Intrinsically Motivated.” Perhaps more effective than relying on an overly simplistic mechanical process is recognizing that different types of goals seem to serve different purposes and have other impacts depending on the perspective, source, type, and application of the goal.
In other words, while mechanics can serve as building blocks to understanding, what seems to slip from the attention of most is that effective goal setting may be more a matter of dynamics than mechanics.
References
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002, September). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
Schweitzer, M. E., Ordóñez, L., & Douma, B. (2004, June). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 422-432.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus performance: When should each be used? Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 124-131.
