| QUICK ANSWER |
| Specific, challenging goals can improve performance, but they can also narrow attention, encourage shortcuts and undermine motivation when poorly designed. Ordóñez and colleagues describe these risks in their 2009 article, Goals Gone Wild. The solution is not to abandon goals. It is to pair targets with meaningful outcomes, ethical boundaries and regular reviews that protect the work the target is meant to improve. |
Table of Contents
Goal setting pitfalls emerge when a target stops serving its original purpose. A goal can give people direction, motivation and a practical measure of progress. However, the same mechanism can become counterproductive when the target leaves out something important, makes failure unusually costly or rewards results regardless of how they are obtained. The research on goal setting helps explain both sides of this problem. A target should support a valuable outcome, not replace it.
Narrow Focus and Non-Goal Domain Neglect
Specific goals direct attention toward relevant actions, which is often useful. The trade-off is that less visible responsibilities can receive less attention. A team asked to increase the number of completed tasks may spend less time on quality control, documentation or helping colleagues. This is a potential consequence of target design, not an inevitable effect of having a goal. For a related explanation, see why SMART goals fail.
Imagine a customer support team rewarded entirely for closing tickets quickly. An employee may close a case after providing an incomplete answer, leaving the customer to contact support again. The dashboard records success while the customer experiences failure. A balanced measure could include resolution quality, repeat contacts and the time needed to resolve difficult cases. Related priorities can also compete, as explained in goal conflict.
| RESEARCH NOTE: Goals and Unethical Behavior Research |
| In a laboratory experiment, Schweitzer, Ordóñez and Douma (2004) found that participants who had unmet performance goals were more likely to misreport results than participants instructed to do their best. The relationship was especially pronounced when participants fell just short of their target. The experiment illustrates a risk, not a prediction that every employee with a challenging target will behave dishonestly. Read Goal Setting as a Motivator of Unethical Behavior for the original study. |
Goals and Intrinsic Motivation
Performance targets can change the reasons people engage in an activity. For some tasks, external pressure can make an enjoyable activity feel like an obligation. The risk depends on the nature of the target, the feedback and the person’s sense of autonomy. A musician who tracks practice hours voluntarily may find the information helpful, while one who feels constantly judged on those hours may become less willing to experiment.
Creative work benefits from room to explore, test alternatives and learn from unsuccessful attempts. Excessively rigid performance targets can make this harder. A learning goal, such as experimenting with three different design approaches and reflecting on the results, can provide structure without defining success solely by one output. For a broader account of when goals help, read the science of goal setting.
Goodhart’s Law and Metric Gaming
Goodhart’s law is commonly summarized as the idea that a measure may lose its usefulness when it becomes a target. A metric is usually an approximation of something that matters. Test scores can provide information about learning, for instance, but they cannot capture every aspect of understanding. If all incentives depend on the score, people may shift effort from broad understanding to test preparation. This does not make measurement pointless; it makes thoughtful measurement essential. Sometimes a target itself needs to change, as discussed in when to quit.
To reduce metric gaming, compare the recorded performance against its underlying purpose. A sales team might track repeat business and customer satisfaction as well as calls made. A school might combine assessment scores with independent work samples. Multiple measures can help reveal blind spots, although a long list of targets can create new conflicts. For the research perspective on potential side effects, see Ordóñez and colleagues’ Goals Gone Wild.
Designing Goals That Minimize Costs
Start by naming the outcome separately from the target. If the outcome is healthier sleep, the target might be a consistent bedtime rather than an absolute number of hours every night. Next, identify a quality safeguard and an ethical limit. Finally, decide when to review the target. A goal becomes more useful when you can adjust it in response to evidence instead of treating revision as failure.
Consider a writer who wants to publish four articles each week. A numerical target can make planning easier, but it may also create a temptation to publish incomplete drafts. Better goal design would include a minimum editorial standard, a source check for factual claims and permission to postpone a piece that needs more work. The aim is to create a dependable publication process, not merely increase the count.
At each review, ask whether reaching the target improved the original outcome, whether important tasks were displaced and whether the target encouraged behavior you would otherwise discourage. If the answer reveals a problem, change the measurement, provide more support or reduce the pressure. The review is part of the goal-setting process itself.
These examples are practical applications of the research, rather than tested formulas that guarantee success. The 2009 review by Ordóñez and colleagues identifies circumstances in which ambitious targets can produce harmful side effects, while Locke and Latham’s 2002 review of goal-setting theory explains how goals can enhance performance. Together, they support a conditional approach: use goals thoughtfully, accounting for feedback, commitment, task complexity and incentives.
Good goals make progress visible while preserving the qualities that make progress worthwhile. They provide direction without demanding blind obedience to a number. When the metric and the purpose diverge, protect the purpose.
| KEY TAKEAWAY |
| A useful target keeps the underlying purpose visible. Balance quantitative targets with quality checks, learning opportunities and explicit limits on acceptable shortcuts. Treat unexpected behavior as a reason to examine the metric and its incentives, rather than as proof that people need more pressure. |
Frequently Asked Questions
When can goal setting encourage unethical behavior?
When people feel intense pressure to reach a specific target, especially after narrowly missing it, some may be tempted to misreport results. Laboratory evidence illustrates this risk; it does not mean all challenging goals encourage dishonesty.
Can goals reduce intrinsic motivation?
They can when targets are experienced as controlling or when evaluation crowds out enjoyment and exploration. Self-chosen learning goals and supportive feedback may instead help sustain interest.
What is Goodhart’s law in goal setting?
It describes how a measure can become less informative when people are rewarded for improving the number rather than the underlying outcome.
How can goals create tunnel vision?
A narrow target directs attention toward a particular result. If essential responsibilities are not measured or protected, they may receive less attention.
How can you avoid common goal setting pitfalls?
Define the purpose, choose a balanced measure, protect quality and ethical standards, and review the target when unintended consequences appear. Use learning goals when developing unfamiliar skills.
