This essay will look at the usefulness of the Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) and will evaluate its practicality and success when working within a team. Both the strengths and weaknesses of this theory will be assessed and will then take into consideration using the method to motivate a team or an individual.
Motivation can be defined as the internal or external factors which create desire and energy, therefore meaning people, either in a team or as an individual, are motivated towards an end goal. The Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) is the idea that when setting a goal there are a few things which need to be considered. The main points to be considered are that the end goal needs clarity, this means it needs to be clear what steps need to be taken in order to achieve the goal. The second point is that the goal needs to be challenging, by a goal being challenging the person trying to achieve the goal will be more motivated, whereas if a goal is easily accomplished they become demotivated. The next point is that the person aiming to achieve the goal needs to be committed and dedicated to the goal otherwise they will not be motivated to achieve it. Another point is that they need to be able to gain feedback or have a way of being able to see how they are progressing towards their goal. Locke and Latham stated that goal setting is essentially linked to task performance. They said that specific and challenging goals along with appropriate feedback contribute to higher and better task performance (Locke & Latham, 1990).
The Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) is useful when working within a team because when teams work together to set a collaborative goal they are then more likely to work well together in order to achieve this goal. A benefit of working within a team when using goal setting is that due to their being other team members who will all have their own opinions feedback it will be easier to give and receive, and therefore the group will work towards their goal more effectively. The process theory of goal setting is practical and useful when in a team because it means that they are able to motivate one another in order to achieve that goal. When using this process theory, the evidence on whether the goals are working is shown by the productivity of the team, a team that is well motivated and all share a common goal are more likely to succeed in completing goals and are also more likely to complete goals to a higher standard and in a quicker time limit. However, the evidence that the team is motivated depends on who is looking at it. If a manager is looking at a team’s motivation they will say that the goal setting theory is successful when the productivity of the team increases, whereas to the team they will measure their success by looking at how well they are working as a team and the difference in their work since they have been setting goals (Arnold, 2010).
The Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) is a very successful motivational tool when motivating individuals. This is because of the aid of SMART goals, (which stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-based) it allows for individuals and teams to regularly make realistic goals. A practical example of this is that when I worked in a shop there were a variety of different leveled job positions such as Sales Assistant(me), Shop Floor Manager, Tills Manager, Store Manager and then the District Manager. Every day the District manager would set a goal, this goal met the points of a SMART goal. It was to have a certain amount of sales in the store on that specific day, this was not always achievable depending on how busy the shopping Centre was, however it was relevant to the shop and it could be done. This goal was motivation mainly for the Store Manager, Tills Manager and Shop Floor Manager. This is because without achieving this goal regularly they would not achieve their bonus at the end of each quarter. This resulted with the high up members of management being highly motivated by the idea of a bonus and meant that they impressed on the Sales Assistants that they had to give a high standard of service in order to achieve the goal of high sales. However, the motivation within the Sales Assistant team was generally low because there were no benefits to us to work hard for this goal. This means that sometimes goals are set however they can affect different members of a team differently, some more positively than others. This example also shows that a team need to have shared commitment in order for the goals to be achieved well and as often as possible. In reference to Vroom’s Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) it is noted that different individuals within a team are likely to be motivated by different rewards, and this needs to be taken into consideration when creating goals, because if the rewards are not valued by the whole team they are more likely to not be motivated and therefore not reach their goals.
SMART goals are successful at motivating an individual, however the motivation levels become lower when the goals are spread over a large team with whom everyone may not benefit from the end goal. The difference is that when using the Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) to motivate a team, certain things such as time limits and final rewards need to be taking in to consideration. This is because when using this theory to motivate a team it is harder to set daily challenges as not everyone will be able to agree on the short term goals, furthermore this generally means that team goals have more in depth clarity and are over a longer time period.
The Goal Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) does however have its drawbacks when it comes to working well within a team. The first fault is that maintaining motivation can become difficult. It means that the team have to constantly have a goal set that is still challenging yet achievable. This means maintenance of goal achievement and knowledge of when a new one needs to be set is high priority. Also by this it means that more time needs to be taken in order to create achievable goals that the whole team agree with. This could become a flaw to the goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) as it can cause an issue as some people within the team may not be motivated by the end goal, resulting in demotivating other members of the team who could have originally been motivated.
In the question it asks about “practical usefulness” of the Goal Setting Theory. This asks ‘is it practical to use within a team environment, and if it is practical to use in a team is it actually useful?’. The Goal Setting Theory is practical as it is easy to perform especially with the use of a SMART aid, however it is not always useful or the correct tool to use as sometimes it means that some members of the team may be highly motivated, and other members of the team can become demotivated as they feel that the “team goal” may not relate to them (Arnold, 2010). However, this does depend on the size of the team and how well the team know each other to whether or not this method of motivation is successful or not. This is because if a team have just formed and are still getting to know each other their opinions and end goals will be varied, therefore making a shared goal difficult to achieve. Whereas, if a team have been together for a long period of time and then decide to make a team goal, they are more likely to share that goal in common and are also therefore more likely to achieve the goal to a high standard which they may want. In order to help the weaknesses, it may be worth making sure that the teams are able to work well together before setting a group goal and also that everyone in the team shares the same outcomes and desire. This therefore will mean that the goals will be easier to set and easier to achieve. Also to improve this method it needs to be made sure that the goal chosen is relatable to every individual within that team, meaning that everyone is motivated, this is likely to improve the team’s overall efficiency and productivity.