Stretch goals: what research says about their effects
Few management practices are as well studied as goal setting. The useful question is not whether to set goals, but under which conditions a demanding goal genuinely helps a team.
The most robust finding
Edwin Locke and Gary Latham (2002, American Psychologist) synthesise decades of work: specific, difficult goals are associated with higher performance than vague instructions such as “do your best”, provided the person is committed and receives feedback on progress.
Conditions that limit the effect
The same authors note that the effect weakens on complex, novel tasks: an outcome goal set too early can divert attention from learning. On such tasks, learning goals — mastering a method, testing strategies — are often more relevant.
The documented downside
Lisa Ordóñez and colleagues (2009, Academy of Management Perspectives) highlight side effects: narrow focus, excessive risk-taking, unethical behaviour to hit the number. Their paper is a reasoned warning, not a meta-analysis; it calls for caution rather than rejection. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What follows for management
The issue is goal design: specificity, difficulty, type (outcome or learning) and follow-up. A goal without regular feedback loses most of its effect; a single numeric goal on a complex task can degrade what it claims to measure.
A practical implication, verifiable in-house
Reread a team's annual goals and classify each: specific or vague, outcome or learning, with or without a dated checkpoint. Vague goals without follow-up are the first to rework. This is the exercise we run with Geneva managers ahead of annual reviews. To go further: explore the Frontline Management training in Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Frontline Management in Geneva
- frontline management
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva