Psychology Research, June 2022, Vol. 12, No.

6, 329-333
doi:10.17265/2159-5542/2022.06.003
D DAVID PUBLISHING

Organizational Psychology Revisited: Recent Applications of

Goal-Setting Theory

Andriana Brown, Michael Galanakis

Deree—The American College of Greece, Athens, Greece

Purpose: Goal Setting Theory (GST) created by Edwin Locke and Gary Latham has proven to be an incredibly
versatile theory. Its widespread utilization has proven it to be a valuable theory to further explore and understand.
The purpose of this paper is to examine current approaches to and practices of GST. Methodology: This systematic
literature review is based on 12 recent articles using GST and examining their collective findings. The articles were
a mix of theory description, quantitative experiments, empirical experiments, and literature review. Findings: Most
of the reviewed literature agreed that further and more defined research would be greatly beneficial for future
applications of this theory. Given the broad nature of this theory, a more defined approach would likely prove
useful for future utilization. Value: Exploring the multitude of ways this theory has already been applied gives an
understanding of shortcomings as well as successes. Reviewing the current available literature allows GST to be
utilized in a more precise way in the future.

Keywords: career behaviors, goals, employee engagement, empirical study, experiment, game based learning,
gamification, goal setting, goal-setting theory, job satisfaction, leaderboard, management, motivation

Introduction
Upon exploring 12 recent articles regarding the use of Goal Setting Theory (GST), it is quickly evident
that this theory has very practical and sustainable use throughout many arenas. From its typical use in physical
activity motivation (Swann et al., 2019) to its use in understanding career behaviors of soon-to-be graduates
(Clements & Kamau, 2018), GST has proven to be effective and beneficial in professional and personal success.
In conjunction with other tools of professional motivation such as competitive task models (Landers, Bauer, &
Callan, 2017), GST shows great promise for improved employee job satisfaction and performance.
Through this systematic literature review, the notable potential of GST is very apparent. With further
research and refinement, this theory can be successfully implemented in many facets of the modern workplace
to the benefit of both the employee and the employer. This paper will summarize the reviewed literature, give a
critical review of shortcomings of current research, and provide suggestions for future research.

Basic Concepts
The overwhelming majority of the reviewed literature suggested that (1) GST is undoubtedly beneficial in

Andriana Brown, M.Sc., Organizational Psychologist, Master’s Program in Organizational Psychology, Deree—The American
College of Greece, Athens, Greece.
Michael Galanakis, Ph.D., Professor of Organizational Psychology, Master’s Program in Organizational Psychology,
Deree—The American College of Greece, Athens, Greece.
330 ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVISITED

most circumstances and that (2) GST is currently a broad-spectrum theory and should be refined into more
detailed approaches for more effective use. These research articles and studies had very different approaches
toward the implementation of GST; yet they all had very successful outcomes supporting the use of GST. Due
to this generalized success of GST, more specific research could be beneficial to understanding the nuances of
this theory in order to achieve better implementation in the future.

Methodology
After gaining a thorough understanding of the theory’s development and history (Locke & Latham, 2019),
the other articles and studies could be much better understood and analyzed. The other articles were a mix of
survey-based data review, experiments, and literature review. Some studies utilized MANCOVA and
ANCOVA analysis techniques (Nebel, Schnieider, Schledjewski, & Rey, 2017). Most study data were collected
using surveys; however some studies were done under direct supervision such as Landers, Bauer, and Callan
(2017).

Sample
In this section, a few notable article samples of interest will be presented. The first article of interest is that
of Latham, Brcic, and Steinhauer (2016) titled “Toward in Integration of Goal Setting Theory and the
Automaticity Model”. They conducted two experiments to understand the effects of subconscious priming on
goal setting and task performance. Latham et al.’s (2016) study found the following:
Consistent with goal setting theory, when primed with a difficult goal, participants chose higher goals and performed
better on a follow-up task than those who were primed with an easy goal… The subconscious goal-performance
relationship was partially mediated by the choice of the conscious goals that were self-set. This supports the notion that
subconscious goals and consciously set goals work together to influence task performance. (pp. 41-42)

Although the actual implementation of subconscious persuasion in the workplace is a bit controversial, it is
interesting to see the connection provided by this study. Further research on this subject matter could be very
useful for future goal setting in professional contexts, but also for personal goal setting such as for major health
goals.
A secondary article of interest is that of Landers, Bauer, and Callan (2017) titled “Gamification of Task
Performance With Leaderboards: A Goal Setting Experiment”. This article was especially interesting as it
looked at the application of goal setting in a professionally competitive environment. They found that
competitive interactive leaderboards in conjunction with goal setting were quite effective in improving
employee performance and satisfaction. They were able to “conclude that goal-setting theory is valuable to
understand the success of leaderboards” (Landers et al., 2017, p. 33) and their successful implementation in the
workplace. They suggested further research for not only the effectiveness of GST and leaderboards on
employee performance quality, not just in performance quantity.
A separate article studied other types of gamification applications in the workplace. The paper
“Goal-Setting in Educational Video Games: Comparing Goal-Setting Theory and the Goal-Free Effect” by
Nebel, Schnieider, Schledjewski, and Rey (2017) also found that goal setting combined with task gamification
was especially helpful. They found that “fun might foster intrinsic motivation, help to suspend difficult social
realities and reduce stress” (p. 114) thereby improving user experience and improving overall task performance.
The recent shift to digitalized workspaces suggests there is value in studying the use alternative group activities
 ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVISITED 331

and game centered GST implementation. Gamification in the form of leaderboards and educational video
games in the workplace could be a new frontier in organizational psychology and GST utilization.

Major Findings
All of these articles found positive outcomes to GST; however they also suggested further research to
understand the nuances of the theory. A common theme throughout these articles was a need for researching the
different types of goal setting. As Nebel et al. (2017) mentioned, “specific learning goals should be used more
frequently than performance goals and goal-free scenarios, as they reduce cognitive load” (p. 121). In this study,
participants that were given goal-free gameplay “seemed to be confused and those players merely walked
around. When they discovered a task, they stated that they did not know what to do” (p. 118). It’s evident that
setting goals is much more helpful in providing goal-free environments, but they also found that the types of
goals set also matter in terms of expected outcomes. Similarly, Swann et al. (2019) looked at the differences
between learning goals and performance goals and the application of each to different situations. They found
that each type of goal is useful, and sometimes they are best used in tandem. However further research could
help understand when and how to best use these types of goals in the application of GST.
Although there are many ways to implement goal setting, these articles made it very apparent that GST is
crucial for the success of individuals and corporations. Liu et al. (2020) looked at the role goal setting has in
project management practices and in achieving infrastructure sustainable success. This article showed that even
at higher management levels, goal setting can improve overall company success, productivity, and profits.
Neubert and Dyck (2016) also explored GST in upper management utilization stating, “aspects of sustainable
goal setting and management practices are evident” (p. 315) through reviewed studies. With further exploration,
GST could be better utilized in every level of employee management.

Critical Review
One criticism of many of these studies is the small experimental sample size. There was also an issue in
the experiments of Latham, Brcic, and Steinhauer (2016) that some of their participants became aware of the
purpose of the experiment. This leads to some question in the validity of their entire experiment, including the
results. Many of the data groups in these experiments also lacked diversity in their participant pool. As Landers,
Bauer, and Callan (2017) mentioned, “Demographic information of this group was very similar” (p. 511) which
could hinder the overall future application of this study’s finding to other scenarios.
Secondly, as mentioned by Miles and Clenney (2012), an issue with studying GST is the subjective nature
of goal setting. They studied the effect of goal difficulty on goal attainability. They found the following:
Additionally, our classification of the four levels of goal attainability (easy, challenging yet attainable, difficult, and
extremely difficult) has an element of subjectivity. Although we did use the benchmarks set by previous studies, it was
necessary to delineate between difficult and extremely difficult. We did attempt to be conservative in our classifications,
yet we understand that some could argue that our ranges were either too conservative or too liberal. (p. 114)

Importance
As all of these articles have found effective uses for GST, it is important to continue reviewing current
data and collecting new data on the theory to better implement it in the future. As these articles also pointed out,
it’s also important to continue research into more specific aspects of this theory. As Hayden and Deng (2012)
332 ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVISITED

said, “In order to set specific goals, it is important to understand the key issues that affect [the goal setter’s]
ability to change their behavior” (p. 21). It is important to take the time to understand not only the task to
accomplish, but the best type of goal to set as it pertains to the unique characteristics of those needing to
accomplish the goal. As we continue to have a better understanding of the nuances of GST, we can better apply
it to specific situations and scenarios on a case-by-case basis.
There is no question that this theory can play a critical role in sustaining a positive work environment with
increased employee performance as well as job satisfaction. As mentioned by Shoaib and Kohli (2017), “Goal
setting theory as well as employee engagement has a remarkable effect on the performance of employees” (p. 879).

Discussion
Overall, GST is a very interesting theory that is highly pertinent to modern organizational solutions.
Although it is arguably quite broad, the fundamentals of the theory hold true in many aspects of personal and
professional life. As an organizational psychologist, it is necessary to understand this theory and different ways
it can be applied. This knowledge will be very helpful in creating a healthy workplace that is efficient, effective,
and provides a sense of satisfaction to employees.

Suggestions
In regard for future research, it would be beneficial to study how GST works with different personality
types. As hinted at by Liu et al. (2020), goal setting is very individualized in its application as different
personality traits value certain motivations and internal drives very differently. Landers et al. (2017) also
discussed the need for individualized goal setting needs as opposed to a generalized approach when conducting
their study of leaderboards in task performance. It would be helpful if the different types of goal setting were
better defined. This would make this theory more well-rounded and easier to apply to specific scenarios in the
future.

References
Clements, A. J., & Kamau, C. (2018). Understanding students’ motivation towards proactive career behaviours through
goal-setting theory and the job demands-resources model. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2279-2293. Retrieved from
htpps://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1326022
Hayden, D., & Deng, F. (2012). The science of goal setting: A practitioner’s guide to goal setting in the social marketing of
conservation. Social Marketing Quarterly, 19(1), 13-25. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500512472496
Hsiaw, A. (2013). Goal-setting and self-control. Journal of Economic Theory, 148(2), 601-626. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jet.2012.08.001
Landers, R. N., Bauer, K. N., & Callan, R. C. (2017). Gamification of task performance with leaderboards: A goal setting
experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 508-515. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.008
Latham, G. P., Brcic, J., & Steinhauer, A. (2016). Toward an integration of goal setting theory and the automaticity model.
Applied Psychology, 66(1), 25-48. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12087
Liu, B. S., Xue, B., Meng, J. N., Chen, X. B., & Sun, T. (2020). How project management practices lead to infrastructure
sustainable success: An empirical study based on goal-setting theory. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural
Management, 27(10), 2797-2833. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2019-0463
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2019). The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective. American
Psychological Association, 5(2), 93-105. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000127
Miles, E. W., & Clenney, E. F. (2012). Extremely difficult negotiator goals: Do they follow the predictions of goal-setting theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 118(2), 108-115. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.02.001
 ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVISITED 333

Nebel, S., Schneider, S., Schledjewski, J., & Rey, G. D. (2017). Goal-setting in educational video games: Comparing goal-setting
theory and the goal-free effect. Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 98-130. Retrieved from htpps://doi.org/10.1177/1046878
Neubert, M. J., & Dyck, B. (2016). Developing sustainable management theory: Goal-setting theory based in virtue. Management
Decision, 54(2), 304-320. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2014-0312
Shoaib, F., & Kohli, N. (2017). Employee engagement and goal setting theory. Indian Journal of Health and Well-being, 8(8),
877-880. Retrieved from http://www.iahrw.com/index.php/home/journal_detail/19#list
Swann, C., Rosenbaum, S., Lawrence, A., Vella, S., McEwan, D., & Ekkekakis, P. (2019). Updating goal-setting theory in
physical activity promotion: A critical concept review. Health Psychology Review, 15(1), 34-50. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2019.1706616