3. Performance Management

Goal setting and its shadow

When hard goals help and when they hurt

Use when

Cascading targets, or when someone proposes a moonshot

Goal setting and its shadow, shown as a grid of 3 parts: What the evidence supports, Where it breaks, The applied case.

What the evidence supports

Specific, hard goals beat vague ones, reliably, when four conditions hold: commitment, feedback, ability, and task fit. One of the most replicated findings in OB.

Where it breaks

Stretch goals narrow attention, raise risk-taking, and suppress learning. They pay off only with recent success plus slack, and are most seductive to organizations with neither.

The applied case

Wells Fargo: eight products per household, tied to individual pay and job security, no integrity counterweight. ~5,300 staff fired for meeting the number fraudulently; over $3bn in penalties.

A hard goal tied to individual consequence in a low-trust system will be met, one way or another.

How to use it

Use the four conditions as a pre-check before cascading anything. If commitment, feedback, ability, or task fit is missing, the goal will produce distortion rather than performance. Pair with the Audacity Licence when a stretch target is on the table.

Card details

Model type
Grid
Origin status
Established
Content last reviewed
28 July 2026

Origin

Established

Locke and Latham, 2002; Sitkin, See, Miller, Lawless and Carton, Academy of Management Review, 2011; Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky and Bazerman, 2009.

Used in these workflows

Neighbouring models

NextThe Audacity Licence

Was this useful?