Unrealistic goals

Introduction

Goal setting is a basic tool in organizational management. Goals generally do define, give direction and prevent chaos to an organization (Locke, 1996). Beyond this, organization goals can be used in motivating the employees or members as they communicate to them what is expected of everyone in the attempt to achieve company targets. In addition, they provide the organization’s goals provide a basis for recognizing and awarding of accomplishments or success.

Setting goals for an organization determines the direction, which it will follow. Participation by a group following a common set of goals ensures that a smooth transitional process in an organization is almost certainly guaranteed (Mager, 1997). The goals do vary from one organization to another. Each organizational goal may as well vary in the cost of implementation and time. Whether the goals are short term or long term, they should match the organization’s vision.

There are two forms of goals that one can set in an organization; realistic and unrealistic goals. Coming up with unrealistic goals is as easy as coming up with realistic goals. For each of these forms of goals, there are effects that come along in a functional organizational setting. In this paper, we will concentrate on the unrealistic goals and how they affect the activities in an organization.

The common assumption is that unrealistic goals are bad for an organization. However, in this paper we will argue from both sides of the coin to determine if this ideology holds any water. For that, it is worth; unrealistic goals do have some advantages attached to them despite what majority may think. This argument depends on the personality of an individual as well as their motivational habits. What may be unrealistic to one may be very realistic to another (Locke, 2001). The limitations of an individual are what determines what is possible and what is not.

Setting unrealistic goals

The task of setting goals is not as straight forward as many of us may assume it to be. It takes time to actually determine what we can achieve as individuals or as an organization (Marge, 1997). The strengths and weaknesses should provide a proper guideline as to what we can achieve and what we cannot.     

In addition, having the discipline to follow through in the goals and targets set proves to be quite a challenge. Statistics show that not less than 25% of organizational goals ever last more than two weeks (Locke, 1996). They are usually discarded after it becomes apparent that they are a tough act to follow or just pure lack of interest for those involved. It is for this reason that most professionals advocate for setting of relatively low targets that can be achieved easily.

However, in a functional organizational set up, the goals set do not necessarily have to be those that can be achieved. An organization should always look at the bigger picture and assume that all the individual goals of the members are also set quite high. It is for this reason that you often find organizing setting relatively high individual and group goals of its members. Higher targets have the effect of increasing the performance of the individual members as well.

Setting unrealistic goals is a common trait of perfectionists who always strive to achieve these substantially high targets. Have a perfectionist ideology entails setting unrealistic goals for yourself and for those around you, which in this case are the members of the organization.

Perfectionism in goal setting

It is to human nature to set goals and then try to achieve them. there is no better feeling than when you know that you have set yourselves and you have managed to achieve them(Locke, 1996). The difference in perfectionism is that someone sets unrealistic goals that are pretty much impossible to achieve. For these individuals, they feel that everything should be perfect and by setting unrealistic goals then they are achieving perfection. Rigidity in line of thought is a common aspect in setting up of unrealistic goals in order to achieve perfection.

A common fault for perfectionist goal setting is that the targets set are usually too high for anyone to achieve. When such goals are not achieved, then depression for the involved parties may set in. In an organizational setting, extreme measures such as firing of employees and even low self-esteem amongst the staff may be very common.

However, the upside to setting perfectionist unrealistic goals is that the involved  may always feel challenged and always up for the task despite the fact that it may be impossible. In order to achieve this perfection status, then everyone one will be on their toes trying to achieve such goals. Ultimately, even if the organization does fail to achieve the goals, it may come close to doing so this in itself is a motivating factor. Coming close to or near the unrealistic goals is better than achieving lowly set realistic goals (Marge, 1997).

Are unrealistic goals easier to achieve?

Common belief is that unrealistic goals are next to or completely impossible to achieve. However, there is a new school of thought that purports that unrealistic goals are relatively easy to achieve in comparison to realistic goals. According to common studies held by elementary school teachers by testing their students and other laboratory experiments can reveal this fact.

According to Locke (1981), unrealistic goals in an organizational setting have the effect of eliminating the competition. If for example if placed in an experimental environment and quite unrealistic goals set, most workers will not even start the task at hand. Majority of people find it hard to get motivated to perform on tasks that they feel to be impossible. In such a situation, only a handful will be left coveting for the ultimate prize. For an organization in a competitive environment, setting unrealistic goals for itself will only drive it to perform better because there is less competition in such high levels of operations.

Second, with more than 99% of the world population likely to shun the unrealistic goals in favor of the realistic ones, it only means that the competition for the realistic goals will be quite fierce. The battle for the realistic goals will be time and energy consuming. What this means is that it is relatively easier to raise $ 100,000 than $ 10,000 or even picking the best student in a class than the best 10. What majority of the people fail to understand that if you are insecure, so is the rest of the world (Locke, 1968).

Setting unrealistic goals also has the effect of motivating individuals to perform at their highest level. According to Locke et. al (1981), specific and challenging goals have the effect of improving the performance of individuals than non-specific and easy goals. In an organizational setting, setting high goal targets for the employees will generally make them work harder to attain or even come close to attaining them. the tactic of telling the workers to try their best does not always yield the best results. These workers do not always do their best thus bringing down the performance of the whole organization down.

Individuals require a kind of a target if they are to perform at their peak. They should have a clear view of their targets that should be impersonal as possible. Individuals should be able to match their personal and organization goals if they are to be at their best. Letting individuals in an organization to set their own goals can be quite detrimental if these individuals have quite low personal goals. It is for this reason that the manager in the organization takes the responsibility of setting individual employee goals so that they can be in line with the organization’s (Cherrington, 1994).

Activity (Testing effects of unrealistic goals in an organization)

In this test, the students are asked to complete a next impossible task such as contacting three nearly impossible people to contact and having an interview with them. the students are sub divided into groups of around five students with the common expectation that each one of them will play an equal role in these next to impossible individuals may include politicians, the president and local celebrities. Proof of recordings of all three interviews should be provided.

The limit should be three individuals and each group should determine its own strategy in carrying out the task. However, each group should have a group leader who oversees the group activities. A time period of not more than two weeks should be set aside for the task. The catch to this test is that any group that feels like can withdraw as long as there is general consensus from all the group members.  If even one member does not want to drop out, then the whole group should be considered to be in the running for the prize.

Going in line with common believes that with greater risks come, great returns or difficult tasks come great rewards, and the group that accomplishes the task should be awarded in equal measure. If an incentive of let us say an around the country trip for the group that accomplishes the task, then the students should be more willing to carry out the task.

Expectations from the test

From previous tests carried out by Locke et al (1981) it revealed that, almost 90% of people would not even get started with task they believe has unrealistic goals. The students will find it hard to get motivated to carry out the task. Only about, a handful (5%) will contemplate carrying out the task. A common complaint among the students will be that the task is impossible to complete.

As a consequence, only a few groups will be left to compete for the prize. Majority of the groups will have as few as one person trying to complete the task. As would be the case, taking the complexity out of the task of the equation, only groups with all five members carrying out the task will be able to come close to completing the task. This is because, with large numbers, the task of establishing contacts and interviewing the three individuals will be done simultaneously ensuring efficiency. As the number of members in each group reduces, then the efficiency reduces and less individuals will be interviewed (Cherrington, 1994).

From the test, it can be revealed that unrealistic goals in a functional group organization have a disruptive tendency. People within a group setting need to have common realistic goals in which they can strive together to achieve. Most of the involved individuals will find it hard to getting motivated to carry out their tasks well when the goals are unrealistic (Locke, 2001). Incentives may at times work, but not always. Many will not be bothered into starting to work towards the group goals.

In addition, unrealistic or complex goals require higher level organization to be achieved (Mager, 1997). In essence, more work force and skill set should be employed to achieve them on top of the fact it requires exceptional managerial and supervision skills. The groups with less than five individuals are less likely to complete the task in time and accurately. However, it is no guarantee that the groups with five individuals will complete the task as well. They will have to be organized with the group leader playing a central role in the running of the operation. If the group leader does not coordinate the group activities then, the group will not attain its goals.

On the other hand, having the unrealistic goals in place can act to encourage the students to have the internal drive in order to attain the goals. Having higher than normal goals has the effect of acting as a catalyst to individuals in a group (Latham, 2004). Challenges usually make individual have an adrenaline rush that can only aid then in attaining what was inconceivable before.

Finally, struggling as group to attain the unrealistic goals may the effect of bringing together or pushing away the students. In a functional group, differences may arise on how to attain challenges of high magnitude, which may not be good for the task at hand. However, if the group is capable of overcoming the challenge together, then they will be brought together. This will only act to build the bond between the members. Overcoming quite substantial challenges as a group plays a major role in relationship building within an organization (Latham, 2004).  

Conclusion

            From the paper study, it is quite evident that setting unrealistic goals has its advantages and disadvantages. How the organization copes with the goals it has set for itself will actually determine if the goals were in or out of reach. Limiting the organization to specific targets can do no good to it if the intention is to achieve success in the long run. It is best to try and fail than to completely give up on trying what they consider impossible. Falling short is not the same as failing.

References

Locke, Edwin (2001). “Motivation by Goal Setting.” Handbook of Organizational Behavior, 2:    43-54.

Locke, Edwin (1968). “Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.”           Organizational behavior and human performance. 3(2): 157-189.

Locke, Edwin (1996). “Motivation through conscious goal setting.” Applied and Preventive          Psychology, 5:117-124.

Robert, Mager (1997). Goal analysis (3rd. ed.).

Cherrington, J. (1994). Organizational Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Latham, P. (2004). "The Motivational Benefits of Goal-Setting." Academy of Management            Executives, 18(4): 126–129.