�ԹϺ���

Article��at a glance��

• Setting concrete goals can backfire by locking people into sub-optimal��ways of working, according to research by Assistant Professor of Marketing Guy��Voichek��

• Making progress towards a goal increases perceived effectiveness of��established��approaches, reducing openness to better alternatives��

• Leaders can counter this bias by building in structured reflection����

��

Targets matter, but so does the means of pursuit��

Every year we make resolutions. Every quarter we set targets. Everywhere we measure progress. Setting concrete goals can motivate people to stay on track towards��becoming healthier,��wealthier��and happier.��But sometimes the��track��we choose��is not the best way to get there and our focus on achievement��can backfire because we undervalue alternative routes.����

Dr��Voichek’s��paper reveals a surprising way in which��setting��goals can��go wrong. When people��aim for a specific��goal and begin pursuing it via a particular path, early progress inflates the perceived effectiveness of that path, making people less likely to adopt a superior, alternative��route.����

Progress creates a bias in effectiveness��

Through a series of studies spanning��diverse��areas such��as��health, finance and work, the authors saw a consistent pattern of behaviour. In one study, participants committed to earning a specific amount of money before beginning a task. After making initial progress using one type of task and earning some money, they became less likely to switch to an easier, higher-paying task, compared to participants who did not set a goal before beginning work. Making progress towards a concrete goal led participants to view the��initial��approach��as a more effective way to earn money, and alternative tasks as less effective. As a result, participants with a concrete earning goal��ultimately earned��less than those without a specific goal in mind.����

Thankfully, there is��a simple way��to overcome this: rather than focusing only on whether your current actions advance your goal, also consider how��different paths��might advance it.��A reminder to consider the advantages of both current and��alternative ways of working mitigated��the��entrenchment��caused��by concrete��goals, one study revealed.����

Once people made progress, they judged their chosen approach as more effective.

The risk of overly specific targets��

Once progress metrics are embedded into dashboards, performance reviews and incentives, flexibility becomes even harder. Teams that are��“on target”��are rarely encouraged to question how they got there.��Yet markets, technologies and competitive conditions change constantly. The danger is not only��poor goal setting but rigidly sticking to the old methods that have worked in the past for��acquiring��those targets.��

What can business leaders take from this?��

Organisations often become more rigid than the people that create them.��It's��a powerful tendency: when we are satisfied with how things are going, we��don’t��question our methods.����

This research adds an important dimension to our understanding of how concrete goals can produce entrenchment. ����

How��organisations can��counteract this:��

• Institutionalise reflection:��Build in regular checkpoints that require teams to explicitly evaluate alternative ways of achieving their goals. Instruct employees to ask not only��whether they are on track, but whether they are on��the��best��track.��

• Reward course correction:��Incentivise employees to change direction when doing so makes sense, rather than implicitly reward��persistence for its own sake. Consistency should not be confused with efficiency.��

• Maintain high-level goals:��remind people that most goals can be pursued in multiple ways, and that any given method is a means��–��not an��end.��