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.