Risk Of Offensive/Incorrect Content: Reply to commentaries on “The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective”.

The article below may contain offensive and/or incorrect content.

Replies to comments on the original article by Locke and Latham (see record 2019-00998-001). We appreciate the time and effort that Oettingen (see record 2019-28834-002), Frese (see record 2019-28834-004), Kehr (see record 2019-28834-003), and Aarts (see record 2019-28834-001) spent reading and commenting on our Legacy in Motivation Science article on the goal setting theory (GST; Locke & Latham, 2019). The comments of Oettingen (2019) about us going against the crowd with respect to using induction to develop our theory, identifying moderators, and the two of us working together and individually to add subconscious goals to our theory (e.g., Latham & Locke, 2012) are especially appreciated. Frese (2019) is correct in stressing that GST is an open, dynamic theory because of its development through induction. He is also quite right in his emphasis on the long-overdue need to study goal conflicts and the processes used to resolve them. We agree with Kehr (2019) that GST is not, and was not meant to be, a comprehensive theory of motivation. However, we have made some attempts to broaden it. The first is the high-performance cycle (Borgogni & Russo, 2013; Latham, Locke, & Fassina, 2002), which links goal setting to rewards, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. As we acknowledged with regard to Frese's (2019) commentary, Aarts (2019) is correct that research is still needed to identify the processes that intervene between goals and actions. However, we have philosophical disagreements with several of his statements. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)