2012年6月cet6阅读 全文翻译 ( 目标设定的负面效应)

2012年6月cet6 目标设定的负面效应

正如每一个试图减肥的人一样，通常情况下，现实的目标设定能产生很好的效果；这样的结果部分归因于设定目标的人——目标设定对目标的达成产生的巨大影响，从而在实施过程中更有效地努力。

然而，科学家们发现，这种理解太肤浅了。目标设定真正的影响是潜在的和有害的。

报纸依靠解释包括在金融中心和其余地区的工业和商业中广为流行的目标设定、以及目标设定引起经营的起伏来获得发行，然而奇怪的是，极少的研究关注如下事实：恰恰是目标设定的长期鼓吹，可能就是引起当前经济危机、以及普遍认可的不道德行为的源泉。

“当由真正的利益结果驱动时，目标常常得以广泛提倡和应用。然而同样的动机，可能在推动人们在行为方式上施加影响的同时，刺激人们产生不道德的行为”，沃顿商学院助教茅瑞斯·斯凯维特泽如是说。

“事实证明，如果在没有经济利益的前提下设定目标，往往会获得心理上的收益”，斯凯维特泽说：“但有很多案例表明，具有经济奖金的目标使它们变得更加有推动力”。

在2004年，斯凯维特泽和他的同事关注于一个重要的案例——能源贸易巨人安然公司的轰然奔溃，该公司的经理们运用财政激励手段，促使销售员达成突出的收益目标。斯凯

维特泽表示：问题的核心在于，仅促成物质上的交易往往不是最合算的。

其他的研究也同样表明，让员工承担不切实际的目标，可能迫使他们撒谎、欺骗或者剽窃。上世纪90年代早期，有这样的一个案例：当西尔斯公司强加给其汽车维修员工一定的销售指标，该指标促使员工漫天要价以及在公司业务范围内开展不必要的维修业务。

斯凯维特泽承认，他的研究结果与大量文献的观点是背道而驰的，因为大量文献认为目标设定有诸多益处。实践中的拥护者们已对斯凯维特泽团队采用的证据提出了异议，那些支持他结论——认为目标设定被过分夸大——的证据，只不过被那些实践中的拥护者们当做新闻报道而已。

在一篇驳斥斯凯维特泽观点的论文中，埃德温·洛克写到：“目标设定并没有消失。如果没有使命感的目标支撑，个人不可能茁壮成长；相对于个人而言，组织则更需要聚焦于他们追求的最终结果，否则不可能兴旺发达。”

斯凯维特泽辩称，发现越来越多有因果关系的证据将目标设定和损害行为关联起来。这些证据应该加以研究，以便帮助公众解决那些应予警告和长期调查的问题。他说道，“即使是一些较少的负面影响，他们的影响是如此之大以至远超过许多正面影响的总和。”

他说道，“目标设定的确能够有助于互相协调和激励。我的想法是一个强有力的组织文化，还要兼有谨慎的监督，对组织具有建设性意义且没有明显损害，这才能确保在目标运用的效果。”

原文：The dark side of setting goals

By Brian M. Schleter

As anyone who has tried to lose weight knows, realistic goal-setting generally produces the best results. That’s partially because it appears people who set realistic goals actually work more efficiently, and exert more effort, to achieve those goals.

What’s far less understood by scien tists, however, are the potentially harmful effects of goal-setting.

Newspapers relay daily accounts of goal-setting run amok in industries and businesses up and down both Wall Street and Main Street, yet there has been surprisingly little research on how the long-trumpeted practice of setting goals may have contributed to the current economic crisis, and unethical behavior in general.

“Goals are widely used and promoted as having really beneficial effects. And yet, the same motivation that can push people to exert more effort in a constructive way could also motivate people to be more likely to engage in unethical behaviors,” says Maurice Schweitzer, an associate professor of operations and information management at Penn’s Wharton School. His paper, titled “Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goal Setting,” appears in the February issue of the Academy of Management Perspectives.

“It turns out there’s no economic benefit to just having a goal—you just get a psychic benefit and tha t’s quite motivating in itself,” Schweitzer says. “But in many cases, goals have economic rewards that make them more salient or powerful.”

A prime example Schweitzer and his colleagues cite is the 2004 collapse of energy-trading titan Enron, where managers used financial incentives to motivate salesmen to meet specific revenue goals. The problem, Schweitzer says, is the actual trades were not profitable. Other studies have shown that saddling employees with unrealistic goals can compel them to lie, cheat or steal. Such was the case, Schweitzer says, in the early 1990s when Sears imposed a sales quota on its auto repair staff. It prompted employees to overcharge for work and to complete unnecessary repairs on a companywide basis.

“People become significantly more likely to cheat with goals than without them,” he says.

Goal-setting is at the heart of the debate over the effectiveness of the controversial No Child Left Behind Act. Because underperforming schools receive less federal money than those with high math and reading test results, “predictably,” Schweitzer says, there have been examples of teachers and administrators manipulating scores. Schweitzer concedes his research runs counter to a very large body of literature that extols the many benefits of goal-setting. Proponents of the practice have taken issue with his team’s use of anecdotal evidence like news accounts to support his conclusion that goal setting is widely over-prescribed.

In a rebuttal paper, Edwin A. Locke, from the University of Maryland, College Park, and Gary P. Latham, from the University of Toronto, write: “Goal setting is not going away. Organizations cannot thrive without being focused on their desired end results any more than an individual can thrive without goals to provide a sens e of purpose.”

But Schweitzer contends the “mounting causal evidence” linking

goal-setting and harmful behavior should be studied to help spotlight issues that merit caution and further investigation. “Even a few negative effects could be so large that they outweigh many positive effects,” he says.

The debate is likely to rage on in future papers, and the practice of setting goals no doubt will continue. For now, though, the lesson seems to be to put more thought into setting goals.

“They really do help to coordinate and motivate people. My idea would be to combine that with careful oversight, a strong organizational culture, and make sure the goals that you use are going to be constructive and not significantly harm the organization,” Schweitzer says.