Cited by 341Team Dynamics and PerformanceSocial and Intergroup PsychologyEmployee Performance and Motivation

The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis.

Kleingeld, Ad, van Mierlo, Heleen, Arends, Lidia·2011·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

Updating and extending the work of O'Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, and Frink (1994), with this meta-analysis on goal setting and group performance we show that specific difficult goals yield considerably higher group performance compared with nonspecific goals (d = 0.80 ± 0.35, k = 23 effect sizes). Moderately difficult and easy goals were also associated with performance benefits relative to nonspecific goals, but these effects were smaller. The overall effect size for all group goals was d = 0.56 ± 0.19 (k = 49). Unexpectedly, task interdependence, task complexity, and participation did not moderate the effect of group goals. Our inventory of multilevel goals in interdependent groups indicated that the effect of individual goals in groups on group performance was contingent upon the focus of the goal: "Egocentric" individual goals, aimed at maximizing individual performance, yielded a particularly negative group-performance effect (d = -1.75 ± 0.60, k = 6), whereas "groupcentric" goals, aimed at maximizing the individual contribution to the group's performance, showed a positive effect (d = 1.20 ± 1.03, k = 4). These findings demonstrate that group goals have a robust effect on group performance. Individual goals can also promote group performance but should be used with caution in interdependent groups. Future research might explore the role of multilevel goals for group performance in more detail. The striking lack of recent field studies in organizational settings that emerge…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0024315

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a delegation relationship, task performance strongly depends on the goal specificity communicated by the delegating principal.

    “In a delegation relationship, however, task performance strongly depends on the goal specificity communicated by the delegating principal (Kleingeld et al., 2011;Locke and Latham, 2002).”

    From Shopping by algorithm: How agentic AI deploys human heuristics as a surrogate consumer (2026) · cites this paper as Kleingeld et al., 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kleingeld, A., van Mierlo, H., & Arends, L.
Affiliations
  • Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
96
Issue
6
Pages
1289-1304
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W2105873100
Cited by
341
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 9
FWCI
14.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Motivation
Keywords
goal setting, group performance, personal goals, group goals, task interdependence, task complexity, participation
MeSH terms
Achievement, Goals, Group Processes, Humans, Task Performance and Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review