The effect of goal setting on group performance: A meta-analysis.
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977 · see citing works
Task complexity: Definition of the construct
Wood, R. E. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0 · Cited by 1,393 · see citing works
Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: a meta-analysis
Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A. (1987) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.416 · Cited by 598 · see citing works
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., & Stark, E. M. (2000) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(99)00045-8 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0034531 · Cited by 731 · see citing works
Schleicher, D. J., Baumann, H. M., Sullivan, D. W., Levy, P. E., Hargrove, D. C., & Barros-Rivera, B. A. (2018) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206318755303 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Shopping by algorithm: How agentic AI deploys human heuristics as a surrogate consumer
Wadi, D., & Ma, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.28372
- 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