The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
GOAL SETTING AS A MOTIVATOR OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.
Abstract
We explored the role of goal setting in motivating unethical behavior in a laboratory experiment. We found that people with unmet goals were more likely to engage in unethical behavior than people attempting to do their best. This relationship held for goals both with and without economic incentives. We also found that the relationship between goal setting and unethical behavior was particularly strong when people fell just short of reaching their goals. A substantial literature has documented the benefits of setting goals. In general, people exert more effort and work more persistently to attain difficult goals than they do when they attempt to attain less difficult goals or to “do their best” (Locke & Latham, 1990). This relationship is so strong that goal setting has become an important part of motivation theory and management education (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). In fact, Locke and Latham (1990) contended that goal setting might be the most effective managerial tool available. In several organizational settings, however, the use of goal setting has been associated with “cooked books” and false sales reports (e.g., Degeorge, Patel, & Zeckhauser, 1999; Jensen, 2001). In this work, we identify an important, unintended consequence of setting goals. Our results demonstrate that, in addition to motivating constructive effort, goal setting motivates unethical behavior when people fall short of their goals. We argue that while goal setting can be used constructively, it must also be used cautiously.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social cognitive theory of self-regulation
Bandura, A. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-l · Cited by 6,875
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
An Empirical Examination of the Antecedents of Commitment to Difficult Goals
Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.18 · Cited by 563
Cited by
Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206306294258 · Cited by 1,837
Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2009.0223 · Cited by 1,631
LIES IN DISGUISE-AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON CHEATING
Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1111/jeea.12014 · Cited by 1,243
13 Ethical Decision Making: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith‐Crowe, K. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.1080/19416520802211677 · Cited by 687
Moore, D. A., Tetlock, P. E., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2006.19379621 · Cited by 631
Metadata
- Authors
- Schweitzer, M. E., Ordonez, L., & Douma, B.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2004-06-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 422-432
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2169732069
- Cited by
- 681
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 29.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GOAL SETTING AS A MOTIVATOR OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/20159591
- The paper
- Schweitzer, M. E., Ordonez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). GOAL SETTING AS A MOTIVATOR OF UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR. Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159591
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.