Similarities and differences between goal-setting theory and expectancy theory

By: Leontes Dorzilme, Doctoral student

Connections: Locke and Latham (2002) sustain that goal-setting theory has been found fully consistent with social-cognitive and expectancy theory because they both underline the importance of consciously set goals and self-efficacy. From the implication of conscious mind individual decision making, Locke and Latham (2006) suggested that goal setting implies a conscious process of defining and establishing the degree of performance to be deployed in order to reach the desirable results or outcomes. Same as Ryan (1970), Locke and Latham acknowledge the role of conscious affecting human behaviors on the level of plans, intentions, and tasks. When it comes to performance, the expectancy theory is linearly related to performance same as direct linear relationship between goal difficulty, level of performance, and effort involved found by Locke and Latham (2002). According to Radosevich, D. J, et al. (2009) expectancy theory has been found useful in evaluating goal revision processes when discrepancies in results are observed. 

Differences: From the goal-setting theory approach, the higher and difficult the goal, the proportional effort is deployed in order to increase performance toward the goal completion while any distracting factors that could divert attention are avoided. But, from expectancy approach, because difficult goals may require higher performance, performance expectancy may be negatively related to goal success, noted Locke and Latham (2002).  Making the difference between expectancy within versus expectancy between goal conditions, Locke, Motowidlo, and Bobko (1986), stated that higher expectancy may lead to higher performance when the goal level is only constant (valence=instrumentality). Otherwise, the individual motivational factor may decrease in the goal is difficult in the case of expectancy theory. 

In addition, the two theories differ in emphasis and scoop, noted Locked and Latham (2002). While in goal-setting, self-efficacy is directed toward goal accomplishment in expectancy theory self-efficacy is directed toward rewards. In sum, the main difference is that goal setting theory is focused on core properties of an effective goal, through the mechanism described by Locke and Latham (2002) while the expectancy theory is more concerned with the self regulatory processes when individual is pursuing goals and subgoals over an extended period of time, concluded Radosevich, D. J, et al. (2009). 

References

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. Retrieved from https://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2002-15790-003&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Locke, E. A., Motowidlo, S., & Bobko, P. (1986). Using self-efficacy theory to resolve the conflict between goal-setting theory and expectancy theory in organizational behavior and industrial/organizational psychology. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 328–338. 

Radosevich, D. J, et al. (2009). The role of expectancy theory in goal striving processes. Journal of the Academy of Business & Economics, vol. 9(4), 186-192. Retrieved from https://ehis.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=8&sid=a7b61e8c-6448-4020-a027-c7c0a31ffa01%40sessionmgr110&hid=107

Ryan, T. A. (1970). Intentional behavior. New York: Ronald Press.