Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

Science and Ethics: What Should Count as Evidence against the Use of Goal Setting?

Gary P. Latham and Edwin A. Locke
Academy of Management Perspectives
Vol. 23, No. 3 (Aug., 2009), pp. 88-91
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27747528
Page Count: 4
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($29.00)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Science and Ethics: What Should Count as Evidence against the Use of Goal Setting?
Preview not available

Abstract

Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, and Bazerman (2009a, 2009b) drew upon three sources of information to buttress their conclusion that goal setting should be used in organizations with extreme caution: laboratory experiments, stories in the news media about prescription drugs that have negative side effects, and organizations that have not performed effectively. In this paper we examine these three sources. We conclude by recognizing that our disagreements with Ordóñez are not small and list several reasons why we are not sanguine about the possibility of reconciliation.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
88
    88
  • Thumbnail: Page 
89
    89
  • Thumbnail: Page 
90
    90
  • Thumbnail: Page 
91
    91