You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis 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
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Goal setting, Side effects, Business ethics, News media, Behavioral sciences, Risk taking, Document titles, Ethical behavior, Media ethics, Scientific ethics
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
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.
Preview not available
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.
Academy of Management Perspectives © 2009 Academy of Management