I’ve interviewed plenty of leaders who say “We need more motivation in the team”, on the idea that enough motivation will surely get them to the goal. That’s only partly true. Because more motivation makes no difference if the team is easily distracted and can’t tell the difference between what’s important and what’s urgent. In fact, it can be downright harmful if the team is suddenly hit by a challenge and uses motivation the wrong way. So it’s absolutely crucial for your result, and the team’s, that the goal is framed correctly for your specific challenge, so it holds your focus in the right place.
Your goal shapes your behaviour. Your goal has a big influence on how hard you work for the task, and how long you graft. Your choices, your effort and your persistence are the cornerstones of your motivation (G. Seijts, 2005). Sadly, I often meet teams that forget motivation is only half of what it takes to reach a goal. The other half is ability.
There are two kinds of goal
One is a performance goal, the other is a learning goal. The main difference between the two lies in the way you frame them. A performance goal makes you focus on the end result: “Increase earnings by 20 %.” In this framing, you assume the work just has to be done. That is, it’s assumed you already have the ability you need to reach the goal. A learning goal, by contrast, makes you focus on gaining the knowledge and ability to carry out the task.
A performance goal makes you focus on the end result. A learning goal makes you focus on gaining the knowledge and ability to carry out the task.
Research documents that when you have to solve a task that’s hard, you’ll do far better if you frame the goal as a learning goal rather than a performance goal. If, on the other hand, the task is easy, you’ll do far better if you frame the goal as a performance goal (B. Spinath, 2003). Swap the two around, and it will have big consequences — as the story below illustrates.
A learning goal that should have been a performance goal
Miller and Broussard knew each other from school and shared a passion for computer games. In January 1996 they struck gold when they released the simple but brilliant game Duke Nukem 3D. It outsold every other game in the world and quickly made them multimillionaires. It wasn’t long before their fans began looking forward to a sequel. Miller and Broussard promised their fans they’d work out how to give the world a game it had never seen the like of. Development of Duke Nukem Forever began from a learning goal.
Miller and Broussard didn’t know themselves what the result was supposed to look like, and before long they completely lost the overview. The first version of the game had made them a fortune, so they were in the unique position of being able to finance the project themselves. That also meant they could decide the quality and the pace themselves — and that turned out not to be an advantage. Because an atmosphere of perfectionism quickly spread through the team. Discipline around deadlines slowly slackened, and development moved slowly. That meant the IT platform the game was being developed on became outdated. Instead of lowering their high standards and finishing the job, their focus was constantly distracted by new technology, which meant they chose, again and again, to scrap their work and start over on a newer, more modern IT platform. Because of the pace of technology, it normally takes 2–4 years to develop a game, and 5 years is considered worryingly long. Miller, Broussard and their team developed for 12 years, and after spending 20 million dollars they finally ran out of money. In 2009 they threw in the towel. Nukem Forever never came out (C. Thompson, 2009).
Miller, Broussard and their team developed for 12 years, and after spending 20 million dollars they finally ran out of money.
Miller and Broussard’s wish was to give the world a game it had never seen the like of. They framed it as a vague learning goal, and that meant they got distracted and completely lost the overview. Had they instead framed the project around a performance goal, they would have stayed within their abilities and come out with a game. The goal could have been: ‘Make a game that looks a million dollars, in 24 months.’ It might not have turned out the best ever, but it would have meant their fans got a game that was, after all, better than the first version. Instead, Miller and Broussard ended up as perfectionists in the attempt to create an unattainable ideal.
A performance goal that should have been a learning goal
A learning goal that should have been a performance goal can cost the team dearly, but a performance goal that should have been a learning goal can be just as fatal. It’s like using old horses in modern warfare without understanding why you’re losing the war to an enemy who has tanks and machine guns (G. Seijts, 2005).
When you sense you’re about to lose the battle, it takes nerves of steel to take the time to gather data and knowledge and build skills. The typical reaction is to step up the sales effort when sales dip. That’s the equivalent of giving the team some even more motivated horses. We saw several examples of this during the financial crisis: the teams that tried to handle the crisis purely through performance goals took a very long time to come out of it. The teams that set learning goals followed by performance goals, on the other hand, came out of a crisis much faster. The reason is that they used the change to overhaul the way they worked. For some of them, a crisis is the starting gun for new inventions and innovative business models. Teams with learning goals are far more likely to see others as a resource for solving the task, unlike teams with performance goals. They often see others as their competitors (C. Darnon, 2007).
It’s like using old horses in modern warfare without understanding why you’re losing the war to an enemy who has tanks and machine guns.
If you think learning goals aren’t something you have time for, or need where you are, I suspect that’s covering for a bit of complacency. An unwillingness to test old beliefs is often the first step away from good results. A sharply framed learning goal followed by a performance level, on the other hand, can put the team in a position to take a giant leap up to the next level.
Sources and more inspiration
Learning versus Performance Goals: When Should Each Be Used?
G. Seijts & G. Latham, 2005, Academy of Management
Goal Orientation and Achievement: The Role of Ability Self-Concept and Failure Perception
B. Spinath & J. Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2003, Learning and Instruction
Learn to Let Go: How Success Killed Duke Nukem
C. Thompson, 2009, Wired
Achievement Goals in Social Interactions
C. Darnon, F. Butera & J. Harackiewicz, 2007, Motivation and Emotion
