Some leaders like to set goals at a low to moderate level, based on the concept that they want everyone to be successful. They believe that success increases employee motivation and satisfaction. A second approach is to set the goals fairly high, expecting that a good portion of the employees will achieve them, but every one has to work pretty hard to be successful. The third approach is to make the goals so high that only the very best performers might attain them.but not too often. This is based on the premise that if you set the bar really high then everyone will work their hardest to go as far as they can.
Which approach is right? The first approach - set the bar low enough for just about everyone to be successful - creates an organization that delivers consistently mediocre performance. If the expectations are low, everyone will lower their performance to the match it. People are not motivated if there is no challenge in their achievement.
The third approach - make the goals just about impossible - also has a negative effect, but for a different reason. If people are given goals that they don't believe are achievable, they won't bother to try at all. So the result is the same - under performance for both the individual and the organization.
The hallmark for successful goal is setting is captured by the "challenging yet achievable" phrase. Goals should be challenging and require a stretch - but employees should be able to see the possibility of achieving them based on their efforts and