Has Goal Setting Gone Wild, or Have Its Attackers Abandoned Good Scholarship?
反驳了Ordonez等人对目标设定的批评，指出其违背学术规范，如依赖轶事证据、引用不具代表性、误报结果和使用情绪化语言，并强调这些缺陷早已被原作者自己指出。
Executive Overview We believe that Ordonez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, and Bazerman (2009), in their critique of goal setting, have breached the principles of good scholarship. Rather than conducting or integrating research, they chose to draw their central theme from anecdotal evidence. Further, they employ unrepresentative citations from the literature, the misreporting of results, and the use of emotionally laden metaphors rather than dispassionate language. Moreover, almost all the pitfalls of goal setting they cite, rather than being original, have already been published—by us. In this rejoinder, we highlight these shortcomings