An employee consistently sets ambitious goals but struggles to translate them into concrete action steps. Which element of goal-setting theory is this individual likely deficient in?

This individual is likely deficient in the element of goal-setting theory known as *specificity* and *action planning*. Goal-setting theory, developed by Edwin Locke and Gary Latham, proposes that specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than vague or easy goals. It's not just about having ambitious goals; it's about *how* those goals are defined and approached.

*Specificity* refers to the degree to which a goal is clear and well-defined. Vague goals like “improve sales” are less effective than specific goals like “increase sales by 15% in the next quarter.” The employee in this scenario sets ambitious goals, suggesting they understand the importance of challenge, but their inability to translate these into action indicates a lack of clarity regarding *how* to achieve them. Ambition alone isn't enough; the goal needs to be broken down into manageable components.

Closely related to specificity is *action planning*. This involves identifying the concrete steps needed to reach the goal. It’s the process of figuring out *what* needs to be done, *when* it needs to be done, and *who* will do it. Without action planning, even a specific goal can remain unrealized. For example, a specific goal might be “complete the project report by Friday.” Action planning would involve breaking that down into steps like “Monday: gather data; Tuesday: write the introduction and methods sections; Wednesday: analyze data; Thursday: write the results and discussion sections; Friday: edit and submit.” The employee’s struggle to translate ambitious goals into action demonstrates a deficiency in this crucial aspect of goal-setting. They may be setting challenging targets but failing to map out the path to reach them, rendering the goals ineffective.