to differences in findings between Erez and her colleagues and those of Latham and colleagues. Erez and her colleagues found evidence that under certain circumstances Latham's earlier conclusion that performance was the same regardless of whether or not goals were set by supervisors or participatively, was wrong. This disagreement was resolved through a process beginning with a conversation between Erez and Latham with Locke as the neutral interlocutor which in turn led to both Erez and Latham jointly designing an experiment to explore the reasons for their disagreement. This collaboration of two researchers with differing views is an early example of adversarial collaboration and led to the following published findings that resolved the disagreement: Supervisor set goals are equally as motivating if they are accompanied by a reason for the goal. Participation in goal setting and decision making improves employee performance through increasing self-efficacy and aiding the discovery of suitable task strategies to achieve goals. Goals gone wild A controversy offer the connection between goal setting leading to increased potential for unethical practices at work began after the publication in 2009 of the "Goals Gone Wild" article by Ordonez et al. In this publication the authors explored different situations where goals can be harmful instead of beneficial. One of the reasons for prescribing specific, challenging goals is that they encourage narrow thinking. The article argues that this becomes a problem when the goal focuses such narrow thinking toward the goal that other important factors of the job are ignored. The authors also posit that if there are too many goals set, employees will sacrifice quality in order to meet the quantity of goals. In addition, sometimes time limits are short but rewards to complete the goal are too enticing and they may motivate risky and unethical behaviors. A manager or leader may set goals to increase motivation in the workplace, but the authors also argue that this may harm intrinsic motivation as extrinsic motivation is increased by goal setting. The article triggered a response from Locke and Latham which, among other points, stated that the original article had not stuck to the principles of good scholarship. Locke and Latham reiterated that numerous motivation theories in organizational behavior have goals as key variables. The authors make a point to emphasize that organizations must set goals to meet their objectives and that one wouldn't expect an individual to find purpose without setting