aHEAD IN THE GAME

Me personally, I love New Years. It’s a time for changes, challenges, and cleaning up bad habits. I, for one, am absolutely amazing at pinpointing of allllll my imperfections and resolving to rectify every single one of my flaws. Not to brag, but you could call me an absolute genius at setting goals. However, the whole following-through on goals thing…that could definitely use some work. I think that’s the case with so many of us through. Sometimes, we set goals for ourselves just because it sounds good. We’ll say something broad like “I want to workout more,” or “I want to get better at blah blah.” We go through the motions without really thinking deeper about our motivations, the way in which we construct our goals, or whether it’s actually feasible. However, this is something I’m looking to change. To do so, I want to delve deeper into what the research says about goal setting, its mechanics, and the factors influence goal attainment. To be clear, this is not just about performance and athletics; it’s a life thing. So, on the eve of our one-year anniversary it’s a good idea to think of goals that are actual able to make it through the year.

My deep dive led me to Goal Setting Theory (GST), which was proposed in 1990 by Locke and Latham. After taking together the findings of many many studies, GST was proposed as a way to explain the relationship between goals and performance. A goal is something an individual consciously tries to accomplish. We choose goals based on our own values and our belief in our ability to accomplish a task, self-efficacy, (my favorite variable). A major finding of GST was that setting challenging, (while still attainable), specific goals will lead to better performance than having lower, vague goals or no goals at all. According to GST, choice, effort, persistence and strategy, mediate the relationship between goals and enhanced performance; that is, these are the variables that explain the relationship between the two. To set a goal is to allocate attention and action. More complex, harder to achieve goals, require more attention and action. Therefore requiring more effort and persistence. This leads to the individual discovering new strategies and ways to achieve more complex goals.

Another finding of GST proposes that there are five characteristics that effect goal setting: goal difficulty, specificity, proximity, source, and goal types. Locke and Latham posed that harder, more difficult tasks lead to better performance, as long as they are still within an individual’s ability. Additionally, the more specific the goal, the better the outcome as compared to no goal or simply, “trying your best.” Goal proximity refers to whether the goal is long or short term. Locke and Latham argued a combination of both, using some short-term goals that progress towards a long-term goal lead to more successful outcomes. Goal source refers to the origin of the goal; whether the goal was created by oneself, in collaboration with some authority/group, or allocated. Concerning goal type, there are two categories: performance and learning. Performance goals are solely concerned with the outcome. Learning goals are concerned with developing mastery of a new skill or strategy. Research has shown that learning goals are particularly successful when a novel or complex task is involved. In this case, The goal itself provides a level of instruction on performing the skill. These five characteristics of goals directly impact the effect of goal setting on performance.

GST also includes variables such as ability, goal commitment, complexity, feedback, and task knowledge as moderators of goal setting and performance; these factors affect the size of the relationship between the two. Ability refers to the individual’s skill level. Goal commitment refers to the degree that individuals accept the goal, and are willing to stick with it. Goal commitment can be bolstered by factoring in goal source. When individuals can contribute to creating their goals, they are more likely to commit to them as they consider their own efficacy and what is important to them. Task complexity was introduced as a variable effecting the relationship between goals and performance because if the demands of the task exceed an individual’s capability they are less likely to achieve it. Feedback is important in goal setting because it allows the individual to evaluate their progress towards goals and helps them determine what, if any, adjustments must be made to their strategies to achieve their goals. Task knowledge refers to the resources that an individual has at their disposal to complete their goals. For example, do they have the ability/access to learn strategies and techniques that may be required of them. GST proposes that goals direct attention, effort, and persistence towards a specific outcome which can lead to learning new knowledge. There are five characteristics of goals that effect performance: goal difficulty, specificity, proximity, source, and type. GST also goes on to name moderators of the relationship between goal setting and performance.

Much of the existing GST research has been centered around workplace tasks; those studies that do involve physical activity, sport, or motor control take place in a laboratory. Comparatively few have assessed athletes in applied settings, in sports environments.  Those that have, have unearthed potential differences the athletic population and the general public concerning goal setting. One systematic review I found attempted to round up the literature in which GST was used as a framework for goal setting interventions. This study consolidated the findings of various research, and compared findings to existing research in more traditional settings. The authors started off by highlighting a difference in terminology. In sport, goals can be sorted into three different types: outcome, process, and performance. Outcome goals are about the actual result of a competition. Process goals concern learning a new skill or strategy; performance goals focus on increasing a certain metric of performance such as a personal best in a race. In non sport domains theres a certain level of assumed controllability an individual has over their ability to achieve their goals; there are less outside variables that effect goal attainment. In this circumstance the two goal types: process and learning are sufficient. However, within sports an individual could be 100% committed to their goals, but there’s more external variables that influence goal execution.

Admittedly, it was difficult to discern the effects of the five characteristics of goal setting in applied settings because authors of the included studies rarely explicitly mentioned how/if each of the five were incorporated. However, it was found that goal difficulty did not have a significant effect. The authors mentioned this could be due to differences in motivation between the athletic population in actual athletic settings and the general public who volunteer in other research studies. There was also limited evidence supporting the importance of specificity. Goals in sport are inherently specific. Even if I just said, “I want to get better at passing the ball.” I’ve already narrowed down the specific task I want to improve. Previous research has also shown that when a task is simple, relative to the individual, specificity is less important. When an individual has the knowledge and strategies necessary to attain their goal, maybe it doesn’t matter how specific you are. The person already has the required strategies and skills needed to complete the task so specific, process goals are kind of useless. In terms of proximity, studies in the analysis found conflicting results. There was some support for the held belief that combining long- and short-term goals is effective. I believe most of the confusion surrounding this technique is because of the lack a consistent definition of long- and short term; each study defined these variables differently. The authors of the review weren’t able to draw any sort of conclusive argument for the effectiveness of goal source or type either. Surprisingly, there was little explicit mention of the moderators of goal setting in any of the included studies.

Despite the lack of conclusivity,  I wouldn’t consider this review a complete waste of time. It did highlight a lot of interesting possibilities for the future of goal setting research. For one, there’s a need for studies with larger sample sizes. Additionally, I would like to see a study comparing athletes of varying ages, ability etc. I think that they would show different results primarily in areas such as the effectiveness of the different types of goal setting. I know that the point of this was to look at the effectiveness of the characteristics of GST; however, I think that there’s other variables that effect goal setting and performance outcomes.  future research should consider individual needs and differences in future interventions. Unique factors like personality effect goal setting. For example, goal orientation is a personality trait and a facet of motivation. It is shaped by our views of ability. Some view ability as fixed, unchanging; others see it as dynamic, able to be improved. Goal orientations effect an individual’s definitions of success and failure. The two types of orientation are outcome and mastery orientation. Those who tend to be outcome oriented might avoid challenges, give up more easily, and they may avoid learning opportunities. Those who are outcome oriented tend to define success based on social comparison or external factors. They tend to avoid situations in which they could fail. Mastery orientation involves basing success on their on self-references. Typically, someone who is mastery orientated tends to embrace challenges, they persist through adversity, and actively seek learning opportunities. Concerning goal setting, those who are outcome oriented may be more likely to set performance or outcome goals. Whereas someone who is mastery oriented may be more likely to set process goals. However, I think that it’s more complicated that that. I think while goal orientation could effect the types of goal selected. I think that orientation would have a greater impact on an individual’s motivations for achieving a goal. So, yeh, those who are outcome oriented could still set process goals and be successful. However, their ability to persist, their choice in goal, and goal complexity might be impacted. Overall, personality, specifically goal orientation, is another factor that hs the ability to impact goal setting.  

So, now we know what goes into setting a good goal, a little bit more about the mechanisms in which goal setting works, and the factors that can improve our odds of achieving our goals. In that spirit it’s time to create specific, challenging, attainable, and measurable long- and short-term goals. My overarching goals for this year are going to be about my blog and about my injury.

I’ve droned on for like 1700 words about goal setting. When in all honestly there’s so many cute little sayings and acronyms that say basically everything I just did in lie five words or less. ( Ie “S.M.A.R.T” (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevance, Time) goals) Goal setting is truly one of the most important tools in the athlete toolbox. Within athletics, there are so many variables that effect performance, so many things to focus on in an attempt to be better. Goal setting provides us with a way of training our effort and attention onto specific tasks. It offers a way for us to improve by controlling the controllables. However, thats usefulness extends beyond the field. There’s a reason so many different environments and types of interventions utilize goal setting within their relevant populations. There’s a reason that I use it off the field as well. When done in accordance with goal setting theory it provides us with a simple, framework to attain success in areas that are important to us. So get your vision boards ready, prepare your resolution lists. This year we are taking using research to back our goal setting. This is the year we put ourselves in the best position possible to achieve our goals.