Goals vs Continuous improvement on a spectrum?

[Keith]

An idea I had recently. I haven't fully fleshed it out, so I wanted to post it here and see if anyone had any insights.

Say you have a weight loss goal. You want to get to X lbs which requires you to lose 100 lbs. You fix this goal in your mind and you go great guns. You drop 5lbs. 10lbs. 15lbs. Then you realise you've 85% of the way to go and it'll take you over a year to get there. Your enthusiasm deflates, you think "sod this!" and stop trying. (Speaking from experience? Who me?)

The goal is binary. For as long as I've not reached weight X I'm a failure. But in reality, every pound lost is a success! A 259lb person is at least a little bit healthier than a 260lb one (assuming all other things are equal).

So rather than binary goals, is it better to try and wrap your head around a holistic view where you're a point on a line and the goal is to move 'up' the line, not to reach a certain point on it?

Also, if you're moving towards a particular point and you backslide, then you're your goal is suddenly even further away, and that can be demoralising. But if the goal is to move forward on the line, then it remains the same goal if you backslide. Moving forward is moving forward, whether you're doing it from 10 yards in or 100.

Like I said, I haven't fully fleshed it out, and my brain can't quite get a lock on it, so I wondered if anyone else has had similar thoughts, and maybe even tried them out.

Thanks.

[GoalSettingCollege]

Personally, I would say it's a hybrid of both.

Keeping your eyes set on a particular spot on the line, but celebrating every small movement forward the line. And if you move backwards, instead of bashing yourself up, take a look at what's the underlying reasons and improve on it to get yourself back on track.

Quoting a reference from Benjamin Mays : "The tragedy of life doesn’t lie in not reaching your goal. The tragedy lies in having no goals to reach."

The fact you're working on a goal means you should be happy in your own little way. So, don't be too hard on yourself and enjoy the goal process.

All the best

Cheers,
Ellesse

[Keith]

I was unclear (partly 'cos I haven't worked it out myself yet).

I meant to expand your focus from the target point to encompass the entirety of the line (including your position on it) not just break up the goal into smaller steps.

It's a perceptual shift, not a technique one.

[1000feet]

If you want to accomplish something there's no substitute for setting hard goals that you either achieve or don't. There's two important things about goals: they focus your thoughts and efforts on what matters to you, and working towards them is more important than whether you succeed or fail. You also have to realize that it's not just about setting one goal and then instantly getting it; there's never a complete failure as long as you're going through the process of revising your goals after you decide if they worked or not.

I have some pretty high goals, but I know which direction to go to have a good chance of success. If I don't get there I'm a lot better off for having done everything I can to make it work. Only getting half-way there shouldn't be considered a complete success but I wouldn't even make it that far if I wan't trying to reach a specific point that I set in advance. And if I don't get anywhere near at least I know one more thing to avoid doing. I might even change my goals completely in the future but having focused my efforts now in one coherent direction will continue to benefit me.

For all this to really be effective you need to think about the goal before you set it. Losing weight isn't my problem, but you could say that I'd like to be able to lift 4 times my weight. The only problem is that doing so in a short time would require comitting a lot more effort than it's worth and giving up many things that are more important to me to make time for it. So setting that as a goal doesn't really get me anywhere. You need to first look at what's most important to you and then consider how much you can commit to it. When you apply this test to a goal you'll be more motivated to work on it because you know it's something that's worth the effort to you and you're better off for having tried.

If your only goal is continuous improvement on a spectrum it doesn't require you to do anything; you can just thinkn about what you want all day and if you happen to move a little closer purely because of luck you can call that success. That's ok for things that aren't important to you, but if there's any area of your life you want to improve it's too important to let yourself off that easily.

Set a weight you want to be at, a date you want it by, and a plan for what you'll change immediately to get there. Once you get to that date think about what you did, what the effects were, and how it felt. This is the part where you learn from what you did - good or bad. After you've learned from your first goal set another one with a date. The second one is likely to be easier because your experience from working towards the first goal will have taught you about what you can do and what you want. Learn from the second goal as well and the third one will become even better. It's a compounding effect, so getting on the path of setting goals and learning from your efforts is a lot more important than not getting the last 5% of the way to your first goal.

And that's why goals aren't bad.

[Adrian]

You're not alone in thinking that way! There have been some interesting psychology studies where the researchers offer people either $20 RIGHT NOW, or $50 a year from now. The majority of the time, people choose the $20 right now - a bird in the hand is apparently worth two in the bush.

People have a hard time with large goals because they are so large. How can you possibly stay motivated when you look at something that's so far in the future? That's why breaking any goal down into doable "chunks" (say, losing 12 pounds per month instead of 96 pounds in 32 weeks) is a lot more motivating for people. Every time the month flips, they can see that prize at the end of the month - 12 more pounds down, X amount to go.

That's why I see goals are mostly binary and not a continuous streak. You can't stay motivated at something you just keep glazing towards, but you *can* stay motivated with specific benchmarks and real rewards.

[Swede]

Very interesting post, indeed. I think everyone of you has a point.

I would just like to add my view: I have a Rennaisance ideal. I try to cultivate myself in every possible way. That implies both setting goals and having a holistic view of who I want to become.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by 1000feet

If your only goal is continuous improvement on a spectrum it doesn't require you to do anything; you can just think about what you want all day and if you happen to move a little closer purely because of luck you can call that success. That's ok for things that aren't important to you, but if there's any area of your life you want to improve it's too important to let yourself off that easily.

I don't really understand that comment. Why would having a continuous goal rather than a distant one mean lack of action?

If your goal is continuous improvement then you would work on it, just like any other goal. If anything, I find short term action more encouraging - distant goals are so far away as to be demotivating. And while you certainly have short term goals as well you know they're just one piece down, a zillion to go.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I don't know about you, but I'd find that journey a lot more achievable if I was thinking about the day, or the hour's travel rather than the 999 miles lying ahead of me.

[1000feet]

I mean that unless you're being forced to set goals, they should be a reflection of what you want. If you want to have a million dollars some day (like everyone here) it's easy to say that saving 20 cents is good progress because you still have lots of time - after all, you aren't giving up on the continuous improvement. Say that you want it within 5 years (if that's actually important to you) and you have to increase your income fast or accept that you won't get what you want.

To make a goal effective you have to plan for it. You can do things backwards by saying what you're changing, what the effect will be, and where you expect it to take you in 3 months. Then you just have to keep doing the same thing - but it's still a goal so after that time you can look back and see if you've gone as far as you hoped. If it's a big goal make each step along the way its own goal. By making a plan and writing it down if necessary you can remind yourself how each step contributes to what you want. If it starts to feel like you're going in the wrong direction you can stop and change the goal - but if something takes a long time to achieve then actually planning for it is better than continuously improving only to find that you spent 5 years doing small things that add up to nothing.

In addition to helping you remember what to do next to get what you want, the real value of stating what you want, when, and how you'll get it is that afterwards you can measure your progress. Any action that's not guided by feedback about what effect it has will result in confusion and hitting many obstacles. Measuring what you're doing, and deciding what number you want to end up with, is your feedback for improvement.

I do see goals as a continuous process, because you don't just set a goal for 5 years in the future and hope it happens. You'll only get there by knowing what you should be doing each month along the way and working towards it every day. I just know that the process is more powerful if you spend some time thinking about what you have done and what you want to do, and give yourself ways to measure progress. You can accomplish things by making it up as you go along but that reduces your capacity to handle complexity. Writing down your plans lets you pull together a lot more details.

If this seems like it will make you do things you don't want to do, then you really should re-examine the motivations behind your goals.

[Keith]

I was thinking about this some more. I suspect it depends what sort of level you're at, personal development-wise. If you're at a stage where you find large projects overwhelmingly scary, mentally reframing them would be a way to get some achievements under your belt. ie. Prove to yourself that you're capable of doing the steps required for a large project.

I think that we (yep, including me) often make the stake of framing an approach as if it's the best way, period, when in truth it's often the best way for a particular person with a particular set of strengths and weaknesses.

[The Cloud]

That seems rather similar to my view of goals. I believe that setting a result as a goal is a bad idea, because you have no direct control over a result. If you set the goal of losing 20 pounds, it doesn't matter how much will power you have, it will forever remain impossible for you to simply will that 20 pounds away. Plus, there are many ways to lose 20 pounds, and until you lose those pounds you have no idea if you're doing it the right way. If exercise doesn't work, what about Atkins? Or diet pills? Or cutting off 20 pounds of leg? There is no way of knowing that you are going to reach or not reach your goal until you get there. And then, once you're there, it goes away, and you end up 20 pounds heavier and have to do it again.

However, if you set the goal of eating a balanced diet or exercising regularly, you have direct control over those goals. If you aren't achieving them, you know it's because you aren't eating a balanced diet or exercising. You know exactly what to do to fix the problem. You are empowered. And it's ongoing, because you've never finished eating right or exercising regularly. So making it a goal to do something you know is good for you is ongoing, and will prevent the yo-yo effect caused by result-based goals.