“Success is not measured by what you accomplish, but by the opposition you have encountered, and the courage with which you have maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds.”–Orison Swett Marden
When we set goals for ourselves, how big do we go? Do we play it safe? Do we make goals that are “reasonable” and “attainable”, or do we set ourselves up for a reasonable expectation for failure.
You may have learned that goal-setting should follow the “S.M.A.R.T.” principle—i.e., goals should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound. The “A” and the “R” are sometimes referred to as “attainable” and “relevant” or “reasonable”. This approach, however, can be a bit too safe.
I am in a Fundamentals of High Performance cohort with Coyte Cooper and some awesome people. This morning, the topics of fear and setting big goals came up. Coyte teaches an I-SMART approach to goal setting. The “I” personalizes the goal—i.e., stating the goal as “I will…”. He also steps it up by making the “M” what matters—“Make sure it matters so you will fight for it”; the “A” is applicable—“Make it applicable to your highest aspirations”; and he puts a significant twist on the “R”—“Make sure they are not reasonable by normal expectations”. Today, I want to focus on the idea of goals that are “not reasonable by normal expectations”.
When you are kid and just learning a skill practice is always made a little be easier to allow for greater success. Think of hitting a ball off of a tee or with a larger bat. Targets are always a little bit bigger. Now, there are some advantages to this approach—e.g., no child would be able to hit a standard 11-foot basketball hoop or a fastball thrown from nearly 60 feet away. So, we move the target closer, throw the ball softer, etc. Unfortunately, we sometimes take this too far and make failure nearly impossible. The reality is, however, that it is failure that makes us better. We need for the target to be getting progressively more difficult.
When it comes to life, we need to be progressively pushing our comfort zone. From a physiological standpoint, adaptation only occurs when we push the system (e.g., cardiorespiratory system) to a level greater than that to which we are accustomed—the “overload principle”. In all other aspects of our wellbeing, we need to push ourselves to adapt—to grow.
If we are too safe in our goal setting, we risk not achieving anything noteworthy—not being (extra)ordinary. So, when we set goals, our target has to be such that, despite our absolute best effort, we could fail. Now, let’s be clear, I don’t mean goals that are “unreasonable”. I mean, we must set goals that are “not reasonable by normal expectations”. So, what does that mean for those of us who seek to be well-centered?
For one thing, it means that the true center can never to found. Rather, we find ourselves moving ever closer, but never perfect. If the number zero is the true center (which, mathematically, it is), then 0.01 is pretty close—0.001 or 0.0001 are closer still.
For another thing, we have to realize that shooting for goals that are “not reasonable by normal expectations”, we are more likely to exceed normal expectations even if we fall short of our goal. If, on the other hand, we set a “reasonable” target for ourselves and come up short, we are more likely to have made little or no progress.
If our target is too large, we don’t have to put as much effort or focus into hitting it. If, however, we are aiming for a difficult target and put the focus and energy toward hitting the mark, we are going to have some level of success even in missing our goal.
The Olympics are wrapping up. Consider the athletes who competed. I don’t expect that any of the athletes went to Rio without the goal of bringing home a medal. If one did, they surely did not come close. They would not be there had they not dreamed of competing and winning a medal. Somewhere along the path, they would have been content with a lower level of success. For the athlete who made it his or her quest to win the gold, the silver or bronze (or simply participating)—albeit disappointing to have fallen short—are still better to never have competed in such an arena.
I nearly mixed a metaphor, here, and related the topic to “setting the bar high”, but it occurred to me that (besides the fact that a mixed metaphor would dishonor my high school English teacher) such an image fails to convey the right message. When we consider our goal to be a bar we have set, should we miss the height, we have failed. Considering our aspirations that are “not reasonable by normal expectations” as a target requires an appropriate level of focus, concentration, and effort, but also requires that we accept that we can come up a bit short. In archery, success is coming nearest to the bulls-eye with the greatest consistency.
I am reminded of legendary quarterback, Fran Tarkenton, and the Minnesota Vikings of the 1970s. Tarkenton led the Vikings to three Super Bowls in the ‘70s, and lost all three. Some consider it a failure to have lost the Championship. I am sure that the Vikings, or any team, starts the season with the goal of coming in second (indeed, it has been noted that Olympians who bring home a silver medal have less satisfaction than those who bring home a bronze medal), but surely they were more likely to make it to the Super Bowl if they aspired to win the Championship than had they only set the goal of being conference champions.
One can “set the bar too high”, but one cannot set the target too small.
“Be your best today; be better tomorrow” follows this principle. If one is seeking growth, “best” is an every shrinking target. Don’t let fear of “failure” cause you to never refine the bulls-eye.
Carpe momento!