Good Goals Gone Bad | LSW#40
Why positivist goals miss the point and an equally effective alternative approach
Hey there! It’s Sheril Mathews from Leading Sapiens. Welcome to my newsletter where I share essential frameworks to help you get smarter at the game of work.
In the spirit of New Year’s resolutions, today’s edition looks at a fundamental flaw with traditional goal-setting, especially when it comes to personal arenas — most approaches are positivist (outcome focused). Instead, what we need more of is a constructionist approach (process focused).
At the end, I outline a collection of resources to help you become more effective at goals. And also why this newsletter often ends up monthly instead of weekly 😅.
Science of goals vs art & practice of goal-seeking
Going through my list of “goals” from the past couple of years, I noticed a pattern. I fell short on most targets from a timeframe and accuracy perspective.
Paradoxically, however (and also only in hindsight), I realized I had evolved significantly through my failures in attempting what I outlined, and also stumbled upon new territories rich with opportunity.
When looked at from a purely static goal-setting perspective, it’s a failure. But from an evolving, holistic view, it’s a resounding success. This pattern plays out in my client work as well.
The very construct of traditional goal-setting has many assumptions that prevent us from seeing the evolving whole.
MIT organizational learning pioneer Donald Schon called the traditional approach positivist. His alternative approach of reflection on practice can be called constructionist.
Here’s how he put it in his classic The Reflective Practitioner:
The positivist approach
Given the separation of means from ends, instrumental problem solving can be seen as a technical procedure to be measured by its effectiveness in achieving a pre-established objective.
Given the separation of research from practice, rigorous practice can be seen as an application to instrumental problems of research-based theories and techniques whose objectivity and generality derive from the method of controlled experiment.
Given the separation of knowing from doing, action is only an implementation and a test of technical decision.
The swamp vs the high ground
In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high, hard ground which overlooks a swamp. On the high ground, manageable problems lend themselves to solution through the use of research-based theory and technique. In the swampy lowlands, problems are messy and confusing and incapable of technical solution.
The irony of this situation is that the problems of the high ground tend to be relatively unimportant to individuals or to society at large, however great their technical interest may be, while in the swamp lie the problems of greatest human concern.
The practitioner is confronted with a choice. Shall he remain on the high ground where he can solve relatively unimportant problems according to his standards of rigor, or shall he descend to the swamp of important problems and non-rigorous inquiry?
How is the constructionist approach different, and how does this apply to our goals? What does this mean in daily practice?
Applying the framework to goals
Schon’s articulation is from the perspective of practicing professionals like designers, architects, and engineers. But his framework is equally applicable to how we go about seeking goals. What he calls the “swamp of important problems and non-rigorous inquiry” is where most of our personal goals and growth lie.
1. Doing & getting vs being & becoming
Regardless of whether we achieve the defined ends or not, the process itself is transformative, and one that changes not just the doer but also the definition of the end itself. Who we are being and becoming is equally critical as the achievement of outcomes.
2. Waiting for clarity vs action creating clarity
In the traditional approach, predictability of outcomes is essential. It’s what drives the need for clear objectives before proceeding.
We are taught to wait for or seek clarity before taking action. Often, however, things become clear only in hindsight. Action creates clarity; not the other way around.
Waiting for clarity can be fatal in fast-changing, complex environments with a paucity of conclusive information. What works better is the interdependency of means and ends where one informs the other. Inefficient action then becomes better than perfect thinking.
3. Outcome blindness
From an existential time perspective, the process is as essential as, even more so than, the outcome. It’s because the majority of our time is spent in the process.
Getting chiseled abs might be your desired outcome, but the methods and required tradeoffs might not work for you. The likelihood of success is higher if you pick an inefficient process and even a suboptimal outcome, but one that you enjoy and are likely to stick with.
Quality of engagement and sustainability matter. Our means inform the ends as much as the other way around.
4. Outcomes vs identity
I fundamentally disagree with James Clear’s formulaic approach to habits. However, one idea in the book is worth a closer look — identity driven actions vs outcome based ones. This is essentially the constructionist approach.
Innate desire and identity are much more powerful drivers of actions than are outcomes. The latter is extrinsic and fleeting, while the former are intrinsic and long-lasting.
5. Experts vs us mere mortals
The ethos of positivism is that the “experts” have figured it all out, and all that is left to us is efficient execution of the principles. That to do something I have to know the “how” first.
This means we wait for permission or go looking for gurus who supposedly know how. We end up disengaged from our own intuition and real-time feedback, and instead giving more importance to other people’s opinions and takes.
In the process, we forget the following:
Everyone’s figuring it out, including the gurus. The knowing stems from doing, and reflecting on the doing. Inefficient doing is an underutilized way of knowing.
Practice is how we end up doing research. No one knows the situation and its nuances better than yourself.
We are the best experts on our lives. Paying attention to our own attention and respecting our own takes and opinions is something many of us have to relearn and practice. This is true for six-pack abs as it is for leadership.
6. Best practices vs what’s working
Positivist notions are what drive our need for relying on “best practices” instead of paying attention to what’s already working and building on it. If teams actually did that and trusted their own intuitions, most consultants would be out of business.
We’re so focussed on predictability and execution (science), that we fail to notice emergent patterns from the everyday messiness of engagement (practice).
7. Liabilities vs assets
Uncertainty, uniqueness, and instability, are impediments in a positivist approach. It tries to eliminate them and increase predictability.
For the constructionist, however, uncertainty is part of the game and something that creates opportunity for evolution and adaptive action. Uniqueness is not a problem, but instead the very fabric of our lives.
There’s nothing wrong with the positivist approach. But we tend to over-index on it and fail to use the other equally effective methods of the constructionist.
Reconsider your goals for the year/quarter through these lenses and see what you might be missing. Are you waiting for permission? What are some obvious opportunities you are not seeing because of the myopia of existing goals?
Additional resources on goal setting and goal pursuit
I have lived, researched, coached, and written about goals from a range of perspectives. Here’s a few of them. Clicking the links will take you to the main article/post.
Different types and nuances of goals: Most of us have a basic understanding of goals. Knowing even a few of the nuances can dramatically improve their effectiveness.
In complex environments, SMART goals are in fact stupid.
The biggest psychological challenge of achieving ambitious goals is not the difficulty. Instead it’s the hard reality that excellence is mundane and boring.
Understanding the mechanism of small wins is essential to mastering the constructionist approach. But most treatment of it is superficial, even misleading. This piece is a deep dive into one of Karl Weick’s seminal papers.
Un-guru-ing ourselves: discerning between prescriptions and what works for us.
Deliberate mediocrity: choosing to be average at many in order to become the best at a few.
Don’t wait for more information or the right mindset. Action can create the right mindset, and action also leads to clarity.
To get anything worthwhile done, we have to traverse the journey from superficial simplicity to confused complexity to profound simplicity. Most hucksters promise you to cut short this process.
Bonus: one of my goals & a request
A primary focus area this year for me is to be more consistent with this newsletter. However, it’s often in conflict with another higher order priority: parenting.
My 7-year-old regularly plays editor for my articles with disastrous results on efficiency and output :) Classic unpredictability and instability, but one that’s consistent within a higher set of values.
On that note, I want to highlight that unlike other publications this is a one-person effort. I do not have an editor, or an entire trope of ghost writers helping me out.
If you find value in my articles please share this with your network and help spread the word. Every bit counts. Thank you for reading!