Most people set one type of goal — the outcome. Win the match. Hit the sales target. Land the promotion. Outcome goals are easy to define because they describe the end result you want.
The problem with relying on outcome goals alone is that they tie your confidence and motivation to results you cannot fully control. They also leave you uncertain about what level of performance the future will actually demand, and they teach you very little about which of your behaviours produced the result when it does land. Understanding how to use all three levels of goal together — outcome, performance, and process — is one of the most practically useful things any performer can learn.
The Three Levels Explained
This goal framework was developed and refined through sport psychology but applies equally to any performance domain. The three levels work together as a hierarchy — each one supporting and informing the others.
Why Outcome Goals Alone Are Not Enough
Three problems sit underneath an outcome-only frame.
First, outcome goals are partly outside your control. An opponent’s performance, market conditions, a panel’s judgement — these are variables you can influence at the edges but rarely determine. When the outcome is the only frame, your psychological state becomes hostage to factors you do not fully command.
Second, outcome goals are uncertain in what they will ask of you. Setting one well is itself partly guesswork — you are predicting what level of performance the future will demand against an opposition, market, or audience you do not yet know. You can prepare for what you expect; what you actually meet may require more.
Third, outcome goals teach you very little. When the result lands the way you wanted, you cannot easily isolate which behaviour produced it. When it does not, you cannot tell what to change. The outcome is a verdict — it is not an explanation.
Burton (1989) demonstrated this in a study of competitive swimmers: those who used primarily outcome goals showed significantly higher anxiety, lower confidence, and more inconsistent performance than those who combined all three goal types.
“You cannot control the outcome. You can control what you do. The goal framework that focuses on what you can control is the one that holds up under pressure.”
Performance Thoughts
The Role of Performance Goals
A performance goal is the standard of what you produce in the moment, independent of what anyone else does. Not the result — the level. Measurable, largely within your control, and visible on a recording of the work afterwards.
Examples across domains. In sport: land the ball in the back third before stepping forward. In sales: qualify the prospect’s buying authority before the conversation turns to price. In a difficult conversation: ask one more question before stating your position. In writing: outline the argument before drafting, and revise only after a twenty-four hour gap. In each case the goal names an action and the standard for it — not the outcome it produces.
Filby and colleagues (1999) found that combinations of performance and process goals produced superior outcomes compared to outcome goals alone — not because outcome goals are harmful, but because they need performance and process goals beneath them to become actionable. The hierarchy is, in effect, a critical path inside the goal system itself: outcome as destination, performance as the standard required to reach it, process as the behaviour that produces the standard. The same logic that connects values to goals in the wider methodology operates inside the goal architecture too.
Why Process Goals Are the Most Skipped Over
Process goals describe what you do during performance itself — the specific actions, behaviours, and techniques that constitute high-quality execution. They are the most within your control of any goal type. They are also the most often skipped over.
It is not that performers undervalue them. It is that process goals are the least glamorous level — the unphotogenic, second-by-second work of execution — and the hardest to evaluate honestly. The outcome is obvious; the performance is visible after the fact; the process is the part nobody sees but the performer themselves.
Kingston and Hardy (1997) showed that process goals were the most effective goal type for reducing cognitive anxiety and maintaining focus under pressure. The reason is psychological: when attention is directed toward a specific process cue, less mental space is left for evaluative thoughts about the outcome. Process goals are an attention-management tool as much as a performance tool.
The Distinction — Performance vs Process
The two terms are often used interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Performance is the standard of what you produce. Process is the specific behaviour you do, moment to moment, to produce it. Performance is what someone watching a recording would see and evaluate. Process is what you are doing in the second-by-second present.
Worked Example — Delivering a Proposal
Outcome
Deliver the proposal successfully and close the deal
Performance
Measured pace, no filler words, three deliberate pauses, eye contact held across the room
Process
Three slow breaths before standing. Look at one person per sentence. Pause after each key point.
Goal Types Compared
| Goal type | Control level | Best used for | Limitation alone |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Partial | Direction-setting, long-term vision | Raises anxiety, not actionable during performance |
| Performance | Largely yes | Standards, measurable benchmarks, review | Still evaluative — can shift focus away from execution |
| Process | Fully | In-performance focus, managing pressure | No direction without outcome goal above it |
How to Use All Three Together
The framework works as a system, not as three isolated targets. The outcome sets the direction. The performance goal defines the standard of execution required to reach it. The process goal specifies what you actually do — the behaviour, the technique, the focus point — during performance itself. Each level makes the level above it more achievable and more psychologically manageable.
In practice, this means building the goals backwards. Start with a clear outcome. Identify what standard of performance would give you a genuine chance of achieving it. Then identify the specific process behaviours that would sustain that standard under pressure. The pattern holds across domains. A sales team. A surgeon. A founder pitching for the round. The work changes; the structure does not.
Put It Into Practice
Write one outcome goal — the result you want. Two performance goals — the standards you need to hit to give yourself a genuine chance of reaching it. Three process goals — specific behaviours for this week that produce those standards. Set the outcome aside and measure your week on the process goals only. If you executed them, you performed well — the result will follow from consistent process. This removes the anxiety that comes from daily focus on things outside your control.
The High Performance Blueprint uses this exact three-level architecture — the goal-setting section structures long-, medium-, and short-term goals across all three types, with a behaviour audit built in. The Performance Goal Setting Planner is the right starting point if you want to build the framework specifically around your goals.
Tim Gallwey’s The Inner Game of Tennis is the original articulation of why process focus produces better outcomes than outcome focus. It is on the Performance Thoughts reading list.
Where SMART fits inside this kind of goal architecture is covered in SMART Goals Inside a Performance System. How the same logic applies to the wider methodology is covered in The Critical Path.
Free download · Monthly newsletter
The 7-Action PDF. Free.
Seven actions you can apply this week. Each one explained, each one with a concrete step to apply. No motivation — just method. Drawn from performance psychology research.
Plus a monthly research-backed idea — first Monday of every month.
References
Burton, D. (1989). Winning isn’t everything: Examining the impact of performance goals on collegiate swimmers’ cognitions and performance. The Sport Psychologist, 3(2), 105–132.
Filby, W. C. D., Maynard, I. W., & Graydon, J. K. (1999). The effect of multiple-goal strategies on performance outcomes in training and competition. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11(2), 230–246.
Kingston, K. M., & Hardy, L. (1997). Effects of different types of goals on processes that support performance. The Sport Psychologist, 11(3), 277–293.