Design process goals that are specific, observable, and within your control

Process goals must be both actionable (you can do them) and observable (you can confirm you did them).

Why it works

A process goal that is vague ("try harder," "be more confident") provides no direction for attention or behavior and cannot be evaluated after performance. Specific, observable process goals activate the same specificity benefits that make implementation intentions effective: a clearly defined behavior creates a recognizable cue and a clear success criterion, enabling the feedback loop that drives improvement.

How to do it

1. State the process goal in behavioral terms: what will you specifically do, rather than how will you feel or how hard will you try?
2. Confirm it is observable: could a skilled observer watching you verify whether you did it?
3. Confirm it is within your control: does its execution depend entirely on your own actions?
4. Test it in practice: does attending to this process goal actually move performance in the right direction?

Evidence

Specificity is the most replicated active ingredient in goal-setting research across both organizational and sport psychology: specific goals reliably outperform "do your best" or vague goals in producing behavior change. (rct)

Specificity effects are large in goal-setting research but are primarily studied on organizational tasks. Application to within-performance process goals in sport is well-reasoned but less directly tested.

Sources

• Locke & Latham (2002), building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation, American Psychologist

Common mistake

Writing process goals in outcome language: "be consistent" and "execute well" are outcome descriptions, not process behaviors. A real process goal names what you will specifically do.