Why Commitments Matter More Than Goals

Over the course of my career in leadership, one question has haunted me:

How do we create conditions that incentivize intrinsic motivation, create a strong sense of humanization, but also elevate performance?

I’ve obsessed over that question for more than two decades.

All of us who have leadership positions understand this is the hardest trifecta to achieve, and when you do, it’s magical.

During the course of trying to establish the rhetoric, systems and norms that would  allow us to most chase those things, I encountered several texts that became foundational works that shaped what I believe to be the most effective form of leadership.

Burn Your Goals by Joshua Medcalf and Jamie Gilbert is an incredible work of literature, focused on an athlete audience, but applicable anywhere. Restorative Education models, now prevalent nation wide, was something  I attended a week long conference to be trained in 2011. Lastly, the works of Michael Gervais, who I find the most resonance with of all the most prominent performance psychologists, has shaped me regularly through his podcast, Finding Mastery. I highly recommend all these learning opportunities for any leader.

What came out of that was a model of commitments and a rejections of goals, tried in multiple settings and refined in different arenas over a decade of work.

Goal setting should be treated as “a prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, consideration of harmful side effects, and close supervision” (Ordóñez et al., 2009, p. 2).

The rationale is simple, rooted in our growing knowledge of human psychology and performance psychology:

The ouctcomes we usually identify as goals are actually not in your control.

In athletics, a variety of factors decide the outcome which no team or individual can control. Officials, conditions, opponents scheme, weather, resources, injuries all play huge roles.

In education, the same is true. Home life, housing insecurity, changing demographics, government funding, curriculum choices, and a million other factors affect goals.

In corporate life, the same is true. Market conditions, economic factors, employee turnover, competition, and supply chains are just a few of these that directly impact goals.

Commitments, on the other hand, especially micro-commitments made over short timeframes, do the opposite. They translate desired outcomes into action items, and with a healthy ecosystem, create participation, ownership, and safe accountability.

The process creates opportunities for reflection, self evaluation, and creative problem solving, and constant realignment. This is the incubation system for improving performance.

The research on outcomes is pretty declarative in this area.

“Forming even strong goal intentions does not guarantee goal attainment” (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006, p. 71).

The second rationale for commitments is more profound and important for my moral compass.

Goals are a mechanization process. They take abstract ideas, and make humans responsible for them.  Our nervous system and subconscious is aware that these are not fully in our control, and it triggers a response.  Psychological safety may not be threatened by goal setting, but can place it on high alert.

Participation in this process in therefore the link to psychological safety. By offering agency, team cultures and intrinsic motivation experience renewal.

Consider the following, from a meta study on goals impact on belonging and performance culture.

“Social environments can facilitate or forestall intrinsic motivation by supporting versus thwarting people’s innate psychological needs”

“People must not only experience competence or efficacy, they must also experience their behavior as self-determined” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70).

At their core, outcome goals are a commodity, can quickly become dehumanizing. Whether stakeholders can verbalize that or not, they are at their root a commodification of human capital.

Specifically, when goals are imposed without agency, reduced to numerical targets, or disconnected from human development, it can often make people like instruments of production than participants in a shared mission. When goals aren’t partnered with a regimented system to help follow through, that in particular can be confidence shattering.

As such, while not a culture killer, it is much harder to achieve belonging and strong culture with a goal-centered process, because it is simply triggers some human biology.

Goals can clarify direction. But in isolation or without participatory agency,  they usually act inversely against performance.

Conversely, commitments are invitational, participatory, and humanizing. Instead of an attack on human psychology, they actually serve as both a development and confidence building tool.

The research strongly supports the impact on process goals vs outcome goals:

“Process goals were significantly more beneficial for enhancing performance . . . compared to performance goals . . . and outcome goals” (Williamson et al., 2024, p. 1050).

Lastly, annual evaluations based on goals offer irregular feedback and evaluation processes. Commitments translate goals into an intrinsically driven process, and as such provide consistent self-improvement opportunities.

Shift your organizations culture from goals to commitments, and watch both belonging AND performance flourish.

Renova can help educate your organization on the framework and science behind commitments, work with your leadership to create an ecosystem that works for your organization, and onboard it.

Create Belonging. Enhance Outcomes. Don’t wait.

Darling-Hammond, S. (2023). Fostering belonging, transforming schools: The impact of restorative practices [Research brief]. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/impact-restorative-practices-brief

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of over-prescribing goal setting (Working Paper No. 09-083). Harvard Business School.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Williamson, O., Swann, C., Bennett, K. J. M., Bird, M. D., Goddard, S. G., Schweickle, M. J., & Jackman, P. C. (2024). The performance and psychological effects of goal setting in sport: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(2), 1050–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2022.2116723