by Scott Crawford
Want to try something new? CHECK OUT THE PODCAST VERSION OF THIS BLOG (19mins)
Most people have set a goal at some point and failed to follow through.
The plan was clear. The intention was genuine. For a few days, maybe even a few weeks, it worked. Then something happened. A late night. A busy week. A shift in energy or motivation that nobody saw coming. The habit that felt so doable on Sunday evening felt impossible by Wednesday afternoon.
What follows is almost always the same. A flicker of guilt. A quiet decision to start again on Monday. And, eventually, a slow retreat from the goal altogether, usually accompanied by a familiar internal monologue: “I knew I wouldn’t stick with it.”
This is the point where most people assume the problem is them. Their discipline. Their willpower. Their character.
It rarely is.
More often, the problem is a confusion between two very different things: the strategy and the tactic.
Two Kinds of Goals
Not all goals are the same, yet we tend to treat them as though they are.
There is a useful distinction, drawn from Simon Sinek’s work in The Infinite Game, between what I call infinite goals and finite goals.
A finite goal has a clear endpoint. Run 5K in under 30 minutes by June. Lose ten pounds. Complete a programme. It is measurable, bounded, and sustained by motivation and accountability. These are the goals that fit neatly into frameworks. They look good on paper. They are also fragile, because a missed target can feel like the whole thing has collapsed.
An infinite goal has no finish line. Become someone who moves consistently. Build a life that feels strong. Nourish myself well. It is expressed through rituals and rhythms rather than targets and deadlines, and it is sustained by values and identity rather than motivation alone.
Most people carry both kinds simultaneously, even if they have never named them.
The infinite goal is the compass. The finite goal is the next few steps. The compass stays steady. The steps adapt.
In wellness discussions, sometimes I define these as Performance or Health goals, with Performance clearly being the Finite option. This distinction matters because the calculus of what we’re prepared to give up in service of an outcome is very different depending on whether we’re trying to hit a performance target, versus improving our wellbeing in a holistic sense. Talk to Lindsay Vonn.
When we confuse the two, when we mistake a finite tactic for the whole strategy, failure hits harder than it should. Missing a target feels like losing direction entirely. Three skipped walks becomes “I’m not someone who exercises.” One difficult week with food becomes “I can’t do this.”
The tactic failed. The strategy did not.
Why SMART Is Not Enough
SMART goals are everywhere. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic (or Relevant), Time-bound. It is probably the most widely taught goal-setting framework in the world, and for good reason. It works as a shaping tool.
The problem is how it is typically used.
SMART assumes you already know what you want. It has no mechanism for discovering whether the goal is genuinely yours or borrowed from somewhere else. It asks whether a goal is achievable, but it doesn’t really ask what you are prepared to give up to achieve it. It favours finite goals by design, and it is pretty silent on whether the goal actually matters to you in any deep or lasting way. It is very useful for obligatory processes where something simply has to be done, but I don’t consider it to be the starting point for long-term or personal decisions.
If you use SMART before you have done the thinking, you end up with a very well-formatted goal that might not be yours at all.
This does not make SMART useless. It makes it step three, not step one.
Before shaping a goal, it has to be understood. The thinking comes before the planning.
Three Questions Worth Asking First
There is a simpler place to start. Three questions that do the work most frameworks skip.
What do I want? This is the presenting desire. The thing on the surface. Run more. Eat better. Sleep earlier. Feel different.
What do I really want? This is the question underneath the question. Often what we think we want is a proxy for something deeper. The desire to lose weight might really be a desire to feel at home in one’s own body. The urge to exercise more might be about reclaiming agency after a period of feeling out of control. Self-Determination Theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, suggests that what most people are really seeking is some combination of autonomy, competence, and connection. When those needs are unmet, motivation feels forced. When they are met, effort feels different.
What am I prepared to give up? This is the question nobody wants to answer. Every change has a cost. Time. Comfort. The identity of someone who does not exercise. The convenience of habitual eating. The fantasy of a quick fix. If the outcome is not worth more than the comfort of staying put, the goal will not survive its first difficult week. That is not a moral failure. It is a cost-benefit reality check.
These questions do not replace SMART. They prepare the ground for it. Once you know what you are actually after, shaping becomes straightforward.
Even a well-understood goal can fail if it does not match where a person actually is.
The Transtheoretical Model, developed by James Prochaska and Carlo DiClemente, maps the stages people move through when changing behaviour: from pre-contemplation through to maintenance. One of its most practical insights is that different stages require different kinds of support.
Someone who is still weighing up whether to change does not need a SMART goal. They need a clearer vision or a stronger sense of willingness. Someone who is ready to act needs a plan that is right-sized to this week, not to their best week ever.
This is where most goals quietly die. Not because the person lacked commitment, but because the goal was sized for an ideal version of their life rather than the actual one.
A useful question to return to, regularly, is: Is this the version of this goal I can actually do this week? Not my aspirational version. Not someone else’s version. This week’s version.
If the answer is no, the goal is not wrong. It just needs adjusting. Adjusting a goal means you are paying attention, not that you are giving up.
The Reframe That Changes Everything
Here is the shift that matters most.
When a finite goal fails, when the three walks do not happen, when the sleep commitment slips, when the nutrition plan survives about four days, the instinct is to treat it as evidence of a larger failure. The internal story writes itself quickly: “I always do this. I start things and I do not finish them.”
What has actually happened is that a particular plan did not survive contact with a particular set of circumstances. The tactic broke. That is all.
The compass has not moved.
“Become someone who moves consistently” is still true. “Build a life that feels strong” is still the direction. The three walks were one way of getting there. They were not the only way. When a tactic fails, the best response is not self-criticism. The better response is to pick a new tactic. Maybe this week it is two walks instead of three. Maybe it is ten minutes of movement at home. Maybe it is something entirely different. The strategy holds.
In Self-Compassion, Kristin Neff distinguishes between beating yourself up and simply noticing what happened with honesty and kindness. Self-compassion is not about lowering the bar. It is about seeing clearly without the distortion of self-attack. From that clarity, the next step becomes visible.
Ryan Holiday, drawing on Stoic philosophy in The Obstacle Is the Way, makes a similar point from a different angle. The obstacle is not a verdict. It is information. Difficulty tells you where the work is.
Compassion first, though. Then the lesson. Reversing that order tends to feel dismissive.
An Operating System, Not an Event
The mistake most people make with goal-setting is treating it as something you do once.
Set a goal in January. Evaluate in December. Succeed or fail. This framing almost guarantees failure, because it offers no mechanism for learning, adjusting, or evolving along the way.
A healthier model treats goal-setting as a continuous loop: observe what is happening, reflect on what it means, adjust the plan, and recommit. This loop runs every week, not every year.
New information changes things. A week of poor sleep might mean the exercise target needs scaling down temporarily. A new understanding of nutrition might mean the food goal shifts from restriction to nourishment. A change in circumstances might mean a goal that mattered six months ago no longer fits.
None of this is failure. It is responsiveness. The compass stays steady. The steps adapt.
Every new lesson is an invitation, not a command. Add gently, not greedily.
A Gentler Way Forward
The goal-setting industry has conditioned people to believe that the problem is always insufficient commitment. Push harder. Want it more. Be more disciplined.
That framing helps almost no one.
What helps is understanding the difference between where you are headed and how you plan to get there. What helps is doing the thinking before the planning. What helps is building goals that are small enough to succeed at, honest enough to mean something, and flexible enough to survive real life.
A failed tactic is not a failed strategy. It never was.
The compass does not care about one difficult week. It only asks whether you are still willing to face the direction you chose.
Most people are. They just need permission to adjust the steps.
Enjoy this content? Sign up for my mailing list