Goal-oriented motivation – deciding on a goal that then becomes the driving force for accomplishing it – is perhaps the world’s most frequently practiced form of motivation. But now, it seems, there’s a new twist on that old practice – plus a new idea of how success is defined. It’s called “mastery,” or so one author would have us believe.

It’s an interesting concept when you think about it, one that some might consider little more than rationalizing failure. To set the scene, the process goes something like this: An individual determines a goal, something he or she desires to do. Whatever the goal, it has the various elements a goal must have:

• A deadline by which the goal is to be achieved.

• The ability to be identified or quantified.

• The potential for the goal to actually be achieved.

• And the extra measure of effort required for that achievement.

However, when the deadline passes, and the extra measure of effort was expended, the goal is not achieved, although it still remains quantifiable.

This scenario, according to a book I was recently asked to preview, was considered “success” by its author because along the way the individual attempting the goal – to lose 40 pounds, for example – had mastered the ability to accomplish that goal – though without actually losing 40 pounds. The accomplishment – actually losing those 40 pounds – then became something the individual was encouraged to do at some later time he or she could determine.

Doesn’t that sounds suspiciously like failure? Yet according to the author, he considers that to be success because the individual is now equipped to accomplish that original goal in the future.

It seems to me that if the original goal had been to learn something rather than to do something, then mastering the learning – acquiring that knowledge – could reasonably be considered success. But “doing” was the goal, not just “learning to do.”

This suggested new definition of success seems a little reminiscent of the old adage that when you’re hungry, “half a loaf is better than none.” For someone who has nothing else to eat, that may well be true. Success, apparently for the author, was not merely where he chose to look for it, but in whatever small measure he was able to find it.

For the more traditional, however, the sense of accomplishment resulting from “mastery” – learning how to do something – when “doing” was the goal would seem to a mere feather’s touch when compared to the impact of actual accomplishment.

Philip A. Grisolia
http://PhilGrisolia.com