When it comes to athlete performance, goal setting stands as a cornerstone for success, providing a roadmap and a tangible vision that guides training, competition, and personal development. However, a recent systematic review on goal setting revealed that most intervention studies in sports yield inconsistent results in terms of their efficacy. This inconsistency stems from issues such as small sample sizes, an overwhelming focus on performance outcomes, and challenges associated with single-subject designs. Despite our collective effort to work as evidence-based as possible, the incorporation of goal characteristics and moderators proposed by Locke and Latham’s Goal Setting Theory appears to be limited. Focusing on aspects such as goal difficulty, specificity, proximity, and sources could be beneficial for effectively setting goals. However, it appears that even in peer-reviewed studies, this is not consistently the case.

Now, what does that mean for our work as sport psychology professionals – both with our clients and ourselves? Defining our goals as sport psychology professionals not only enhances our focus but also offers a structured approach to delivering evidence-based interventions. I am convinced that we need to develop personalized goal-setting programs tailored to our (and the individual athletes’) characteristics, needs, and preferences. A one-size-fits-all approach is, like in many other areas, not purposeful.

I am consistently surprised by the experience that only very few athletes – regardless of their level – have ever heard about the SMART rule. Additionally, even most of my university students have never been in contact with SMART. Sometimes, I am hesitant to talk about the SMART rule because I believe that everyone is bored when they hear about setting goals in a SMART way. But this is only my expectation. They don’t know it.

Over the past years, I have worked with different versions of the SMART rule. However, at some point, I tried to further develop it based on how I understand the literature and combined it with my experiences for my own purposes. Today, I rarely use the SMART rule. Today, I am using the SMARTER rule:

S pecific
​M easureable
​A ctionable
​R isky, but realistic
​T ime-keyed
​E xciting
​R elevant

In this version, I have tried to incorporate some aspects from Goal Setting Theory in a different way because I felt that they were missing in the regular SMART rule. For example, when it comes to goal difficulty, “achievable” or “attainable” was always important, but sometimes this turned into too easy goals. Thus, I included “risky” to the rule so that athletes set high enough goals that demand their best efforts. In addition, what was missing to me was the aspect of athletes really knowing what they need to do next, which is why I included the word “actionable” because the goal needs to be process-oriented so a specific performance can be achieved. …and then, I am convinced that goals also need to be exciting, which is why I included that one as well in the formula. If it’s not exciting, we are less engaged and committed, and it feels as if it would be nice to achieve the goal, but we might not really care if we don’t.

So, this is the formula I am using when it comes to working with athletes on their goals – and I am also using this approach for myself. Not only at the beginning of a new year, but also throughout the year when I am reviewing my yearly goals and how I am doing with them. Maybe, this approach also helps you and your clients – or maybe you have another similar or completely different approach to set goals?! I’d be more than curious to learn about it from you!