Process Goals for Athletes: The Goal Type With the Biggest Performance Payoff

Two athletes line up for the same competition. One has their mind fixed on the result, on winning, on the placement, on what everyone will think if it goes badly. The other is running a short list in their head of the things they can actually do: their footwork, their breathing, the first move off the line. As the pressure grows bigger, the first athlete tightens, because the thing they care about most is almost entirely outside their control. The second one stays loose and focused, because every item on their list is something they can execute right now. That difference is at the heart of why process goals for athletes have become one of the most useful tools in sport psychology, and why the research backing them is stronger than many coaches realize.

I want to walk you through what process goals actually are, what a recent meta-analysis found about how well they work, why they hold up so well under pressure, and exactly how to set them with your athletes. I’ll keep the science accurate, including the parts that deserve a more careful look, because the goal here is to give you something you can trust and use, not a set of empty promises and big words.

Key Takeaways

• Process goals lead the field for performance. In a 2024 meta-analysis, process goals showed a far bigger effect on performance (d = 1.36) than performance goals (d = 0.44) or outcome goals (d = 0.09), making them the most direct lever a coach can have during competition.
• Controllability is the engine. Process goals work because they point athletes at actions they can execute and repeat, which builds self-efficacy and gives them somewhere solid to stand when results wobble.
• The psychological benefits are promising but less certain. The performance numbers are solid, while the calming effect on anxiety comes from a smaller pool of studies, so I want to present it as encouraging rather than settled.
• Feedback and self-regulation multiply the effect. Goals produced real gains mainly when paired with feedback, and the “set-it, track-it, adjust-it” approach grounded in self-regulation theory produced the strongest results of all.
• Use all three goal types in the right roles. Outcome goals set direction, performance goals mark milestones, and process goals carry the athlete’s attention during competition, which is the moment control matters most.

The Three Types of Goals, and Why the Difference Matters

Before I get into the research, it helps to be clear about the three goal types sport psychologists talk about, since the whole conversation resides on telling them apart.

Outcome goals focus on results, usually measured against other people. “Win the championship”, “finish on the podium”, “beat our rivals”. These goals can light a fire, and they give a season its direction. The point is that they sit largely outside an athlete’s control. You can play the best match of your life and still lose to a better opponent, or to a referee’s call, or to a single lucky bounce.

Performance goals focus on personal standards, measured against yourself rather than others. “Save 40 percent of shots”, “run a personal best”, “win 60 percent of my duels”. These are more controllable than outcome goals, since they’re about your own numbers, though they still depend partly on the day, the conditions, and the opposition.

Process goals focus on the specific actions, techniques, and behaviors that an athlete can execute in the moment. “Set my feet in proper position before the shot”, “track the ball all the way to my hands”, “reset with one breath after every mistake”. These are the things fully within an athlete’s control, the building blocks that performance is actually made of. Process goals for athletes turn a small hope into a concrete set of actions you can repeat on demand.

The three types work together across a season, and I’ll come back to how they fit together. The research, though, has something specific to say about which one drives performance most directly.

What the Research Actually Found

A systematic review and meta-analysis “The performance and psychological effects of goal setting in sport” by Williamson and colleagues (2024), published in the International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, gives us the clearest picture to date. The team screened nearly 18,000 articles and included 27 that met their criteria, then ran a meta-analysis on the performance effects and a narrative synthesis of the psychological effects.

The performance findings were striking. Process goals had by far the largest effect on performance, with an effect size of d = 1.36, compared to d = 0.44 for performance goals and just d = 0.09 for outcome goals. In plain terms, the studies that had athletes concentrate on controllable execution produced much bigger performance gains than the studies built around results. Process goals also showed a large effect on self-efficacy (d = 1.11), which is the task-specific confidence an athlete has in their ability to do what’s being asked of them. The strongest results of all came from studies grounded in self-regulation theory, the “set-it, track-it, adjust-it” approach, which reached d = 1.53.

Here is where I need to be careful with the evidence, because process goals for athletes get so easily oversold online, and you deserve the accurate version. The performance numbers came from the meta-analysis and are the solid part. The psychological effects, including anxiety, came from a narrative synthesis of a smaller pool of studies, and the authors were upfront that it was rarely possible to draw firm conclusions about those psychological outcomes because the cross-study evidence was very thin. The anxiety finding specifically suggested that self-referenced goals (both process and performance goals, since both measure you against your own standard) tend to lower cognitive anxiety, while goals about beating others tend to raise it. So the trustworthy headline is that process goals lead the field for performance and self-efficacy, with the anxiety benefit being promising rather than nailed down. Treating those two tiers of evidence as equally certain would overstate the case, and I’d rather give you something accurate you can stand behind.

Why Process Goals Work So Well for Athletes

The number that matters most for understanding all of this is controllability. Process goals for athletes work because they point attention at things an athlete can actually do, repeat, and influence, which has a chain of effects that show up across the research and in the gym.

When an athlete focuses on a controllable action, they get a steady stream of small successes. Every time they set their feet correctly or hit their breathing cue, that’s a win, regardless of the scoreboard. Those repeated successes build self-efficacy from the ground up, which the meta-analysis captured in that d = 1.11 figure. An athlete who believes they can execute the next action plays with more freedom, and that belief compounds over a season. I’ve written before about how self-belief in athletes is built like a skill rather than summoned by willpower, and process goals are one of the most concrete ways to build it, because they manufacture the evidence that belief feeds on.

Process goals also steady an athlete emotionally when things go sideways. An athlete chasing only an outcome has their confidence tied to a result they can’t fully command, so a bad bounce can send them spiraling. An athlete anchored to a process always has somewhere solid to stand, because the next controllable action is still available no matter what just happened. This connects closely to the work I’ve done on learning from failure in sport, where shifting an athlete’s attention from “don’t mess up” to “focus on the process” keeps them in a state where they can recover and keep competing.

There’s a focus benefit too. The mind can only hold so much at once, and an outcome that lives in the future pulls attention away from the present moment where performance actually happens. A process goal yanks attention back to the here and now, to the single action in front of the athlete. That present-moment focus is where good performances tend to live, and it’s part of why process goals for athletes show up so strongly in the performance data.

There’s a pressure angle worth mentioning, too. When an athlete’s attention locks onto an outcome they can’t control, the distance between how badly they want it and how little they can guarantee it tends to increase anxiety. Pointing them toward a process they can control shrinks that distance, because the thing they’re focused on is also the thing they can deliver. This fits the pattern the research described, where self-referenced goals were linked with calmer competition, and it helps explain why so many athletes say they feel freer once their attention moves to the process.

Outcome and Performance Goals Still Have a Job

None of this means that we should throw away outcome and performance goals. They each serve a real purpose, and a complete approach uses all three in the right roles.

Outcome goals give a season its direction and supply a deep source of motivation. Wanting to win the league or make the national team is the fuel that gets an athlete out of bed for the hard sessions. Performance goals translate that ambition into personal standards an athlete can chase, like a save percentage or a sprint time, which bridges the gap between the far-off result and the daily work. The most effective approach uses outcome goals as the distant compass, performance goals as the milestones along the way, and process goals as the thing an athlete actually thinks about while they compete. When the whistle blows, attention belongs on the process, because that’s the part the athlete can control in real time. The other two goals did their job in the weeks before, by shaping what the athlete trained and why.

Foundational work on goal-setting theory by Locke and Latham established decades ago that specific, challenging goals tend to produce better performance than vague ones, and that principle still holds. What the sport-specific research adds is a clearer sense of which type of goal to put in front of an athlete during competition itself, and the answer points firmly toward process.

What Process Goals Look Like Across Sports

It helps to see process goals for athletes in concrete form, since the idea clicks faster with examples than with definitions. A handball goalkeeper might focus on setting their feet properly before each shot, staying tall through the first step, and resetting with a single breath after every attack. A sprinter might hold their cadence on the climbs and keep their hands relaxed. A tennis player might commit to a split-step on every return and a full follow-through. A team-sport athlete might aim to be first to every loose ball and to talk on each defensive possession. In every case, the process goal names something the athlete can do on purpose, again and again, whatever the score happens to be. None of these examples mention winning, and yet each one steadily builds toward it.

How to Set Process Goals for Athletes

Knowing process goals work is one thing. Setting them well is where the payoff actually comes. Here is a practical approach you can use with your athletes this week.

Start From the Actions That Drive Performance

Look at what actually produces good performance in your sport and your athlete’s role, then break it into controllable actions. For a handball goalkeeper, that might be setting the feet in a proper position before the shot, staying tall after the first step forward (for 6-meter line shots), tracking the ball to the hands, or communicating the defense on every attack. For a runner, it might be holding cadence on the climbs and keeping the shoulders loose. The aim is to find the small, repeatable behaviors that reliably lead to the results you want, then point the athlete’s attention there. A useful question to ask is a simple one: what does this athlete actually do, physically and mentally, in the moments when they perform at their best? The answers describe success in terms the athlete can reproduce, and those answers become the raw material for strong process goals.

Pair Every Goal With Feedback

One of the clearest findings in the meta-analysis was that goals produced real performance gains mainly when feedback came with them. A process goal works far better when the athlete can see how they’re doing against it. That might be a quick count during a drill, video review, or a simple conversation after a session. Feedback closes the loop and turns a process goal from a nice idea into a tool the athlete can actually steer by.

Build a Self-Regulation Loop

The studies grounded in self-regulation theory produced the strongest results of all, and the pattern they followed is one you can copy and use. Have the athlete set the process goal, monitor how they’re doing against it during training and competition, then adjust it based on what they learn. This loop of setting, tracking, and adjusting turns process goals for athletes into a living system rather than a fixed instruction, and it teaches athletes to coach themselves over time, which is one of the most useful skills we can give them. In practice, this might look like a goalkeeper agreeing on a footwork cue for the week, tracking how consistently they hit it across sessions, then refining it with you once they can see where it holds up and where it slips. The athlete becomes an active partner in their own development, which deepens their investment and sharpens their self-awareness.

Keep Them Usable Under Pressure

A process goal only helps if the athlete can reach for it when the heat is on. Long, complicated goals fall apart in the chaos and pressure of competition, so the best ones compress into a short cue the athlete can say to themselves in a heartbeat. “Feet set.” “Stay tall.” “Next ball.” A simple cue word that captures the process goal gives the athlete an anchor they can grab in the loudest, most pressured moments, which is exactly when they need it most.

Don’t Over-Specify

One detail from the research is worth holding onto here. The meta-analysis found no significant performance difference between highly specific goals and looser, non-specific ones, which softens the common advice that every goal must be rigidly precise. Researchers from the same group have even questioned the over-use of strict SMART goals, pointing out that a more open focus can serve some athletes better than a tightly worded one. For some athletes, a slightly more open process focus (“play with quick feet”) works better than a tightly defined one, especially under pressure. Pay attention to what helps each athlete stay loose and engaged, and let that guide how precise you make the goal.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Even a strong tool can be used poorly, so a few cautions will help you get the most from process goals for athletes.

• The first mistake is stacking too many process goals at once. An athlete trying to hold five execution cues in their head during competition will end up overloaded and stiff. One or two clear process goals per competition is plenty, and they’ll do more than a long checklist ever could.
• The second is turning process goals into a rigid script that leaves no room for instinct. The aim is to direct an athlete’s attention toward what they can control, while still letting them read the game and respond freely. A goalkeeper who’s so locked into “set my feet” that they can’t react to a quick shot has lost the point. Process goals should sharpen instinct, not replace it.
• The third mistake is abandoning the process the moment results don’t come fast enough. Process goals build performance over time, and the daily wins they create can feel small in the short term. An athlete who drops them after one rough game never gives them the chance to compound. Patience is part of the method, and that’s a message worth sharing openly with your athletes so they understand why they’re sticking with it.
• It’s also worth remembering that goal setting can carry downsides when handled carelessly, a point that practitioners themselves have raised in research on how sport psychologists actually use goals in the field. Goals work best as a flexible, collaborative process, set with the athlete rather than imposed on them, and revisited as things change.

Matching Process Goals to Age and Level

A fast word on adapting this, since a process goal that suits a senior international will land very differently with a twelve-year-old beginner. Younger athletes tend to do best with one simple, concrete process cue that connects to something they can feel, like: “soft hands” or “quick feet.” Older and more experienced athletes can handle a process goal that ties into a fuller self-regulation loop, where they track and adjust it themselves. The principle stays the same across ages: point attention at controllable actions. How much complexity you add depends on where the athlete is in their development.

A Challenge for Your Next Session

Here is the one thing I’d ask you to try at your very next training session. Pick a single athlete and a single controllable action that matters in their role, then turn it into one clear process goal with a short cue word attached. Give them feedback on it during the session, and notice what shifts, both in how they perform and in how they carry themselves when something goes wrong.

Process goals for athletes hold up so well because they hand control back to the people doing the work. Outcomes will always matter, and they always will sit partly out of reach. The actions that build those outcomes, though, are available to your athletes in every single moment, and pointing their attention there is one of the most useful things we can do as coaches. Start with one athlete, one action, one cue, and let the small wins start stacking up. The athletes who learn to compete this way carry a steadier confidence, the sort that holds because it rests on what they can always do.

Stay in Touch
Do you have any coaching challenges you’d like me to address? Let me know what topics you struggle with most in goalkeeper coaching by filling out this form.

Never miss an update
Subscribe to my newsletter to receive updates about my online and in-person projects, research papers, creative projects (blog posts, books, e-books), and new online programs.

My Online Video Courses:
– Level 1 Video Course for Coaches
– Level 2 Video Course for Coaches
– Sliding Technique Video Course
– Agility Ladder Drills Video Collection – 102 drills

Subject to Copyright
Unauthorized use and/or duplication of any content from this website without express written permission from this site’s owner is strictly prohibited. All content (including text, data, graphics files, images, illustrations, videos, and sound files) contained in www.vanjaradic.fi is copyrighted unless otherwise noted and is the property of Vanja Radic Coaching. If you wish to cite or use any content from my website, please contact me first to obtain permission.