Vague goals fail: define the actions, the numbers and a range

The Short Version

Mel Robbins and Andrew Huberman agree that a goal you cannot count is not really a goal, and that most good intentions fail because they stay vague. Robbins asks one test question, "How are you going to know that you've achieved it?", and in one episode adds a twist from research: set a high-low range, such as journaling five to seven days a week, rather than a single number [1][2]. Huberman pushes the measurement down to the level of action, telling listeners to replace states like getting fit with specific verbs and hours per week, because "actions themselves are always quantifiable," and to write concrete plans they review weekly [3][4]. They differ on details that matter in practice: whether to tell people your goal, whether a goal written on a note should stay put, and whether success is best measured by the outcome or by the actions you take [1][2][3].

Table of contents

What They Said

Mel Robbins: from wish to measurable goal

Mel Robbins covers goal setting in two solo episodes of her podcast. One is a master class built around research from psychologist Elliot Berkman at the University of Oregon [1]. The other is a six-step process she says she uses for every goal she has [2]. Both start from the same problem: most people's goals are wishes in disguise.

A goal is something you do, not something you dream

Robbins admits that for years she treated goals like a grocery list, jotting down vague items like being healthy or making more money [1]. Her starting definition, from Berkman, is "A goal is anything that you desire that wouldn't otherwise happen without you doing something" [1]. Binge-watching a favorite show requires nothing new, so it is not a goal; getting out of debt requires new behavior, so it is [1].

In her six-step episode she draws the line between dreams and goals sharply. A dream lives in your head and heart, while "A goal is something you achieve. Big difference" [2]. She describes the difference in physical terms: "If it's a dream, it stays locked in your soul as a wish. If it is a goal, it is on paper in front of your face as something to do" [2]. In the master class she puts it as a rule of size and timing: "Your dreams are big. Your goals have to be small" [1]. "Dreams can be general because dreams don't have a timeline, but your goals have to be specific" [1].

The test question: how will you know?

The core of Robbins' first step is a single question. "How are you going to know that you've achieved it? How are you going to know?" [2]. Her financial example shows how it works: you'll know you are out of debt because your credit cards are paid off, but for financial freedom you have to ask, "What's the number in the bank?" [2]. Her verdict is blunt: "if you can't measure it, it's not a goal. It's just a wish, a want or a dream" [2]. She adds that "goals are not things you think about" [2].

Her own examples turn each wish into a check box. Her author goal was met when she held a printed book: "The only way that I know is I got a book in my hands" [2]. During big hormone shifts her fitness goal was defined by fitting into a size 28 pair of pants, and her water goal is two quart-size Mason jars a day [2]. In each case, she says, she is defining "the terms and conditions under which I'm going to check the box and say I did that" [2].

The master class reaches the same place through a question from Columbia University researcher Heidi Halvorson: "when will you know if you've succeeded?" [1]. Robbins calls having goals that are too general mistake number four, and outs herself: "my goal to garden more way too general" [1]. Asking the question changed the goal itself. "I realize that it's not really about spending more time gardening. My goal is more about learning how to grow a specific type of flower," dahlias, from seed for the first time [1]. She will know she has succeeded when she cuts her first bouquet of dahlias and puts it in a vase next to her kitchen sink [1]. "I promise you you're probably going to refine it even further," she tells listeners who apply the question to their own goals [1].

She applies the same test to a listener, Elise, who wants to start a business giving singing lessons to teens aiming for Broadway but feels paralyzed [2]. Robbins helps her define success as five paying clients and one client landing a Broadway or off-Broadway audition: "It's five clients. One person has an audition" [2]. Her reasoning is that paying clients show the business is running, and an audition shows Elise is good at her job [2]. Part of Elise's paralysis, Robbins says, is that the goal was not yet on paper [2].

The range: a high and a low

Robbins calls her fifth mistake, not using a high-low range, the one that was new to her; she discovered it while researching the show [1]. Citing Florida State University research, she says: "It's easier to lose two to four pounds than three pounds" [1]. She rewrites all three of her goals with ranges. She will journal five to seven days a week, she will count the gardening goal a success when anywhere from one to ten dahlias bloom, and she will go without alcohol for 75 of 90 days [1]. She notes that refining her goals this way already makes her feel more confident [1].

The 75 of 90 days figure came out of an earlier step. Her starting goal was to go a couple of months without drinking, which she later called too general [1]. Applying the "sweet spot" mistake, she turned it into 75 days: bigger than Dry January, but shorter than a year, which would feel like punishment [1]. Adding the range then gave her room within a 90-day window [1].

Not too easy, not too hard, not too many

Robbins' third mistake is missing the sweet spot between too easy and too hard, which she likens to Goldilocks [1]. She points to research from Florida State University and to BJ Fogg's habit research at Stanford on picking something you know you can achieve, and to research from UC Riverside showing that a bit of ambition increases motivation and satisfaction [1]. "If it's too little or too big, you've got to adjust it so that it feels just right" [1]. She also expects friction: goals naturally contain resistance because they ask you to do something new, and if you don't expect that, you'll set goals that are too easy [1].

Her second mistake is having too many goals, which she says is her own opinion rather than a specific study [1]. Her rule is one to three at a time, because "taking on too many things based on the research means you're going to get nothing done" [1]. She urges anyone in crisis, such as finalizing a painful divorce, living in their car or just out of the hospital, to pick only one goal: facing that challenge and making the situation a little better each day [1].

She also notes that a goal can start vague. "It's okay if it's super general. Mine are really general," she says of her first drafts, before the research refines them [1]. The point of the episode is that goals change as you apply each test, and she expects listeners' goals to change from the start of the episode to the end [1].

A goal also needs a why and a how

Measurement is only part of Robbins' framework. Berkman's research, she says, boils goals down to two components that must both be present: the will, the motivational why, and the way, the informational how [1]. The way asks what the specific plan is and what skills it requires; for her dahlias it means studying how to create a cutting garden, building raised beds and learning to grow flowers from seed [1]. Her first mistake is all how and no why: she abandoned Dry January in past years because she joined out of pressure and FOMO, and this time her reason is her own sleep, focus and menopause symptoms [1]. If you keep abandoning goals, she says, it is because they aren't linked to something you value [1]. "Listening to research is not going to change your life, applying the research will" [1].

Turning the measure into daily action

In the six-step episode, Robbins pairs the measurable outcome with an action written underneath it. Researchers call it an implementation intention, which she describes as "just a simple sentence that you can write down" [2]. Her formula is "I will do the rep at a certain time in a certain place," and her examples are "I will write for 30 minutes at 9 a.m. in my office" and "I will drink a mason jar of water at 6 a.m. standing in front of the coffee maker" [2]. She describes an exercise study with three groups: one only tracked whether they exercised, one also read about why exercise matters, and one wrote down a plan of when and where. She says 91% of the planning group exercised, about double the other groups [2].

She is honest that this part is dull. Doing the reps, a phrase from her friend Jeff Walker, means tedious daily actions: "There are no big leaps. They're small gains" [2]. She credits James Clear with the idea that "you will rise or fall to the level of your systems," and makes the reps easier with phone alarms, sticky notes, workout clothes laid out in the morning and her Mason jar filled the night before [2].

Robbins also writes goals down. Writing takes a goal out of your head, and researchers call the paper "external storage" because it reminds you every time you see it [2]. She suggests posting it by your computer or on your phone's home screen [2]. Seeing the goal daily leads to encoding: the information goes to the hippocampus, which decides what is worth keeping in long-term memory, and the brain then starts filtering daily information for things related to the goal [2].

Once goals are set, she says the first milestone should be super easy, a principle researchers call the incremental illusion: "nothing and I mean nothing is more motivating than progress" [1]. She describes a University of Chicago study of coffee loyalty cards: people given a 12-stamp card with two stamps already filled in completed it faster than those given a blank 10-stamp card, even though both needed ten purchases [1]. She also recommends telling someone you admire about your goal, citing Ohio State studies showing greater commitment and performance, while noting this runs counter to a widely reported 2009 NYU study [1].

Finally, she separates measuring from timing. In the six-step episode she tells a struggling listener to throw the timeline out the window: attitude, actions, reps and persistence are in your control, but how long it takes is not [2]. What defines success is returning after you slip: "It's the day that you return. That defines success because it means you didn't quit" [2].

Andrew Huberman: specific verbs, counted actions, concrete plans

Andrew Huberman addresses goals in two solo episodes: a deep dive grounding goal setting in neuroscience, and a later toolkit that distills that episode, conversations with Dr. Emily Balcetis of NYU and Dr. Maya Shankar, and newer research into step-by-step protocols [3][4].

The acronyms boil down to a few elements

Huberman notes that the goal-setting literature is enormous and that "Acronyms seem to dominate the area" [4]. Listing what they demand, he says goals are supposed to be significant, concrete, action-oriented, inspirational and time-bound, with "reasonable, realistic, verifiable measures" [4]. His summary is that "There are basically only three or four elements to goal setting and goal pursuit" [4]. People have to define a specific thing they will attain, which some communities call knowing what right looks like: "You can't just say, I want to be a champion athlete. You have to say what sport and you have to understand what the path to that is" [4]. They then assess progress and execute [4]. In the toolkit he adds that across a century of research, and across frameworks like SMART and similar acronyms, specificity and measurability show up again and again as essential [3].

Define the verbs and count the hours

The toolkit's third tool is to define the verbs. Rather than vague goal states like getting fit or being rich, Huberman says to define the specific verb actions involved [3]. For fitness, that might mean going to the gym three times a week for at least 60 minutes, with about 50 minutes of hard work, or a set number of running miles; for French, attending class once or three times a week plus two hours of practice [3]. He recommends doing this on paper with a pen or pencil, since handwriting engages the nervous system differently from typing [3].

He then quantifies the actions within a roughly 12-week, or quarterly, cycle, deciding how many hours per week and per day you will work toward the goal, and on which days [3]. He believes this structure works for 90% or more of goals [3]. His transcript gives a typical plan: "run or practice at some cognitive endeavor four hours total per week and you're going to do that Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday" [3]. Some goals are easy to measure, like running a sub-six- or sub-five-minute mile, where you can set milestones and work backward from a target date [3]. Many others, like conversational French or poetry, are harder to measure, which is exactly why he counts the actions: "actions themselves are always quantifiable" [3]. His example is book writing. Experienced writers don't wait for inspiration; they write a set number of words or hours every day, whether 500, 800 or 2,000 words, rather than fixating on bestseller lists [3].

He sums up the whole process in one line: "it's really about defining goals and then learning how to quantify the actions required and then engaging in those actions" [3].

Concrete plans beat general calls to do better

Huberman's main evidence for specificity is a set of workplace recycling studies. In the deep-dive episode he describes researchers replacing janitorial staff to measure what landed in the trash [4]. A general call to recycle more produced a modest improvement, but a concrete plan, such as putting all bottles and cans in the recycling, produced close to a 100-fold greater improvement that lasted months [4]. His conclusion: "having a concrete plan is essential. You can't just say I'm going to become a better recycler or I'm going to do things that are better for the environment or I'm going to become more physically fit. It has to be a specific set of action steps that get right down to details about what success would look like" [4].

He stresses that the plans were about actions, "So not necessarily feeling states." The participants did not sit around saying how great they would feel; they made "very concrete statements, very concrete plans about action steps" [4]. The lesson he draws is that "we need to be exquisitely detailed about what the action steps are that we're going to take and to constantly update those action steps" [4]. In the toolkit he describes the same study more briefly: telling workers the specific goal, the specific actions and how much of their lunch waste to recycle more than doubled success [3].

Check weekly, reward yourself for being on track

How often should progress be assessed? In the studies he refers to, progress was assessed and plans updated weekly, "So weekly seems like a good solid rule of thumb for setting particular action goals and assessing one's progress" [4]. His own measurable goal is 150 to 200 minutes of zone 2 cardio per week. Once a week he checks in, and if he has reached that threshold he rewards himself by checking off a box and saying, "okay, I'm on track" [4]. That kind of consistent self-reward, he explains, uses the dopamine system, which he describes as "the common currency by which we assess our progress toward particular things of particular value" [4].

In the toolkit he refines the reward schedule. Rewarding yourself at every milestone blunts the reward over time, so he recommends random intermittent rewards: after a session or milestone, "you should flip a coin and if it's heads yes reward yourself and if it's tails don't" [3]. A cognitive reward is not telling yourself you're the greatest; it is 30 to 60 seconds of recognizing that you can set and pursue goals and that you're making progress [3]. He says "random intermittent reinforcement is the key" [3]. The two episodes therefore suggest different reward schedules: the deep dive's consistent weekly check box and the toolkit's coin flip [3][4].

Fewer goals, set just out of reach

Like Robbins, Huberman limits the number of goals. The toolkit's first tool is choosing a single priority: "A priority literally means one thing that you place ahead of all others" [3]. You can still maintain the other healthy parts of your life, but for this phase you pick one goal [3]. The deep dive recommends one to three major goals per year, linking this to visual clutter that pulls attention toward whatever is in front of us [4].

He also sets the level of challenge. Work from the Balcetis lab and others found that goals that are too easy do not engage enough of the autonomic nervous system, so people give up, and impossible goals also fail to raise systolic blood pressure because they do not feel tangible [4]. Moderately hard goals, just beyond current ability, produced a near-doubling of the systolic blood pressure response and a doubling or more in the likelihood of ongoing pursuit [4]. In the toolkit he says to choose a goal that feels a bit out of reach but not impossible, because learning requires somewhat uncomfortable but safe states of frustration and errors [3]. For learning itself, he cites a paper on "the 85% rule for optimal learning," which found learning is optimized when you succeed about 85 percent of the time [4].

Keep the goal private, and move the note

Huberman disagrees with two popular practices. The first is the "post-it fallacy": sticking a note with your goal on the fridge or mirror and leaving it there [3]. Your visual system adapts to and cancels out anything that stays constant, so a permanent note can reduce the chance of progress. If you use visual reminders, he says, rewrite them daily and move them to new locations [3]. The second is announcing your goal to increase accountability. Research shows that the positive feedback from telling people activates reward circuits that quickly fade and reduce the likelihood of doing the work [3]. His "don't tell the world rule" is to keep the goal to yourself and spend time with it on paper, though a single accountability buddy who simply asks whether you did the work can help [3].

He also corrects a popular view of visualization. Imagining the big win helps get goal pursuit started but is "a pretty lousy and maybe even counterproductive way" to maintain it [4]. Foreshadowing failure works better: the Balcetis lab and others found a near doubling in the probability of reaching goals when people routinely think about how things will go wrong if they don't take the needed actions [4]. In the toolkit he ties this to motivation on the day: visualize success when you are motivated, and visualize failure when you are not [3]. "So yes, indeed, there is a place for negative thinking" [3].

Where They Agree, and Where They Don't

They agree that vague goals fail. Robbins says "if you can't measure it, it's not a goal" [2], and calls goals that are too general a common mistake [1]. Huberman says vague goal states like getting fit must become specific verb actions [3], and that a concrete plan is "essential" [4]. Huberman uses fitness as a cautionary example, listing "I'm going to become more physically fit" among the statements you can't just make [4].

They agree on writing it down. Robbins says writing makes the goal "external storage" and starts encoding [2]. Huberman recommends writing goals by hand with pen or pencil [3].

They agree on few goals. Robbins' rule is one to three at a time [1]; Huberman's is one priority per phase in the toolkit and one to three major goals per year in the deep dive [3][4].

They agree on a goal just beyond reach. Robbins' sweet spot cites research showing a bit of ambition increases motivation while staying achievable [1]. Huberman's moderately hard goals doubled ongoing pursuit, while goals that were too easy or too lofty did not [4].

They agree that plans need times and places. Robbins' implementation intention names the rep, the time and the place [2]. Huberman's plans name the hours per week and the days [3].

They measure different things. Robbins mainly measures outcomes: a bouquet in a vase, a book in her hands, a size of pants, a number in the bank [1][2]. Huberman mainly measures inputs, because outcomes like conversational French are hard to count while "actions themselves are always quantifiable" [3]. The difference reflects their examples. Robbins' goals have a clear finish line, and she adds actions through implementation intentions [2]. Huberman builds his system around goals that may not have one [3]. Combined, the two give a goal a measurable result and a measurable weekly action.

Only Robbins argues for a range. The high-low range is her fifth mistake, drawn from Florida State University research [1]. Huberman never discusses ranges as a tool, although his own cardio target is stated as 150 to 200 minutes a week, and his running example is five miles "four times a week minimum and as many as seven" [4].

They disagree about telling people. Robbins recommends telling someone you admire, citing Ohio State studies, and acknowledges that a widely reported 2009 NYU study points the other way [1]. Huberman's "don't tell the world rule" rests on research that the praise from announcing a goal activates reward circuits that then reduce the work [3]. He does allow a single accountability buddy who asks whether you did the work, which is close to Robbins' advice to ask a supportive person for help [1][3]. Robbins' reasoning is commitment to someone whose opinion you value; Huberman's is that early praise substitutes for effort.

They disagree about the note on the wall. Robbins suggests posting your goal by your computer or on your phone's home screen, so you see it every day [2]. Huberman warns that the visual system cancels out what stays constant, so a fixed note can backfire, and says to rewrite and move reminders daily [3].

They handle rewards differently. Robbins makes the first milestone super easy so that early progress motivates [1]. Huberman's toolkit warns that rewarding every milestone blunts motivation and recommends a coin flip, though his deep dive describes a consistent weekly check box [3][4].

They treat timelines differently. In her master class Robbins says goals must be on a timeline [1], but in her six-step episode she tells a struggling listener to throw the timeline out because how long it takes is outside your control [2]. Huberman works in 12-week cycles, with milestones counted back from a target date where the goal allows it [3]. Robbins' two positions apply to different things: a time frame for the goal itself, and patience about when the results arrive [1][2].

The recycling numbers differ between Huberman's episodes. The deep dive describes a concrete plan producing close to a 100-fold greater improvement than a general call [4], while the toolkit says telling workers the specific goal, actions and amount more than doubled success [3]. Both versions support the same lesson about specificity, but the size of the effect differs between them.

Why It Works

A measurable goal tells you when to check the box. Robbins' test question makes success something you can recognize, which is why she calls it defining "the terms and conditions" [2]. Asking it also reveals what the goal is really about, as it did with her dahlias [1].

Writing it down changes what the brain notices. Robbins says seeing a written goal each day sends it to the hippocampus for encoding, after which the brain filters daily information for things related to it, as people notice Ford Broncos everywhere once they want one [2]. Huberman adds that handwriting engages the nervous system differently from typing [3].

Counted actions turn a goal into a plan. Huberman's reason for counting actions is practical: outcomes like conversational French are hard to measure, while hours and words can always be counted [3]. Robbins' 91% figure for the group that planned when and where to exercise points the same way [2].

Concrete plans outperform general intentions. Huberman's recycling studies are his main evidence that specific action steps produce far more change than general calls to do better [3][4].

The right difficulty recruits the body. Moderately hard goals produced a near-doubling of the systolic blood pressure response, placing people into a state of readiness, while goals that were too easy or too lofty did not [4]. Huberman says frustration is the gateway to change, so expecting it lets you read those feelings as progress [3].

Progress you can see is motivating. Robbins says "nothing and I mean nothing is more motivating than progress," and the coffee-card study shows people moving faster when they start partly done [1]. Huberman's weekly "I'm on track" check uses dopamine, which he describes as the molecule of motivation [4].

A range makes a goal feel more achievable. Robbins' only explanation is the Florida State University line that losing two to four pounds is easier than losing three, and her report that her rewritten goals already make her feel more confident [1]. The sources give no further mechanism.

Where It Applies, and Where It Doesn't

Some goals are easy to count, some aren't. Huberman notes that a sub-six-minute mile can be measured directly, while conversational French or poetry is harder, which is where counting the actions matters [3].

Counting is not motivation. Robbins insists a goal needs a why as well as a how, and that goals you keep abandoning aren't linked to something you value [1]. A perfectly measured goal taken on out of obligation, like joining a diet because everyone else is, doesn't work [1].

The measure can be set too high or too low. Both warn that goals that are too easy or too lofty fail [1][3][4]. Huberman adds that how hard a goal feels shifts with sleep, stress and life crises, so goals need updating over time [4].

In a crisis, one goal is enough. Robbins tells anyone in a painful divorce, living in their car or just out of the hospital to set only one goal: making the situation a little better each day [1].

Timing should not block the work. Robbins tells people to throw the timeline out when results are slow [2]. Huberman says completing the work matters more than doing it at the perfect time, recounting a 90-minute run he did late at night after missing his usual Sunday run [3].

Achieving the number won't make you happy forever. Robbins warns of the arrival fallacy: people overestimate how happy achievement will make them, and the meaning comes from pursuing goals [1].

For health goals such as weight loss or stopping drinking, a doctor's advice is worth having before setting the numbers.

What To Do With It

1. Ask the test question. For each goal, ask Robbins' question, "How are you going to know that you've achieved it?", and rewrite the goal until the answer is something you can see or count, such as a number in the bank or a book in your hands [2].
2. Turn states into verbs. Replace vague states like getting fit or being rich with the specific actions involved, such as going to the gym three times a week for at least 60 minutes, as Huberman suggests [3].
3. Set a range. Give the goal a high and a low, as Robbins did with journaling five to seven days a week and no alcohol for 75 of 90 days [1].
4. Count the hours and pick the days. Decide how many hours per week and per day you'll work, and on which days, within a roughly 12-week cycle [3].
5. Write an implementation intention under the goal. Use Robbins' formula, "I will do the rep at a certain time in a certain place," for example writing for 30 minutes at 9 a.m. in your office [2].
6. Write it by hand, and move it. Write the goal on paper [2][3]. If you post a reminder, follow Huberman's advice and rewrite it and move it daily, so your eyes don't tune it out [3].
7. Keep it to one to three goals, set just beyond reach. Choose a goal that feels a bit out of reach but not impossible, and drop or postpone the rest [1][3][4].
8. Make the first milestone easy. Start with a step so small it feels done, like Robbins reading one page of a dahlia book [1].
9. Check progress weekly. Review each week and update the plan for the next, rewarding yourself with an "I'm on track" when you are, as Huberman does with his cardio minutes [4].
10. Choose your audience on purpose. Robbins would tell someone you admire; Huberman would keep it private except for one accountability buddy who asks whether you did the work [1][3].

Sources

1. How to Set and Achieve Goals: The Will, the Way, and Five Common Mistakes · The Mel Robbins Podcast
2. How to Achieve Any Goal You Have in 6 Simple Steps · The Mel Robbins Podcast
3. Goals Toolkit: How to Set & Achieve Your Goals · Huberman Lab
4. The Science of Setting & Achieving Goals · Huberman Lab