Why do some people set goals for years and remain more or less in the same place, while others systematically turn intentions into results?
In the audio course “The Psychology of Achievement”, Brian Tracy offers a simple answer: our results are largely determined by how we think about ourselves, what we expect, which goals we set, and which actions we repeat.
The course appeared long before the modern popularity of neuroscience, behavioral science, and evidence-based psychology. Therefore, some of Tracy’s terminology today sounds like classic self-help: “reprogramming the subconscious,” affirmations, visualization, the laws of attraction and expectation.
But if we remove this outer layer, we find several ideas that align well with research on motivation and behavior.
And several others that science forces us to substantially reconsider.
One of Tracy’s central ideas is that a person with a clearly formulated goal is more likely to achieve the desired result than someone with an abstract intention to “become more successful,” “earn more,” or “take care of their health.”
This is not merely a motivational slogan.
Psychologists Edwin Locke and Gary Latham studied the influence of goals on performance for decades. In their 2002 review, they summarized approximately 35 years of research on goal-setting theory.
One key conclusion is that specific and sufficiently challenging goals generally lead to higher performance than the vague instruction to “do your best”. Goals direct attention, mobilize effort, and increase persistence.
But there is an important qualification to Tracy’s idea: setting a goal is not enough.
There is an enormous gap between “I decided” and “I did.”
Let’s imagine two formulations.
The first:
“I will exercise three times a week.”
The second:
“On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday after work, I will go straight to the gym and train from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.”
The second formulation belongs to what are known as implementation intentions—plans in the form:
if situation X occurs → I perform action Y.
Psychologists Peter Gollwitzer and Paschal Sheeran analyzed 94 independent studies of such plans. The meta-analysis found an effect of d = 0.65 on goal attainment—medium to large according to conventional effect-size benchmarks.
The reason is quite pragmatic. When a decision is made in advance, the brain does not have to decide from scratch each time whether to begin an action.
Not:
“I’m tired today. Maybe I should postpone the workout?”
But:
“If it is Monday at 7:00 p.m. → I work out.”
Part of the behavior becomes automated.
That is why a modern version of Tracy’s principle might sound like this:
do not just set a goal—define in advance the conditions under which you will begin to act.
Tracy talks extensively about how people perceive themselves. A related concept in modern psychology is self-efficacy.
Albert Bandura defined it as a person’s belief in their ability to organize and carry out the actions necessary to achieve a particular result.
This is not the same as an abstract sense of high self-esteem.
You can consider yourself a worthy person and simultaneously doubt that you are capable of conducting difficult negotiations, running a marathon, or building a company.
A meta-analysis by Alexander Stajkovic and Fred Luthans combined data from 114 studies involving more than 21,000 people. The average relationship between self-efficacy and job performance was approximately r = 0.38.
In other words, belief in your ability to complete a task is genuinely associated with performance. But it is easy to draw the wrong conclusion here.
Science does not say: “Just believe in yourself—and everything will work out.”
Self-efficacy develops partly through real experiences of success, skill acquisition, and feedback.
Therefore, the more workable sequence looks like this:
action → small result → increased competence → increased self-efficacy → more difficult action.
Sometimes action has to come before confidence.
Another of Tracy’s ideas is to take responsibility for your own life instead of constantly looking for external causes.
A related concept in psychology is locus of control.
People with a more internal locus of control are more likely to perceive what happens as at least partly dependent on their own decisions and actions.
Timothy Judge and Joyce Bono’s meta-analysis examined locus of control together with self-esteem, emotional stability, and generalized self-efficacy. These characteristics were associated both with job satisfaction and with job performance.
However, the principle that “everything depends on you” is already a dangerous oversimplification.
Economic conditions, health, discrimination, war, chance, social capital, family environment, and many other factors objectively limit the range of available choices.
Therefore, the psychologically healthy version of an internal locus of control does not sound like:
“I am responsible for everything that happens.”
It sounds like:
“What about this situation is within my sphere of influence?”
This is the fundamental difference between responsibility and the illusion of total control.
Tracy advises aligning goals with your own values. Modern motivation psychology provides a more fundamental explanation for this idea.
Richard Ryan and Edward Deci developed Self-Determination Theory —the theory of self-determination.
It identifies three basic psychological needs:
autonomy—the sense that I choose my actions;
competence—the sense that I am capable of handling tasks;
relatedness—the sense of meaningful relationships with other people.
When an activity satisfies these needs, people find it easier to maintain autonomous motivation and psychological well-being. When behavior is primarily dictated by external pressure, it is more difficult to sustain.
This explains a common paradox. You can set a goal perfectly, break it down into KPIs, specify deadlines, and still procrastinate constantly.
The problem may not be a lack of discipline.
Sometimes a person is simply trying to move efficiently toward a goal they did not actually choose.
This is where problems with classic self-help begin. Tracy suggests using positive statements to change a person’s self-image.
For example:
“I am confident.”
“I am successful.”
“I am capable of getting what I want.”
It sounds harmless. But experimental data show an interesting effect.
In 2009, Joanne Wood, Elaine Perunovic, and John Lee studied the effects of positive self-statements. Participants were asked to repeat a statement such as “I am a lovable person.”
Among people with high self-esteem, the effect was small and positive.
However, participants with low self-esteem felt worse under some conditions after making positive statements.
Presumably, if a statement diverges too sharply from a person’s internal model, the brain automatically generates counterarguments.
The person says:
“I am incredibly successful.”
And internally, this appears:
“If I am so successful, why does my life look completely different?”
Instead of strengthening a new belief, this creates an intensification of cognitive conflict.
Therefore, instead of the unrealistic statement:
“I am absolutely confident”
it may be more useful to use something specific:
“I can prepare for this meeting and calmly present my position.”
The difference is small at the level of language and enormous at the level of psychology.
Another popular idea associated with Tracy is visualizing the desired result.
The mental image of success can indeed increase the emotional attractiveness of a goal. But it does not follow that the more often a person imagines success, the more likely they are to achieve it.
The critical problem with positive fantasies is that the brain partially receives the emotional reward before the necessary work is done.
Therefore, modern research on motivation shifts the focus from visualizing the result alone toward contrasting the desired future with present obstacles and then planning behavior.
In other words, it is more useful to imagine not only:
“What will my life look like when I achieve my goal?”
but also:
“What exactly will prevent me from doing this—and what will I do when that obstacle arises?”
Visualization becomes more useful when it ends with a plan.
The idea that a person’s beliefs influence their development became enormously popular through the concept of growth mindset—the belief that abilities can develop.
But here too, the effect turned out to be more modest than popular books might lead us to expect.
In 2018, Victoria Sisk and colleagues conducted two large meta-analyses. The first covered 273 studies and 365,915 participants, while the second covered 43 studies and 57,155 participants.
The overall effects of mindset on academic achievement were small. At the same time, certain groups—for example, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds or those at academic risk—might benefit more.
This is an important limitation of the entire “psychology of achievement.”
Mindset influences behavior. But mindset does not replace skills, resources, environment, or action.
You can believe as much as you like that you can learn to code. Without hundreds of hours of practice, you will not become a programmer.
If we strip “The Psychology of Achievement” of its motivational self-help language and retain the ideas most compatible with research, we get a fairly pragmatic system.
First, define your goal.
Not “I want to change my life,” but a specific, observable result.
Check whether the goal is truly yours.
If it exists primarily for social approval, maintaining motivation will be much more difficult.
Break the goal down into behavior.
Not “I want to write a book,” but “I write 500 words every weekday.”
Create an implementation intention.
Not “I will read more,” but:
“If I go to bed at 11:00 p.m., my phone stays on the table, and I read for the next 30 minutes.”
Reduce your dependence on motivation.
Your environment, schedule, and decisions made in advance should make the desired action easier.
Gain real experiences of competence.
Confidence grows more reliably from the experience of “I did it” than from repeating “I can.”
Use mistakes as data.
If the system does not work, the question is not “What is wrong with me?” but “Which variable in the system is not working?”
Then repeat the cycle.
Classic success literature often offers an attractive causal chain:
thoughts → success.
The scientific picture is considerably more complex:
beliefs ↔ emotions ↔ environment ↔ skills ↔ behavior ↔ feedback → result.
All of these elements influence one another.
We really can change our thinking through behavior. But behavior also changes thinking. We can increase confidence before taking action. But we can also act first and gain confidence as a result.
We can visualize the result. But without a behavioral system, visualization will remain a fantasy. Perhaps that is why the strongest idea in “The Psychology of Achievement” sounds somewhat different today than it did in Brian Tracy’s time.
You do not first need to become the person who is capable of achieving the goal.
You can begin with a small action that such a person would take today.
And then repeat it tomorrow.
How was this article?
Share
