At this point in time, let’s compare the NLP’s Well-Defined Outcome process (which you’ve mastered by now) to the average goal-setting process. Think of each of the following words in the sequence in which they are presented, and note how your internalization of each word changes as you progress:

As is apparent, the words describe the same subject sound with greater and greater specificity. You also probably noted that, as specificity increased, you began to understand what was being described better. In other words, you were better able to internally represent what was being described. How do you think this is related to setting outcomes?

Specificity focuses consciousness, and it is this maxim that underlies the difference between goals and outcomes. Were the outcomes you were working on recently specified enough (or “well formed” in NLP lingo)?

Many people have written about the importance of goal setting, and many more have probably heard of S.M.A.R.T goals. S stands for specific, M for measurable, A for attainable or assignable, R for realistic or rewardable, and T for time-able or tangible. Nonetheless, only about 5% of Americans actually set goals.Why is goal setting just not catching on, in your opinion?

Ironically, despite the S in S.M.A.R.T goals, many goals are simply not specific enough. For example, consider the goal, “I want to increase participation in my work team.” Which area of work should be measured in order to determine whether participation has increased? How would one know when the goal has been accomplished?

As specificity decreases, the consciousness focuses less, and a more unfocused consciousness does not seem to be conducive towards any goal. That is the gap that outcomes seek to bridge. How do you believe the outcomes you worked on will bridge this gap?

An outcome represents a goal developed with specificity that endows people with a clear understanding of what to do. Outcomes should answer all those questions that goals couldn’t.

Even better, a goal that passes through the well-formed outcome model yields a well-formed outcome by enabling people to direct their attention toward their desired outcomes.

The well-formed outcome process should yield an outcome that is stated in a form that contains all seven characteristics, which should certainly satisfy any focusing consciousness hungry for particularity.

Recall the process you went through with your outcomes. Before we provide you with the answer, think and answer this: what seven characteristics or attributes would you say were the most important?

The first attribute is that outcomes should be stated in the positive, not the negative. After all, the mind does not directly process the negative. If you tell people not to think of poverty, they will have to think of poverty first before trying to cross that internal representation out of their minds. Are your outcomes stated in the positive?

The second attribute is that outcomes should be described in sensory-based language. As is to be discussed in Representational Systems, the mind processes information in terms of the senses, in particular sight, sound, and feelings. For that reason, stating outcomes in terms of those senses would make them more effective. Are your outcomes described in sensory-based language?

The third attribute is that the outcome must ultimately be controllable by you. You should not set an outcome that is along the lines of changing someone else’s behavior.

If you change your behavior, someone else may change his or her responses to you, but putting your outcome in someone else’s hands deprives you of so much power.

Is it possible for you to control your outcomes, and is it possible for you to achieve them entirely on your own?

The fourth attribute is that the context in which the outcome should apply must be clear. Are your outcomes stated in a clear and realistic context?

The fifth attribute is that the outcome must maintain a secondary gain. In psychology, a secondary gain is the reward an undesirable behavior generates. For example, if you smoke, you are obviously rewarded somehow by it, or else you would not be doing it. The outcome must find an alternative method to supply that secondary gain, or else the sustainability of the outcome may be jeopardized. Are your outcomes satisfying the secondary gains that (if not considered) could hinder your efforts?

The sixth attribute is a practical consideration. Have all the resources necessary for the actualization of your outcomes been inventoried?

Finally, the seventh attribute is ecology. How will any change in the human system resulting from the outcome balance out? Are your outcomes ecological?

Although not many Americans practice goal setting, that does not necessarily mean that the American people are not goal-oriented.

With the well-formed outcome model, NLP essentially optimizes goal setting, and that allows the average person to more easily establish future plans, as outstanding goal setters already do without the assistance. You should know the answer to this question by now: Is not studying excellence the entire reason for NLP?