Why It’s Worth It | Failed goals lie all around us sometimes. Why does this happen on repeat? How many of our goals are actually ours, and how many are quietly borrowed from what we think other people expect of us? What if the problem isn’t that we lack motivation, but that we’ve been following the wrong star?

In this solo episode of Office Hours, Harvard professor and behavioral scientist Arthur Brooks makes the case that goal-setting is not a productivity exercise; instead, it is the (much cooler) mechanism by which we either find or lose our sense of purpose. Drawing on research in social psychology and behavioral science, Arthur distinguishes between proxy goals that genuinely point toward meaning and the three types that predictably lead us away from it. To help us on our path, he then offers four concrete rules for setting goals that actually work.

Arthur opens by separating two terms we tend to use interchangeably: purpose and meaning. Meaning is the larger category, made up of coherence (why things happen), significance (why our life matters), and purpose (where we are headed). So, as part of the umbrella of meaning, purpose, in turn, requires goals (think: tangible, visible things we can move toward) that can serve as proxy goals for the deeper direction we are trying to find. Getting the proxy right is everything, because a goal aimed at the wrong thing will carry us confidently in the wrong direction.

Before naming what works, Arthur walks through what reliably doesn’t. The first problem is extrinsic motivation: setting goals based on outside forces rather than internal satisfaction. A University of Rochester study tracked graduating students who split roughly evenly between extrinsic goals (outpacing peers financially, gaining status) and intrinsic ones (deeper relationships, meaningful work). Nearly everyone got what they aimed for. The students who got the extrinsic goals were significantly less happy. 

The second problem is avoidance goals: organizing our ambitions around what we don’t want rather than what we’re moving toward. Approach motivation (pursuing something good) is structurally different from avoidance motivation (fleeing something bad), and the research shows it produces better outcomes and more satisfaction even when both lead to the same external result.

The third problem, positional goals, is perhaps the most pervasive. Positional goals are those tied to social comparison, where our sense of progress is measured by how we stack up against others rather than by any internal compass. Arthur notes that we are evolutionarily wired for hierarchy and genuinely do care what others think, so this pull is natural. But using it as the primary driver of our goals is, as he puts it, a fast path to depression. Taking vacation photos to post rather than to remember is one small version of this. Organizing an entire career around other people’s perception of our success is a larger one.

The four rules Arthur offers for getting it right share a common thread: they all point inward. Goals should be rooted in love and relationships rather than money, power, fame, or pleasure. They should reflect our inner direction, the still small voice that only becomes audible when we put down our devices long enough to hear it. We should try to make the journey as enjoyable as possible and, above all, we should stay flexible, because healthy people change, circumstances change, and the proxy goal that pointed toward purpose at 25 may need to be exchanged for a different one at 45. Purpose, Arthur suggests, tends to be more durable than the particular vehicle we use to pursue it.

Background | In this episode, Arthur analyzes recent research on goal setting. Highlights include: 

• Proxy goals, not purpose directly: We cannot pursue purpose head-on. What we can do is identify tangible goals that point toward it. Getting the proxy right matters enormously, because a misdirected goal leads us confidently somewhere we don’t want to be.
• Intrinsic beats extrinsic: Goals rooted in internal satisfaction, love, connection, and meaningful work consistently produce more happiness than goals rooted in external validation. The research is unambiguous: we tend to get what we aim for, so what we aim for matters.
• Approach, not avoidance: Goals built around moving toward something good are structurally more motivating than goals built around fleeing something bad. Avoidance goals are harder to achieve and less satisfying even when we do.
• Ditch the positional treadmill: Social comparison is evolutionary and normal, but organizing our goals around what others think of us is a reliable path to dissatisfaction. The moment we need a stranger’s envy to feel like we are succeeding, we have handed over the compass.
• Enjoy the journey as part of the goal: The arrival fallacy is the belief that reaching a goal will produce lasting happiness. It won’t. Emotions are transient signals, not permanent states. If we are not enjoying the path toward a goal, that is a signal worth taking seriously about the goal itself.
• Stay flexible: Purpose may be durable, but the proxy goals that serve it will need to change as we do. Dogmatic attachment to a particular goal, long after circumstances have shifted, is not commitment. It is a navigation error.

Source | Office Hours: How to Set the Right Goals in Life (January 19, 2026)

About | Arthur Brooks is a well-known professor of leadership and happiness at Harvard University. He is a social scientist and a #1 bestselling author. In his column for The Atlantic, he combines scientific research and philosophical insights to offer simple, everyday guidance on how to pursue a more meaningful, connected, and potentially happier life. Arthur believes that if we cultivate joy, satisfaction, and purpose (in balance), we can find happiness.