Compare different activities before optimizing one
In our continuing example, friends want more time together but struggle to arrange a weekly dinner. A walk or a call could also give them a chance to talk. Once these alternatives are visible, the problem changes: instead of deciding only how to make people attend dinner, you can ask which activity would give them the conversation they want.
A behavior menu is a list of activities that could advance the same outcome. In the friendship example, a walk, a call, and a dinner belong on the menu because each can create time together. Three versions of the same reminder do not provide the same range of choice: all still depend on the dinner being a suitable activity.
The menu does not ask you to do everything. It gives you alternatives to compare now and return to later. An option that is impractical this month might become useful when someone’s schedule changes, and an option that works well at first may stop serving the goal.
Ask what each option could accomplish
Begin by explaining how an activity could produce the outcome. This sounds obvious, but it rules out options that are appealing mainly because they are familiar or easy to count. For the support team from lesson one, increasing app visits is not enough. A proposed action needs to help customers resolve the problems that brought them there.
For our friends, a phone call offers an opportunity to talk without traveling. A dinner may offer a longer conversation, but only if the setting lets them hear each other and both have enough time. Looking at the connection between action and result makes the comparison more useful than asking which option sounds best in the abstract.
Some questions can be answered by research; others depend on what you know about your own life. “We both have a free lunch break on Tuesdays” tells the friends they may be able to meet then. It does not tell them whether they will enjoy the walk or feel closer afterward. Explain what you know, how you know it, and what you still need to find out.
Use the Four Es to make the comparison concrete
My Goal Menu organizes the comparison around four questions: effective, easy, enjoyable, and exciting. The questions help you think through the choice. They have not been validated as a test that identifies the best behavior for you.
Effective asks whether the activity could advance the outcome. Easy asks whether it is manageable given your skills, resources, time, and surroundings. Enjoyable asks whether you like doing it. Exciting asks whether you look forward to it. The last two can differ: imagining a dinner party may appeal to you more than preparing and hosting one.
Here is how the friends could answer those questions about a lunchtime walk: “We can talk without a group competing for attention; we work five minutes apart; we usually enjoy walking together; and we look forward to catching up.” Each answer gives a reason to consider the walk.
Then look for weak points in that reasoning. Perhaps one friend’s lunch break is regularly interrupted. In that case, an activity that initially looked easy may not be available in practice. Writing the answers in ordinary sentences makes the uncertainty visible; giving the walk an unexplained score of nine out of ten would hide it.
Goal Menu: Jason’s Four Es explained · Habit Menu: selecting from several activities
Take interest seriously without mistaking it for effectiveness
How much you enjoy an activity matters when you’re deciding whether to keep doing it. If two options could serve the goal, and one is consistently unpleasant for you, that difference is worth considering. It does not mean the more enjoyable option will always be sufficient, or that useful work should never be difficult.
Sheldon and Elliot followed goal pursuit in three longitudinal datasets. Goals aligned with people’s interests and values were associated with more sustained effort and greater attainment. This supports examining why a person wants a goal, but it does not establish that the Four Es or behavior matching outperform other methods.
The study example in the first lesson illustrates why both questions matter. Rereading and recalling a passage from memory produced different results depending on the delay before the final test. A student who wants to remember next week therefore has a reason to consider retrieval practice, even if rereading feels more comfortable. Enjoyment is one part of the choice; it cannot substitute for evidence that the activity serves the goal.
The friends need to ask both questions too: would they enjoy the activity, and would it give them the time together they want? A quick text exchange may be pleasant and convenient, yet leave both people wanting a real conversation. An activity needs to do more than fit easily into the day; it needs to help with the goal.
Sheldon and Elliot (1999): goals, interests, values, and sustained effort
Choose one option and keep the alternatives
You will rarely know the best option before trying anything. Choose something you have good reasons to try, and be clear about what you still don’t know. If it is easy to stop or change, trying it can answer practical questions that you cannot settle just by thinking about them.
The friends might start with the walk because they work nearby and like talking one-to-one. If one is traveling, they can call instead. The activity changes, but they still get a chance to catch up.
This emphasis on selecting a behavior before designing around it is central to behavioral strategy. In product work, it means asking what a customer could do to solve their problem before building features to encourage them to do it. In personal life, it means giving the choice of activity as much attention as the plan for repeating it.
I ask the same question in my Behavioral Strategy work: is this the right action for these people and this goal? That comes before any effort to make the action easier or more appealing. If these friends would rather walk together than commit to a weekly dinner, a better dinner reminder would miss the point.
Compare two ways to improve a handoff
Imagine a team whose customer requests are repeatedly left without an owner. One option is a daily meeting to review every request. Another is to name the next owner when each request is transferred and ask that person to acknowledge it. Both might address missed handoffs, but they impose different demands.
The meeting takes everyone’s time and may delay clarification until the following day. The next owner can confirm responsibility as soon as the request reaches them, but only if they see it and respond. If the main problem is unclear ownership, the second option deserves a trial. If the real problem is complex cases that need group discussion, the meeting may have a stronger case. This is a hypothetical comparison: its purpose is to show how the problem, people, and setting determine which option is worth testing.
Check your understanding
A team proposes three ways to improve handoffs: send a reminder each morning, send it at noon, or send it before closing. Has it compared different activities?
It has compared timings for the same activity. A broader menu would also consider changes such as naming the next owner when a request is transferred or reviewing difficult cases together. Those alternatives can address different causes of a missed handoff.
Try it yourself
Compare at least two genuinely different activities for your outcome. Answer the Four Es in sentences, using specific facts where possible and marking what you do not know. Choose one activity to try, state why it currently looks promising, and keep another option available. The behavior-menu exercise provides a place to record the comparison and make a trial plan.
Read further
You now have reasons for choosing one activity, along with an alternative if it doesn’t work out. The final lesson shows how to try it, notice what helps or gets in the way, and decide what to do next.