From Performance to Mastery: Rethinking Coaching Through Epstein’s TARGET Framework

Introduction

CrossFit has had a profound influence on the global fitness industry. Its rapid growth, powerful community, and emphasis on measurable outcomes have shaped a generation of exercise professionals. Yet, as with many performance-driven models, the educational systems within CrossFit tend to prioritize results over learning. We perceive this was not the original objective, however the sport of CrossFit has influenced this with base minimum standards of coaching education.

This outcome-based, performance-focused orientation mirrors what Epstein (1989) described as a performance climate—an environment where success is defined by outperforming others, rather than by growth, effort, or skill development.

By contrast, a mastery climate emphasizes individual progression, learning, and autonomy. If we apply Epstein’s TARGET framework—Task, Authority, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, and Time—we see how CrossFit education has tilted almost exclusively toward performance, and how coaching could evolve to better support mastery.

This whole interpretation is provided as a principle with multiple other elements on BirdBox coaching level 2. Overall our goal is to increase a motivational climate in our gyms.

T – Task

In CrossFit, tasks are typically designed around outcomes: lifting heavier weights, finishing faster, or scoring higher on the leaderboard. The benchmark workouts and emphasis on “PRs” (personal records) reinforce the idea that success is about doing more, faster.

In a mastery climate, however, tasks are framed differently. The goal is not simply to “win the workout,” but to develop movement quality, adapt skills, and grow incrementally over time. Coaches would set tasks that prioritize technique, long-term development, and context-specific learning. This shift changes the role of the athlete: from competitor to learner.

A – Authority

CrossFit’s educational model promotes a command-and-call coaching style—the coach leads, the athletes follow. This autocratic authority structure means athletes have little input into their learning process. Everyone moves at the same pace, through the same progressions, in the same way.

In contrast, mastery-based coaching requires shared authority. Athletes should be encouraged to take ownership of their development, make decisions about pacing, and build self-regulation skills. Coaches act not as drill sergeants, but as guides who help athletes become more autonomous learners.

This redistribution of authority empowers athletes to remain engaged and adaptable, building confidence alongside competence.

R – Recognition

CrossFit culture thrives on public recognition of outcomes: leaderboards, PR boards, competition rankings. These tools fuel motivation—but they also reinforce a narrow definition of success. Recognition is reserved for those who achieve the most visible, measurable performance outcomes.

In a mastery climate, recognition shifts away from external comparison and toward effort, persistence, and personal growth. A coach might celebrate an athlete for refining their squat depth, maintaining consistency across training weeks, or showing resilience in learning a challenging skill. Recognition becomes inclusive, not exclusive, ensuring all athletes feel valued for their unique progress.

G – Grouping

CrossFit groups athletes by ability and competition standards—whether through Rx vs scaled classifications, or by natural separation on the leaderboard. This creates an inherently comparative, performance-driven environment.

But as Malcolm Gladwell (2008) illustrated in Outliers, grouping by performance can have long-term consequences. His example of professional ice hockey players showed how children who were slightly older in their school year gained early advantages, leading to better coaching, more competitive opportunities, and eventually, greater success. When athletes are always grouped by ability, those who start at a disadvantage often stay behind, not because of potential, but because of opportunity.

A mastery-based approach to grouping would focus on collaboration and individualized challenges. Athletes could work in supportive pairs or small groups, encouraging peer learning rather than pure competition. Grouping would be fluid, designed to stretch each athlete’s capacity without confining them to a rigid ability tier. This all highly relates to an other element of BirdBox educational context on growth mindset.

E – Evaluation

Evaluation in CrossFit is largely quantitative: time, weight, reps, and scores. Success is measured against external benchmarks, encouraging athletes to compare themselves to others and to past records.

In a mastery climate, evaluation would focus on the process as much as the outcome. Coaches might measure progress through technical proficiency, adherence to training, or improvements in consistency. Video feedback, reflective practice, and progress journals could all be used to highlight learning, not just winning.

This does not mean abandoning metrics, but rather expanding evaluation criteria to include qualities that sustain long-term growth.

T – Time

Perhaps the most overlooked element is time. In CrossFit, time is fixed: WODs (workouts of the day) are standardized, speed is rewarded, and athletes are expected to progress within set timelines. This one-size-fits-all approach assumes uniform learning rates and ignores individual developmental differences.

Mastery-based coaching requires a more flexible approach to time. Not all athletes learn at the same pace, and forcing progression prematurely can stunt growth. Alternative coaching styles—such as individualized learning trajectories—allow athletes to develop progressively, at rates appropriate to their stage of learning.

This flexibility acknowledges that learning is not linear, and that respecting the athlete’s timeline ultimately produces deeper, more sustainable results.

Conclusion

CrossFit’s influence on the fitness industry cannot be overstated. Yet, its educational system reflects a performance climate that emphasizes outcomes, competition, and conformity. Epstein’s TARGET framework provides a roadmap for moving beyond performance and toward a mastery climate—one that values autonomy, growth, and individualized development.

If coaching is to evolve, it must embrace tasks that teach, authority that empowers, recognition that includes, grouping that supports, evaluation that values process, and time that respects individual learning curves. Only then will exercise coaching become not just about training harder, but about learning better.

If we consider the sheer volume of people currently doing CrossFit—and then compare it to the far greater number of people who need something like CrossFit—the implications become clear. With chronic disease continuing to rise due to physical inactivity and poor diet, our coaching models require serious reconsideration.

The challenge is not simply to deliver intense workouts, but to design systems that increase accessibility and support long-term exercise adherence across a broader population. After completing the MetFix seminar, I believe they are taking important steps in this direction by addressing both diet and exercise in a more holistic way.

Yet, if this approach were also coupled with coaching pedagogy, motivational climates, goal achievement theories, and a deeper emphasis on movement quality and mastery (elements that are educated here through BirdBox Coaching), we could witness a profound shift—not just in fitness culture, but in global health outcomes.

References

• Epstein, J. L. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 259–295). Academic Press.

• Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Little, Brown and Company.