“A goal properly set is halfway reached.” – Zig Ziglar
For more than three decades, the SMART acronym has provided a clear and supposedly simple framework for setting goals ‘properly’. It is the most popular method of goal setting in the world today, largely because it attempts to simplify what can be a difficult task – developing effective performance or achievement objectives. SMART goal setting criteria can supposedly be used by anyone, anywhere, without the need for any training or tools. But is this actually the case?
In my experience over a decade of training individual employees and work groups to write their annual performance and development goals, SMART goal setting is not as easy or straightforward as it might seem. Let’s take a look at some of the most common difficulties people encounter in trying to apply each of the SMART criteria.
Specific
It appears that “the devil is in the detail.” Some people have trouble visualising the end result of a project or objective in detail at the outset, particularly in today’s fast-paced, global, 24/7 business environments where change is a constant. Others may be uncomfortable with the accountability that a prescriptive outcome brings. Whatever the reason, many people have trouble being specific when it comes to personal goal setting.
This is particularly true when it comes to specifying the outcome of goals. I have observed that it is easier for people to be specific about what they need to do to accomplish a goal, than it is for them to be specific about the desired outcome of their actions. By very definition, a goal must have an end result or outcome that one must strive to achieve. Therefore, it should reflect that end, not just the means to the end. For example, “complete the monthly budget report” is a task that a finance employee presumably should already have the skills and ability to complete. It is an activity, not a goal. However, in thinking about why the monthly budget report must be completed, it becomes possible to reformulate the goal to “provide accurate, timely financial information to support management decision making and resource allocation” – which is a specific outcome towards which completing the monthly budget report contributes, presumably among other tasks. All too often, people confuse the outcome of a goal with the tasks or activities required to achieve it, producing a performance plan that consists more of a specific list of tasks and activities than a coherent set of specific, outcome orientated goals. Perhaps the ‘R’ in SMART should also stand for ‘Results Orientated.’
Finally, a goal is supposed to be more likely to be achieved when it is written in specific terms, because the outcome can more readily be visualised. However, even when someone is able to develop a specific results-orientated goal, that doesn’t necessarily mean that goal is vivid or meaningful for them, or captures their heart and mind in a way that makes its achievement more likely. Perhaps the ‘M’ in SMART should also stand for ‘Meaningful.’
Measurable
Ensuring goals are measurable makes it possible to track progress against the goal, and to know when it has been achieved. However, not everything worth achieving is easily measurable. This can result in measures being set that are not well suited to the outcome being assessed, or in work teams and organisations spending disproportionately large amounts of time, money and effort creating new measurement tools and systems , instead of directing these resources into the work itself.
Further, performance measures and objectives can sometimes conflict. For example, in a call centre, a productivity measure of how many calls are made within a specified time period could result in an unwanted drop in customer service standards.
Finally, in my experience, qualitative measures of performance are too often overlooked. People seem to be more comfortable with quantitative measures (countable amounts such as dollar values, percentages, completion dates), perhaps because they provide very straightforward and objective assessments of performance – either the numerical performance standard was achieved or it wasn’t. The problem is that not all aspects of work can be easily measured in number based terms. Therefore, it is important for people to understand how to set performance targets that are based on qualitative measures of their work, such as feedback from key stakeholders, which although more subjective, is still extremely valuable. Facilitating this requires strong workplace feedback cultures where giving, receiving and seeking performance related feedback is the norm and something that is comfortable for people, rather than something uncomfortable and to be avoided.
Achievable
A goal is generally considered achievable for someone if they have the capability (required knowledge, skills and abilities), access to the resources needed, a realistic time frame and achievement of the goal is not influenced by external factors over which they have no control. These are all factors worthy of consideration. However, in my experience, this SMART criterion can cause people to set goals that are well within their comfort zone and fail to provide sufficient challenge to motivate or engage them. This can stifle creativity and innovation and result in mediocre performance. Research consistently demonstrates that setting specific but difficult goals is a more effective way of driving performance. Yes, goals should be achievable, but they should also challenge and stretch people out of their comfort zones. This is how people learn and develop, and achieve the best results. With conviction, passion, perseverance and a willingness to develop and learn new skills, it is possible for even seemingly unrealistic goals to be achieved! Perhaps the ‘S’ in SMART should also stand for ‘Stretch’.
Relevant
In some versions of the SMART acronym, the ‘R’ stands for ‘Realistic’. However, because this is so similar to ‘Achievable’, another version has evolved which uses ‘Relevant’ instead to highlight that employees must align their individual performance goals with (1) the key result areas in their position description, and (2) the broader business unit and organisational strategic and operational objectives. Without this alignment, employees will struggle to get the support and resources they require for achievement of their goals, and organisations will fail to harness the efforts of their people to achieve their strategic business objectives.
Unfortunately, in my experience, employees’ position descriptions are often outdated and/or employees are unfamiliar with the higher level strategic and operational plans that are relevant to their work. Even when higher level strategic objectives are known, employees often struggle to draw connections between these lofty statements and what they do on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Without training, assistance, or considerable goal setting experience, most people find it very difficult to translate strategic objectives, or even their own key results areas, down to the level of their own individual goals. Perhaps the ‘A’ in SMART should also stand for ‘Aligned.’
Time-bound
Setting a time frame for goal completion helps people to focus and organise their time, energy and resources to increase the likelihood of goal accomplishment. But sometimes, it is not possible to set a realistic time frame for the completion of an objective until after you start, figure out what the objective involves, and see how things unfold. So applying this SMART criterion can force people to set ‘guesstimated’ artificial deadlines which, if inaccurate, can damage their reputations and work-life balance, and reduce the quality of their deliverables and business outcomes. Some other goals may be ‘timeless’ in that they are ongoing. For example, “maintain high levels of customer satisfaction.” Either way, just because you can’t definitively pin down a time frame for a goal doesn’t mean you can’t start working on it.
Further, because time frames are probably the easiest type of performance measure to set, many employees assign them to their goals and think that this alone makes them measurable. While adherence to time frames can indicate that a task or activity required to achieve a goal has been completed, it usually doesn’t measure whether or not that task or activity achieved what it was intended to. For example, consider the goal statement “Improve staffing strategies by conducting a review of recruitment and selection policy by 3rd July.” Just because the policy review is completed by the 3rd July doesn’t mean that any resulting recommendations actually improved staffing strategies. In other words, a time frame is often not a good measure of goal outcome. Other measures are required in addition to time frames, but these are sometimes overlooked.
Finally, I have observed a tendency for employees to set timeframes only in relation to each single goal, and not in the context of their entire performance plan. While a goal of mid-September might be realistic for a single goal, if you have other goals due around a similar time, then that timeframe might not be so realistic after all.
Conclusion
As a starting point and a guide to goal setting, SMART remains a useful framework, but it does not necessarily simplify the process of goal setting. It is not always straightforward to write SMART goals, and in fact, the SMART criteria may be too onerous for setting simple goals because it is not always practicable for every goal to reflect all 5 criteria. For example, not everything worth achieving is measurable, and it is not always possible to set a realistic time frame for a goal upfront.
Conversely, the cookie cutter approach of SMART is somewhat prescriptive and limiting for more complex objectives, which may need to reflect more than these 5 criteria in order to be effective. After all, the world of work has evolved significantly over the past three decades since SMART goal setting was introduced. These days, in addition to being specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound, performance goals also need to be aligned, meaningful, results orientated, challenging, developmental, flexible, and owned by the employee. This adds further complexity to SMART goal setting, which perhaps should look more like this:
| S | Specific | Stretch |
| M | Measurable | Meaningful |
| A | Achievable | Aligned |
| R | Relevant | Results Orientated |
| T | Time-bound |
Many employees require guidance and training to be able to effectively apply the SMART criteria to their own individual and team goal setting endeavours. It is also time to expand the meaning of the SMART acronym, and apply it more flexibly to setting goals, if it is to continue to serve us well in an increasingly competitive, fast-paced, global and complex business world.
Do any of these challenges with SMART goal setting resonate with you? Are they reflected in your employees’ performance goals? Consultrain provides practical training workshops that cover the SMART criteria but also move beyond it towards a more flexible and comprehensive approach to goal setting. Participants receive assistance from the facilitator and each other to write their own stretch goals and measures for their work and professional development, that align with the broader strategic and operational objectives of their work team and organisation. Consultrain can also facilitate strategic planning events for work groups. If these services could benefit your business, contact Adele on 0412 683 759 or at adele@consultrain.com.au.