It is possible to set targets that comply with the SMART pattern and still find that, when achieved, we are not meaningfully further forward. The step taken may be too small, or simply in the wrong direction.
None of the letters, S, M, A, R, or T, requires that the objective contributes to a larger goal.
“By the year 2076, I shall earn at least 50 pence”. Too small.
“By December, I will be able to play three new songs on the flute”. Not something your employer is likely to value, unless you are in a band. And does it matter which songs?
This gap is why, traditionally, managers set targets. These days, there is often an unspoken requirement: your target must be acceptable to your manager. In effect, a different “A”, acceptable, has replaced assignable.
However, by asking individuals to set their own targets, organisations are inviting their workers to contribute to painting the “big picture”. That can be a good idea, but only if people are told what that big picture is, and what their role within it should be.
SMART goals emerged from a more top-down, waterfall-style era of management. The organisation sets a high-level intention. This is translated at senior level into a clear destination. Middle management then determines how to get from here to there: what needs to be done, when, and with what dependencies. Front-line management translates this into operational detail—who does what, when, and how coordination will work.
Eventually, we reach the operational staff, the people holding the paintbrushes (we’re painting a big picture). If they are expected to propose their own SMART targets, they need access to all of the information described above. Without it, the exercise becomes guesswork. If you keep them in the dark…, well, we’ve reached the end of the analogy.
There is also a need for oversight. Proposed SMART targets should be reviewed and aligned. This is not merely bureaucracy; it is a core part of management. Or at least it is in hierarchical organisations in the world of W. Edwards Deming.
There is substantial evidence that measuring behaviour, the “M” in SMART, changes behaviour. That is, after all, the point of targets. However, the changes induced are not always the ones intended, and are not always beneficial.
A specific target in one area can lead people to neglect other important aspects of their work, especially where pay or job security is tied to performance. Attempting to mitigate this by setting targets for every aspect of work is unrealistic and risks exhausting people.
There is also a philosophical assumption embedded in SMART: that work can be broken down into small, clearly defined components in advance. Applied universally, this would shape workplace culture in a very particular way: one with limited space for uncertainty, exploration, responsiveness, agility, or learning. Not all work can, or should, be defined in this way.
The original “T” in SMART, time-related, is defined as ‘specify when the results can be achieved’. This is sometimes taken to mean set a deadline. In practice, it is more nuanced. Research suggests several useful time-related considerations: maintaining a balance between short-, medium-, and long-term goals; addressing goals at the right moment (neither too early nor too late); ensuring that simple goals do not drag on indefinitely; and setting milestones for longer-term objectives. Additionally, targets and milestones must also be realistic within the time available to those responsible.
Another common issue is that SMART targets tend to fall inconsistently into two categories: maintenance or development. Are we ensuring acceptable performance, or aiming for excellence? Over time, do expectations continually increase, or is it acceptable to sustain last year’s level of performance?
For routine work, SMART goals can sometimes reinforce monotony. In such contexts, they risk becoming a mechanism for maintaining the status quo rather than driving progress. Or alternatively lead to a situation where everyone will eventually break world records.
In summary, SMART goals are not a universal solution. They do not guarantee meaningful progress in all situations. However, they do have their place.
They can be particularly useful when supporting inexperienced or underperforming team members, where clarity and structure are essential. They are also effective when a manager needs to set a clear direction for a team.
In situations where a team or department has become dysfunctional, SMART goals can help replace vague, hidden, impossible, or ownerless expectations that meander on forever. There are few supporters for being anti-SMART. Which is good because VHIOF is a rubbish acronym.
Perhaps it is useful to think of an alternative to SMART for a less hierarchical age. Some targets might instead be MASCOTS: meaningful, achievable, specific, challenging, objective, timed, and significant.
In Part 3, I will explore these ideas further and outline additional considerations for effective goal setting in the context of line management.
