SMART TARGETS

It’s a new year. I wish you a rewarding and joyful 2026. At this fairly arbitrary point in our journey round the sun, we habitually resolve to renew and redouble our efforts at work and on self-improvement. In this context, and in the equally arbitrary annual performance review cycle at work, we are often encouraged to use an approach using the acronym SMART, or real enthusiasts, SMARTER. A quick google suggests that SMART goals and objectives were first suggested by George T. Doran in 1981 in the November 1981 issue of Management Review (AMA Forum), in a paper titled “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives”. In the 45 years since then the acronym has gained two more letters and at least an additional fifty-seven choices for the initials. (I have seen all sixty two options being suggested, although not all at once.) Some of those stem from quibbling over whether ‘T’ stands for timed, time-oriented, time-framed, timebarred, time-limited or something tediously similar, but others illustrate a confusion over which ideas are important and where each of them goes. A target that is stretching, motivational, ambitious, resonant, transformative, enjoyable and rewarding is a long way from one that is specific, measurable, assignable, realistic and time-related. (the ‘T’ is always time-something, apart from in George’s name where it’s just a letter ‘T’.) Having two ‘R’s has not made things clearer. In his original paper, GTD describes how his novel approach will help incompetent managers describe objectives for their underlings. Presumably George spent the 70s being given vague, ill-defined, impossible goals to perform with no deadline. He talks about objectives. Objectives are goals or targets which when achieved are obvious to all, not subject to opinion or debate. A set of objectives may support a more vague aim, goal or aspiration. My goal might be ‘to be fitter’, to achieve this I may set a milestone of completing a marathon. Finishing a marathon would be an objective (although not a SMART one). It follows from this that the timescale of the objectives will be within that of the broader goal. Objectives are hence shorter or smaller than goals. (you can if you wish swap the terminology round, like John Doerr does in his book Measure What Matters, and have smaller ‘key results’ (that aren’t at the end) supporting ‘objectives’ (which aren’t objective). Other than the mind-bending vocabulary choices, it’s a good read.). Objectives, the first Mr D says, back in 1981, apply to companies, departments, and sections, rather than individuals. And they are set by the manager or supervisor. This is in contrast to the current fashion for self-evaluation and ownership. I wonder when the change happened and if it is backed by any kind of evidence. (Although common sense tells us that we don’t want individual minions owning vague, ill-defined, impossible, unfinishing tasks either. Having spelled out his 5 (and a half) magic words, he immediately clarifies that measurable doesn’t always mean quantifiable, as that wouldn’t be realistic, and not every objective will have all five attributes. And he concludes by emphasising the importance of an action plan to accompany a SMART objective. There’s a lot in the short article that seems reasonable and hard to argue against. Like the ‘L’ in ALCOA, everyone’s a supporter. Who is going to argue for illegible data or documents? Similarly who wants a vague target? In this short post, I have tried to point out what I think SMART targets were introduced to combat. In the early days of organisations trying to introduce the ideas in Peter Drucker’s Management by Objectives (MBO), and perhaps still today, some organisations are not totally clear on where they are heading and how they intend to get there. In part 2 of this piece, I will discus some potential pitfalls with using SMART targets that have become clear in the intervening 45 years.