Why SMART Goals Aren't So Clever After All
Diving into goal-setting theory 2.0, exploring what's wrong, right and a way forward with SMART goals.
Following on from the popularity of last weeks blog “Why Performance Ratings Deserve a Performance Review”, I thought I would follow up with a deeper dive into it’s performance management bestie- SMART objectives.
Introduction
As an HR professional each year the conversation comes to performance management and specifically objective setting. The SMART objective acronym is everywhere, and I often rolled out this acronym as a gold standard of objectives. This is an internal dilemma for me as an HR professional. On the one hand, goal setting theory as set out by Lock & Latham demonstrate a value in goals and incentives to drive higher performance. Higher performance is the very thing that drives me as an HR professional and the value I bring to an organisation. Yet, each year, the completion of objectives is low, it disengages staff and is seen as a chore, put on them by HR. It costs an average manager 10- 20hrs of time and an employee at least 1-2hrs. This equates to £millions we spend in time alone each year on performance management. This does not even include the tools, HR support or training that goes into just the annual objective setting.
So what’s the clever way to do objective setting? It’s not necessarily SMART.
Origins and Shortcomings of SMART
Where does SMART come from? In 1981 George Doran wrote a short piece “There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives” in Management Review (Doran, 1981). This piece was not accompanied by references and pre-dates Lock & Latham’s work on Goal Setting Theory (Swann et al., 2022).
In reading Doran’s 1981 piece I already realise I may have been too binary in the application of SMART, he says "...that not all objectives must be quantified on all levels of management." Already SMART is ONLY a guide, and measurable is not always quantifiable. The "M" even states "quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress". Later on, Doran states "Practicing managers and corporations can lose the benefit of a more abstract objective in order to gain quantification”. So, Doran is already warning of the overuse and interpretation of the ‘Specific’ component.
What Does Goal-Setting Theory Actually Say?
Goal-setting theory as set out across Latham & Lock’s work shows that “a specific, challenging goal leads to higher performance” (Latham and Seijts, 2016) but this is context-specific and should not be applied universally (which we shall come to later).
Swann et al explore the redundancy and shortfalls of SMART concerning the empirical evidence on goal-setting theory. These include “measurable’ goals are already ‘specific, so there is little need for both terms’’ and “realistic and ‘achievable’ arguably redundant due to goal-setting theory stating challenging”. Using only realistic and challenging may lead to the target of challenging not being met.
Goal-setting theory has three primary relationships. “First, specific, challenging goal leads to higher performance than a specific, easy goal”, “second... the higher the goal, the higher the performance”, “Third, variables such as participation in decision making, competition, and knowledge of results only increases performance to the extent that they lead to the setting of a specific, high goal”. (Latham and Seijts, 2016)
But again, there are moderators to these three relationships that need to be considered. Ability to achieve the goal. Too easy and we don’t meet the “challenging” component, but too hard and “the relationship between goal difficulty and performance levels off”(Latham and Seijts, 2016). This is similar to the “challenge point” framework (Guadagnoll and Lee, 2004).
The second is “situational resources”, the person has to have the technology or investments needed to achieve the goal. Third and by no surprise is “commitment” and finally “feedback”.(Latham and Seijts, 2016)
Latham & Seijts set out different types of goals- performance, learning and behavioural.
Performance goals- these include generating goals such as 14% GMOI or 90% completion of appraisals completed.
Behavioural Goals- these are typically the “how” and accompany performance goals to moderate the “win at all costs” attraction of lone performance goals. They include how observable behaviours can be derived from performance goals or after feedback from exercises such as 360s.
Learning goals- these are aimed at enabling individuals to develop strategies in achieving goals. For example, “can you find 3 different ways to improve GMOI”.
When SMART Goals Fall Short
But when should goals be less specific, challenging & performance orientated? In more complex scenarios where the actions required to achieve the results are less clear to the individual and require “applying logic or skills in a staged or non-straightforward way” (Barends et al., 2016). This is in most leadership roles in knowledge-based industries. Here using performance goals can harm performance and focusing on learning and behavioural goals are more effectively linked to higher performance.
The second type of very Un-SMART goal is “do your best” goals (Barends et al., 2016). These more open-ended goals are ideal for novices. These open-ended goals are important for novices as they induce less stress unlike specific and challenging performance goals and allow for the exploration and enjoyment of exploring the tasks. This is especially valuable in developing a more active lifestyle (Swann et al., 2022).
Summary
The joy of “SMART” is that it is simple but was never set forward as an empirically sourced method of driving higher performance. Like many things in circulation it has face validity and is comforting to use. Although as leaders & HR practitioners we need to be able to understand the first principles of improving performance through goal setting.
As an individual, I might have many different styles of goals. Performance goals where there is a clear route to achieving them and I am beyond the novice state. Learning and Behavioural goals for complex and novel tasks at work. Then more open-ended goals for tasks that I am in a novice in ‘see how many words I can write on goal setting on a Sunday’.
The main recommendations are:
Don't rigidly apply SMART to all goals
Match goal specificity and challenge to employee ability and context
Use performance, learning, and behavioral goals together
Apply open-ended goals for novices
Ensure proper resources, feedback, and commitment enable goal achievement
References
Barends, E. et al. (2016) Could do better? Could do better? Assessing what works in performance management About CEBMa.
Doran, G.T. (1981) “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives,” Management Review, (70), pp. 35–36. Available at: https://community.mis.temple.edu/mis0855002fall2015/files/2015/10/S.M.A.R.T- Way-Management-Review.pdf (Accessed: March 26, 2022).
Guadagnoll, M.A. and Lee, T.D. (2004) “Challenge Point: A Framework for Conceptualizing the Effects of Various Practice Conditions in Motor Learning,” Journal of Motor Behavior, pp. 212–224. doi:10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212- 224.
Latham, G.P. and Seijts, G.H. (2016) “Distinguished Scholar Invited Essay: Similarities and Differences Among Performance, Behavioral, and Learning Goals,” Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 23(3), pp. 225–233. doi:10.1177/1548051816641874.
Swann, C. et al. (2022) “The (over)use of SMART goals for physical activity promotion: A narrative review and critique,” Health Psychology Review [Preprint]. doi:10.1080/17437199.2021.2023608/FORMAT/EPUB.