Download Article

You can download this article in PDF format by clicking on the following link:

Download the Article

Please feel free to pass this article on to your colleagues.

Setting goals & delegating using smarter SMART

Improving accountability and the likelihood of completion

Written by: Andrew Vincent, Medicology Ltd. Published: 3rd June 2010

The SMART framework or mnemonic forgoal setting has been around for a very longtime and there are a great many versions ofwhat the letters stand for. Without question,setting goals or delegating in a structuredmanner helps goal achievement but wethink that the framework needs someoptimisation if you are going to derive thefull value. We propose a version amendedfrom the commonest representation thatmay yield greater accountability in thosebeing asked to achieve SMART goals orundertake work delegated to them.

Understanding the SMART framework in overview
The origins of SMART are largely unknownbut a system very similar to it was describedby the management scholar Peter Druckerin his 1954 work entitled The Practice ofManagement. Since that early formaliseddescription its use has become universal inthe setting of goals and objectives.The table below outlines the most commonly usedterminology, against which we have addedour own proposed amendments.

Understanding the Components of SMART

SPECIFIC
Especially relevant when setting goals andobjectives with individuals, the purpose of‘specific’ is to ensure that the meaning of thegoal is explicitly understood. Another wayof looking at this is to ask yourself “if I gavethis goal to 10 different people, how manymeanings would I get back?” A good goalhas comparatively little variation in meaningfrom one person to the next, despitedifferent knowledge and skills, differentpersonalities, different agendas or differingseniority. The skilled goal setter places agreat deal of emphasis on providing a robustand sufficiently unambiguous description ofthe goal to ensure it gets achieved exactly asplanned, nothing more, nothing less.

MEASURABLE
An important component of the planning,implementation, review and subsequentplanning revision process for achievingprojects and goals is assessing progresstowards the goal. Consequently, it is vitalthat stages or milestones, along with anyperformance indicators are built into thegoal. Core to successful achievement isknowing where you are against your goalplan, so that you may ascertain whetheryou are ahead or behind plan and in thelatter case whether you need to engage indifferent or extra activity to catch up.

ACHIEVABLE
Goals should be attainable (which is alsoused as the A representation) i.e. that youcan create a reasonable plan to get there.However, what defines attainability? Twopeople could be perfectly capable ofattaining a goal but one may believe theyare not. Equally, one may formulate a planthat appears difficult to implement. Onthe flip side, setting goals that are easilyattainable tends to reduce their motivationpull and close off the goal setter to greaterpossibilities. However, from our perspectivethere is too much overlap betweenattainable and realistic, which follows,suggesting to us that one or the other needsadapting.

REALISTIC
When Roger Bannister ran a mile in 3minutes 59.4 seconds he achieved whatnobody thought was possible or realistic.However, his record lasted just 6 weeksbefore being beaten by John Landy inFinland and so started a psychologicallandslide – it was possible to run a sub-4-minute mile. Within a couple of years 16people had broken the same record. Whenyou are setting goals, it is vital that thegoal recipient believes they can completethe goal or this undermines the wholepossibility. However, this is a delicate balancebecause we know that an easy to achievegoal lacks the motivational pull necessaryto overcome inertia. The only true markerof realism is whether it has been achievedbefore and even that is debatable asRoger Bannister proves. We believe that aneffective goal setter picks a goal outcomethat is stretching but within grasp withthe right plan and effort. Caution needsexercising around technical capability,timescales, resources, competing interestsand confidence, balanced with helping thegoal recipient see possible roads ahead ongoals that are especially stretching.

TIME-BOUND
If I decide to lose 10 kilos in weight it servesas an enticing goal that conforms to allelements of SMART with the exception ofa hard stop in time. That time point is vitalbecause without it I can be continuallyworking towards my weight loss targetwithout ever actually reaching it and yetwhen I hold the mirror up I can legitimatelyclaim I am simply still on the road andhaven’t failed. A distinct time point focusesthe mind not only on what has to happenbut forces it to consider the timelinestoo. Goals with a time scale are far morelikely to be achieved than those without.Furthermore, the timeframe is oftennecessary to coordinate goals in a biggermaster plan. Distinct dates prove better thanstated periods i.e. by 1st July 2009 is betterthan ‘in one month’, because one month onyou can still be working towards your goalwith one month still to do – the equivalentof not really having a timescale in the firstplace, whereas there is no flexibility in thehard and specific date.

Proposed amendments: Smarter SMART

From ACHIEVABLE to AGREED
We believe that the meaning most peopleattach to ACHIEVABLE is broadly similarto that of realistic and yet SMART as awhole fails completely to deal with theaccountability issue – to have a goal doesnot mean you will work towards it. Wepropose an amendment to AGREED becausein reality there is so much that does needagreeing. When setting a goal with someoneit is important to ascertain or agree thefollowing:

• Do they understand the goal?
• What approach might they take?
• Do they believe they can achieve the goal?
• Are there any barriers to achievement and how can these be overcome?
• Do they have sufficient training or skills to achieve the goal?
• Will the proposed activity deliver the desired outcome?
• Is this the right goal in the bigger picture?
• What will the monitoring & feedback process look like?

It is only when this has been agreedwith someone that they are likely to seethemselves as genuinely accountablefor the goal and therefore compelled toachieve it. Furthermore, by agreeing theabove, you have checked understanding,broken down any issues with realism,created a monitoring framework that servesboth parties and determined an outlineway forward. This removes much of theuncertainty around goal attainment andrepresents a worthy amendment.

THE ADDITION OF PLUS
Realism is sometimes replaced with ‘relevant’and we have some sympathy with theimportance of someone believing the goalis rightfully theirs and important for whatthey do. However, dropping realism inpreference to relevance is an unpalatableoption because the importance of believingsomething is possible is well established.We prefer to approach this issue by adding a‘plus’ element to SMART, naturally indicatingthat there is ‘more’. This plus constituentconsists of two distinct parts:

• Why the goal is important
• How success will be recognised

The first element delivers against relevancein that it ensures the recipient understandshow the goal contributes to the biggerpicture and fits into the scheme ofeverything else to be done. Furthermore,by demonstrating the absolute benefitachieved through the goal, motivationis increased and the goal receives theappropriate focus and prioritisation.Essentially it ensures that the goal recipientis committed to the goal both by seeingthe possibilities beyond the goal as well asunderstanding the consequences of notachieving it.

The second element involves asking aquestion around what evidence may befound when the goal is being achievedsuccessfully. This is a useful conceptbecause it not only clarifies the specificnature of the goal but also helps peopleidentify what must be done for the goalto be achieved and provides a basis forperformance management against the goalby highlighting suitable measures.

The final word
Are there any further amendmentsneeded? In truth, we can find a further17 representations of the letters withoutconsidering combinations. Howevermost appear to be either derivativesof the established representations orrequire a fundamental departure fromrepresentations that have been shown to bevital in nature. We draw the conclusion thatfurther amendments might result in a lossof usefulness and consequently should beresisted. The proposed singular amendment,coupled with an important addition,complete the framework’s true purpose –enhancement of goal achievement. Whatis more difficult to fathom is that given theuniversal support for SMART, how can weembed this into practice?