A long time ago, in an economy far, far away (1954), Peter Drucker created Management by Objectives (“MBO”). This is how Drucker described effective goals:

In 1981, the term S.M.A.R.T. Goals was coined by George Doran in an article for Management Review:

The author stressed that it was a helpful frame of reference—not a rigid doctrine. Good luck with that, George.

It’s not hard to see why S.M.A.R.T. goals were appealing—there are literally half as many things to think about. Who doesn’t want less to think about? But consider what gets omitted.

You know, where all of the actual work, learning, and success or failure happen.

Let’s consider a hypothetical. Alex works in client success and has decided that to better serve his 30 clients, he should learn more about their histories and industries. So, he creates a S.M.A.R.T. goal for himself. Each day, for a month, read three articles about one particular client—company history, industry history, and industry current events.

Let’s consider the goal. It’s specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. It checks all the boxes. That is one S.M.A.R.T. goal!

But what if I told you that every day while he was reading those articles, clients were becoming more frustrated waiting on deliverables from him? Or that he was a bottleneck on a team project while focused on those articles? Or that his clients were transactional and had no interest in engaging with him in this way? Not so........

© Psychology Today