S.M.A.R.T. GOALS ARE DUMB!!

It's a fair bet to say, if you haven't heard about SMART goals, you've probably been hiding under a rock. Just in case you're one of the rare few who haven't, it's an acronym for setting goals that is prevalent in corporate America, self-help books, and the ubiquitous New Year's articles about preparing for your resolutions.

The problem is, it doesn't work. It's about as much use as a chocolate fireman. It's probably the reason why 93% of people who make New Year's resolutions have given up on them by the third week of January.

To make matters even worse, there's been zero scientific research into the acronym itself. None. In fact, Harvard referred to it as "banal."

Washington Water Company

So, how did we end up here?

To begin with, SMART was never designed to set or achieve goals.

It was a guideline for managers created by a consultant and former employee named George T. Doran, who was brought in by management due to communication breakdowns between what management wanted and what the employees were producing.

After discussing with both sides, George developed an acronym for management when outlining projects they wanted completed.

Management needed to make the tasks they expected to be done Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely. Now, while that's a great method for outlining management directives to make sure employees knew exactly what was expected of them, it had nothing to do with setting or achieving goals.

My guess is that someone moved on to another company, mentioned it in a meeting, and it spread throughout corporate America, becoming a goal-setting method adopted by consultants and self-help gurus.

Setting Versus Achievement

Please explain to me why anyone cares whether you set goals. Setting a goal means absolutely nothing. I can set thousands a day, and so what? Intention means nothing without action.

What's important is whether or not you ACHIEVE your goals, and yet how many books are there on goal setting? How many articles do you see every Christmas on not forgetting to "set your goals?"

This is why nobody ever sees them through.

A computer showing a screen with goals 2020 on it to show the importance of performance coacvhing.

M & T Are Redundant

The acronym itself is flawed, at least when it comes to achieving goals. Why? Let's break it down.

We've all heard that general goals don't work. "I need to lose weight" or "I need to make more money" aren't effective because if you lose an ounce and find a dollar, respectively, you've achieved your goals.

If they're to work, we've been told they need to be specific. Using our above examples, we should be writing "I need to lose 25 pounds/stone by Christmas" or "I need to make 185 thousand dollars by the end of the third quarter."

So far, so good. They're definitely specific. Here's the problem, though. That specificity makes the M and the T in S.M.A.R.T. redundant, doesn't it?

Woman holding old jeans after hypnotic weigh loss

Specificity

The M in SMART stands for "measurable," remember? And the T stands for "Timely."

Well, I'd submit in the weight loss example, the 25 pounds is your measure.

And I'd submit in the money version it's the 185k

What about the Time factor in both? That's easy. In the weight loss example, we said "Christmas," and in the financial one, we said "end of the 3rd quarter."

SAR

So, if specific means we can eliminate the M and the T in the acronym, that leaves us with SAR.

Let's not forget that the original version wheeled out by the corporate trainers and gurus was the A was for "Achievable" and the R was for "Realistic."

I know. There have been several versions of those, but they were the original deviation from what George came up with.

So, here's the 24,000-dollar question. How can the goal be one of those and not the other? I'll wait.

If it's achievable, then it has to be realistic. And, if it's realistic, how could it possibly not be achievable (or attainable or whatever other variation the trainers have come up with?)

A puppy with a tilted head illustrating the inane SMART goals

That means one of those letters is redundant. Now, the goal could literally be boiled down to Specific and Achievable, and it would be exactly the same as SMART.

Let's look. I take my original goal of wanting to lose 25 pounds by Christmas. It's specific and it's achievable (assuming it's at least 14 weeks before Christmas). I apply SMART, it's precisely the same. It's specific - I need to lose 25lbs by Christmas. It has a measure of 25lbs. It's attainable. It's realistic and it's time-bound by Christmas.

Scrabble tiles spelling success for Nick Hughes coaching article on why SMART goals miss the mark

Where's Achievement In SMART?

Here's another big problem. Where in the acronym is there any mention of achieving the goal? Again, I'll wait.

There's nothing in the acronym that mentions anything about actually seeing the goal through to its conclusion.

How moronic is that? Do you think that might have something to do with why over 95% of people aren't achieving their goals and have given up on them by the 3rd week of January?

No. Do yourself a huge favor and give the ubiquitous SMART goal system a big swerve. I'm not here to plug my book, but if you want a system that's actually been researched scientifically on how to achieve your goals, go grab "ASPIRE" because "SMART" goals are dumb."