Goals

Recently, I found myself, like many others, in the position of trying to define my goals for the upcoming year. Albeit this was different to other organisations where they were set for me – my job was merely to accept. But I was asking myself questions like;

• Is setting my own goals what I should be doing? Are they genuinely my goals, or the goals of the company?
• Do SMART goals work for me? If so, why does it feel like they don’t?
• What is the difference between a goal and an objective, and do they both need to be SMART
• What does it feel like they are cast in stone? Why is it so common, and acceptable, to set them after they are complete?
• Why should there be short-, medium- and long-term objectives when the review cycle is yearly?

I couldn’t be the only one asking myself these questions [every year]. Turns out that I am not! Hurrah! – but I appear to be part of a minority that questions the validity of SMART goals.

My first question I will explore at some later time. My observation is that employees’ personal aspirations are not always in line with those of their employers.

On my second question, an MIT paper addressed my second question directly; simply put, for non-predictable or creative roles, SMART is not as applicable.

BOOM! SMART is less applicable where organisational or customer demand could fundamentally change. A world where the funnel of work is dynamic, and may, or may not, change, was not conducive to SMART goal setting since;

1. The work can stop or change course suddenly as priorities change. To achieve an objective that achieves a goal that no longer exists is futile.
2. Objectives that are at a level that is achievable and realistic are not specific enough to be measurable.
3. Measurable outcomes of work can lag the actual work by some significant, and unknown, time. Outcomes may negate, or aggregate with, other initiatives. These initiatives may also have outcomes that lag the work by varying amounts of time. Measurements, therefore, can not be isolated to any specific contributor.

What does this mean? Timeliness is clearly important in the review cycle. Reviews should occur at a frequency shorter than a typical initiative—such as during an agile release or a sprint—or they should happen when work is completed or a decision is made to stop, as in Kanban. It is definitely not effective to adhere to the (bi-)annual cycles that are commonly used.

Increased feedback frequency allows for the opportunity to change objectives. When objectives shift, new measurements need to be established. However, the question remains: what measurements are truly valuable over these shorter timeframes?

It was some weeks later that I happened across an article. It proposes FAST as an alternative to SMART. BUT, aside from one key point, they are interchangeable [in my view].

Frequently discussed. – OK, this addresses one of the concerns above. But does not distinguish it from SMART, it is possible to do reviews at whatever frequency you like. FAST makes it explicit

Ambitious. – Combines achievable and realistic in a single term. It has connotations of a little more stretch in its meaning. Both variants would need to be time-bound to be meaningful. In this case, SMART is more explicit.

Specific. – Shared between FAST and SMART. The association with measurement is implicit in both SMART and FAST. Although SMART does make specific mention of it. In both cases, the problems with measurement in the shorter review cycles remain the same.

Transparent – The gamechanger, and worthy of further discussion

With SMART, everyone has goals, defined by either the individual or the organisation. But no one else gets to see what they are;

• Are they comparable to peers?
• Do they correlate, or conflict with team and corporate goals?
• Does everyone agree that they are achievable, given the current backlog of work?

FAST encourages open discussions about goals, which increases the frequency of feedback. When goals are hidden, individuals may struggle to develop a realistic plan for achieving them. However, when objectives are shared openly, others can offer input on how to reach those goals or assess their feasibility. This approach makes goal setting a team effort. Ultimately, everyone aligns their efforts, becoming invested in each other’s progress, whether as individuals or as part of a team.

If transparency facilitates frequency, what else is needed? Relevance! This is also a byproduct of the conversations that arise from transparency. Relevance involves aligning individual goals with team goals, which then align with business unit goals and ultimately corporate goals. It is influenced by the knowledge and capabilities of individuals and teams, which in turn affects the quality of their contributions to higher-level goals. These higher-level goals should have well-defined and consistent metrics for measurement. The challenge, then, becomes how to quantify contributions, presumably as a percentage. Currently, I have no empirical evidence to support this.

Now, why does the review process occur on an annual basis? The simple answer is that it follows corporate reporting timelines, such as annual reports. Organizational objectives tend to change (or remain the same) on a yearly cycle, which has become an arbitrary trigger for “goal-setting” discussions. This practice needs to change! Corporate goals are what they are at any given time, and the relevance of individual goals should be assessed based on the review period of the individual, not the organization as a whole.

Annual reports also dictate investment cycles and the overall budget for the company, including the budget allocated for staff promotions. Historically, in many organizations, this budget has been used all at once during promotion rounds, benefiting only a select few. Performance reviews and promotions should not be linked to financial cycles but rather to the quality of performance. Managers should recognize that funds for promotions are available throughout the year to reward employees who are ready to advance whenever possible. If there are high-quality staff members deserving of promotions, budget constraints should not hold them back. The only limitation should be ensuring that funds are not depleted too quickly. If they are, that indicates a budgeting issue. Those in the human resources department may need to better recognize the value of their staff and allocate budgets accordingly.

Takeaways.

Forget SMART, and forget FAST. Focus on Transparency and Relevance. Break the link between budget (cost) and promotions (quality). Slow-moving organisational and financial cycles are only of benefit to shareholders or the taxman, NOT employees.

Beyond personal goals, re-read this in the context of organisational goals, and you will see similar themes.