When SMART goals are not so smart

Setting SMART goals pervades business practice; goals need to be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely.

The recipe is seductive in its ease to apply, and as an instrument to measure, control and reward behavior, setting goals certainly seems to be the way to go. But what about unintended consequences? When are SMART goals not so smart?

Drastic Change is not the way our brains are wired. The brain only takes small incremental steps to change behavior and foster new habits, and it is highly protective of the safety of the status quo. Goals requiring substantial behavioral, attitudinal or thinking-pattern changes will be resisted by the self-protection mechanisms of the brain. We are programmed to seek rewards but more so to avoid the pain and discomfort of the unfamiliar and threatening. We are more loss averse than gain seeking. Setting goals in attainable steps and with incremental changes required, will more likely be achieved.

Stretch Goals setting a stretch challenge to employees, often demotivates. Although the SMART formula says “realistic”, “stretch” can so easily be rationalized by a pressured management corps as being “realistic” in the circumstances. When employees fail to reach stretch goals, their motivation plummets. Studies evidence that stretch goals are reached only about 10% of the time, creating a gap of potential demotivation in the remaining 90%. Goals set up the psychological polarity of success; a goal is reached 100% or not at all, so anything less is considered failure. When setting objectives, scrutinize carefully what is achievable, what is challenging and what is simply impossible.

Extrinsic Goals: Aligning personal goals with the broader goals of the enterprise may leave little room for ideals that are unique to the individual and intrinsically motivating. Numerous studies have shown that intrinsic rewards and goals are more motivating and sustainable than those extrinsic. By setting goals only in relation to company objectives managers may inadvertently create a short term motivational boost in which employees are driven by external milestones, bonuses and prizes - and not by the satisfaction of the work itself. Closer and more attuned merging of the extrinsic company and intrinsic individual goals can up the motivation of an employee immensely.

Abstract Goals may sound weighty and lofty with importance, but how easily can it be tracked and translated into actions? To be “the best in the industry” or “develop uncontested competitive advantage” might attract nods of agreement from stakeholders but what exactly is best and where is uncontested? Aiming for abstractions remains an elusive pursuit. Attaining a goal of which the result is measured, in itself motivates.  Better to leave lofty assertions for the company mission statement and set individual goals as grounded as possible.

Narrow Focus on goals is the gold standard of corporate activity. Nothing like the 18 hour a day worker intensely focused on achieving that which his superiors has set for him to achieve. But this may result in meaningful and related tangential activities left unexplored. The dogged pursuit of goals brings about a focus so narrow, relentless and intense, it detracts from the incidental events, activities and people that add to the meaning and joy of work. The journey may be forgotten in the strife for the destiny. Narrow focus may not only reduce work enjoyment, it can lead to inefficient work. In an interesting study students were asked to proofread a paragraph that was (purportedly) going to be used for college promotional purposes. The paragraph contained both grammatical and content errors. Students instructed to “do your best” on improving the text were more likely to detect both types of errors than those specifically instructed to find either grammar or content errors.

The process of goal setting is precarious and difficult, and may have unintended consequences. When next setting goals, think and discuss carefully whether drastic behavioral change will be required, whether the goal is a non-achievable stretch or an achievable challenge, the level of say the employee has in choosing and deciding on his goals, how grounded the objectives are, and whether there is sufficient latitude to enable some room for serendipitous achievement.

A fundamental starting point for anyone setting goals is to consider the philosophical and wise words of Hunter S. Thompson, written more than 50 years ago when he was 22 years of age:

“A man must choose a path which will let his abilities function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his desires. In doing this, he is fulfilling a need (giving himself identity by functioning in a set pattern toward a set goal), he avoids frustrating his potential (choosing a path which puts no limit on his self-development), and he avoids the terror of seeing his goal wilt or lose its charm as he draws closer to it (rather than bending himself to meet the demands of that which he seeks, he has bent his goal to conform to his own abilities and desires). In short, he has not dedicated his life to reaching a pre-defined goal, but he has rather chosen a way of life he knows he will enjoy. The goal is absolutely secondary: it is the functioning toward the goal which is important. And it seems almost ridiculous to say that a man must function in a pattern of his own choosing; for to let another man define your own goals is to give up one of the most meaningful aspects of life— the definitive act of will which makes a man an individual.”