S.M.A.R.T. Goals Are D.U.M.B.

"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 S.M.A.R.T. anymore. In fact, you might even call it, "D.U.M.B." (Dubious Utility Measuring Bullsh*t)."

Peter Drucker created Management by Objectives in 1954. In 1981 George Doran coined the term S.M.A.R.T. Goals and defined Specific, Measurable, Assignable (later Achievable), Realistic (later Relevant), and Time-related. The S.M.A.R.T. frame was intended as a helpful reference rather than a rigid doctrine. The S.M.A.R.T. approach is appealing because it reduces variables to consider, but it omits critical elements: participatory processes, action plans, prioritization, alignment, and revisitation. A hypothetical example shows a S.M.A.R.T. learning goal that satisfied criteria yet caused client delays, team bottlenecks, and misalignment; such goals can produce dubious utility. Some favor OKRs for greater aspiration and less prescription.

Read at Psychology Today