Setting objectives for your team : is SMART still smart management?
Alan Lambert
International strategic HR leader @TotalEnergies ?? ?? ???????????????????? ? Linkedin Talent Award??winner ? Stanford GSB LEADer
Sharing the business’ roadmap is a key element of the role of manager coach with your team to help them to understand the link between their objectives and the company’s goals and missions. Each team in the company contributes, at its level, to the overall strategy. When setting the operational objectives for the individuals in your team, take the time to explain how they contribute to your own objectives, and in turn how these contribute to the business strategy. In leading your team with a sense of purpose and meaning you will help them to align together collectively, and with the wider organization.
Formalizing the team’s objectives used to be thought of an annual process, part of the annual individual review. Peter Drucker’s 1954 book The Practice of Management introduced us to management by objectives to translate the organisation’s objectives to employees. The mnemonic SMART surfaced later in a 1981 issue of the Management Review written by George Doran, and is still largely used in organisations today, but I ask myself, is it still relevant in today’s world of volatile unknown complex and ambiguous business challenges?
S for Specific
For an objective to be clear, precise and explicit about the expected outcome, it is up to the manager-coach to explain the “why†and define the “whatâ€, the “whoâ€, the “whereâ€.
A significant limitation to this exercise is whether as the manager-coach you have received your own objectives in advance, whether you know what is expected of your team. You’ll also need to have a sufficient level of insight into the team to determine what elements of that can be delegated to the individuals based on their skill and motivations. Clearly a manager taking a new role in September and expected to set objectives for the following year during the October to November period for appraisals may leave you working a little blind having not been able yet to have a clear appreciation of the team’s abilities, and build the intimacy with each of them to know their motivational drivers.
The lack of clarity of expectations can clearly also depend on external factors outside the control of the manager. Whilst it is possible to be proactive in clarifying the team’s collective objectives with your own management in order to set specific individual objectives for your team, sometimes despite all the best intentions, it just isn’t possible to know in advance. For instance within a complicated project with macro-objectives and key activities defined in advance, the more granular detail of activities may not be known sufficiently clearly in advance to precisely cascade objectives to individuals in the team. Similarly, if the business strategy evolves so may a whole swath of projects or previously anticipated activities – perhaps what was originally planned gets shelved whilst a new set of projects is approved mid-year. Perhaps budgets get revisited and expectations ajusted. Often the objective setting is based on a calendar year whereas many strategic business decisions are announced based on investor relations communications, announcement of financial results, and internal executive and managerial business reviews or management conventions.
My impression of business in recent years is that this level of agility and adaptability to external markets, customer or stakeholder expectations, or market influences (not to mention black swan geopolitical events or a global pandemic…) is more and more the norm, and that therefore the role of the manager-coach is less about telling the individuals in the team what needs to be done, and more about helping and supporting their team in learning to operate with less clarity and precision than they may have been used to in the past, and coaching them to find their own solutions.
M for Measurable
When setting a measurable objective, as the manager you need to be able to project yourself forward, and define how you will know that the objective has been achieved. How will success be determined? How will the individual in your team be aware when the objective has been met? What would exceeding expectations look like?
A fundamental flaw in this step is that it relies on the solution or outcome to be determinable from the outset, for there to be a known way of implementing the objective. This may very well still be the case for some jobs, those for instance that are intrinsically normed in a set of internationally recognized methods or processes (finance for example) or industry best practices (certain engineering roles, or HSE for instance). In very many jobs today, however, the measure of the outcome is not fully known or understood from the outset, and can be organically determined along the way.
For instance, in implementing a change or process or practice, sticking rigidly to a clearly defined measurable in order to meet objectives on a short term basis (annual) may severely impact the medium term viability or adhesion to the project and cause significant difficulties in the longer term. The end goal and overall success for the business’ strategy or roadmap is what is the crucial outcome, and the manager coach needs to create a safe environment for their team, with sufficient trust and transparency to know that if they take a decision for the greater good of the larger goal they won’t be individually penalized in their performance review for not having met the defined measure of their objective.
A for Achievable
Think carefully about the constraints or potential obstacles and help the individual to consider the “howâ€, and be sure that they have the power to achieve the objective and aren’t reliant on a third party to succeed.
As a manager-coach you need to consider whether the individual has the skills they need to achieve their goal, and if not ensure that you put in place the resources that they need to ensure they do. This may be training, on the job peer to peer support, coaching. It may just mean being available and providing constructive feedback along the way to help guide their understanding of what is feasible and what isn’t.
A key shift I believe is the appreciation of what is achievable when appraising the outcome. Whilst previously there was a key focus on the deliverable there is, due to the increasing matrix nature of transverse working practices, a real need to focus much more on how the deliverable is achieved, or not, and understand why. With the increased focus on the manager’s role as a facilitator and coach to the individuals in the team, defining what is achievable and enabling the team to develop their talents to achieve it takes a greater importance. This often means having some shared responsibility in what is achievable, to help the individual to grow with your support or the mutual support of the team. What they may not be able to independently achieve in December shouldn’t always still be the case in the following November, as they should have progressed in the meantime. Often teams today find themselves working collectively rather than individually, and there is an increased interdependence and collaboration. Reliance on third parties is for many teams now the norm. As manager-coach you help the team to grow their interpersonal skills and collaboration techniques to overcome disagreements, obstacles or opposing perspectives with third parties.
R for Realistic
Whilst stretching the ability of the team member, it must still be within the realm of what is possible. As a manager-coach, help the individual to step back and recognize what their current capabilities are, and support their development by setting objectives that help them to grow and meet the objective. Over and above the developmental aspects, there are more pratical issues to think about in determining what is realistic. Ensure that you are both clear on what resources will be required to achieve the goal. Is the goal realistic in terms of their overall workload? Is there sufficient budget? Is the objective feasible?
The potential issues when determining whether an objective is realistic is the partial view you both may have on the workload for the coming months. Sometimes what should be a simple activity takes a complicated turn for the worse and mobilises much more time and resources to resolve than previously anticipated. It isn’t uncommon also to find the members of your team are drafted in by other teams to contribute to their projects or cross-functional activities that you didn’t set and perhaps weren’t informed about at the time of objective setting. Enable your team to determine their priorities based on what realistically can be delivered.
T for Time-bound
This should be the simple part : what is the deadline for the objective to be achieved, the “when� Yet, here again in a world of shifting priorities, changing activities, volatile market conditions and external influence, evolving or transforming strategies, sometimes even the “when†just isn’t clear cut either. There are so many variables in the what, when, who, and how, that the when can also be flexible.
The need for agility and transparency
For me, what is critical is not so much that the objectives are written scrupulously following a decades old tried an tested management mnemonic, but that the objectives are aligned to the organisation’s goals, mutually understood by the manager and the individual and that they make sense and motivate the individual to give their best efforts. Over and above their original definition, there is the need for agility and adaptability throughout the period for which they are set, to reappraise and adjust them as required, to review them regularly and transparently share and address any issues. The manager remains ultimately responsible for the activities in their team, and delegating objectives doesn’t discharge them of their responsibility to deliver. It is for the manager therefore to facilitate the work of the individuals in the team, help them to achieve and to gain experience, skills and knowledge in the process. When it comes to appraisal time, there should be no surprises, the manager and the employee should, thanks to consistent dialogue and feedback throughout the year, already share a view on the fulfilment of the objective.
So, with so much in today’s business world that renders SMART overly simplistic and rigid compared to the need for agility, why do so many organisations still use SMART? What alternatives are used in other companies? What methods do you use to set and monitor your objectives? Please share in the comments below, it is always great to engage with you.
Alan Lambert is an International HR leader currently working at the Corporate HR Strategy division of a global energy major
Continuous Improvement | Operational Excellence | Lean 6 Sigma | RPA | Business Process Automation
4 å¹´Alan Lambert Thank you for a great article and highlighting the importance of HOW tools like SMART are used. I've used SMART to set objectives but with emphasis on regular review (monthly or quarterly) to keep them relevant in the light of changing business goals/priorities.
Human Resources Director | People Director |HR Director |
4 å¹´100%, based on my experience, SMART objectives are often no longer fit for purpose in modern agile workplace
Excellent question! On my opinion, SMART objectives are perfect in a globally stable environment OR, if used in a versatile environment, split in micro, short-term objectives that should be readjusted or even replaced constantly. I'll see what initiatives or practices some of our customers have to share Alan, but from my own experience, a few thoughts: For a few decades, I've worked in large organisations and "our business world" was, I believe, in movement, but not with the same speed, amplitude and uncertainty that most of us are in right now. I was RAISED with SMART ofjectives, annual people & performance reviews, etc. And they were indeed best practices then. Fantastic also when serving a command & control management style. As the business owner of an SMB years later, I first intruduced those practices to the team. Even if we were in a dynamic of fast and strategic change, they helped a lot and the feedbacks from the team was very good. Then, we found ourselves in a brutal change environment, for some external reasons. We got rid of annual reviews, 12 months objectives etc. Only the search of maximum agility, building on our shared vision and human values, engagement, etc became the rule. Sharing our global plan, constant feed-back, and putting much more focus on helping every team member bring his/her best self to the table became the rule. The mindsets and human skils became vital, the medium & long term planning etc not so much, or even counter-productive. SMART objectives remained useful, but only for very short-term tasks and when replaced or readjusted constantly (sometimes weekly or daily!). I guess that most companies would take advantage of the "human & agilile" practices at the moment, even if there are of course big differences between global energy leaders - for instance - and startups!
Chief Compliance Officer | Legal
4 å¹´Clear ! Thx.
Director, Executive Education @ Harvard Business School
4 年Apparently in 1954, people needed an antidote to objectives that were vague, undefined, or impossible.?In that context, SMART makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, like so many management tools, people got focused on following the acronym mechanically, rather than concentrating on the spirit of the thing.?As a result, a few things tended to happen: 1.????Managers set objectives that are easily gauged with existing metrics, even if they don't truly reflect what's most important for the unit/person to accomplish. 2.????Managers either pretend whatever goal they want to set is realistic and achievable, or they set a very low bar that doesn’t challenge anyone. 3.????Managers hold people to formal goals, even if they don’t make sense anymore when the time comes to evaluate them. Collins and Porras coined the term BHAG (Big, Hairy, Audacious Goal) to encourage people to take on important stuff that might be hard to define and where success isn’t guaranteed. That makes sense if you want to drive major change. Of course, there’s also stuff that isn’t huge and sexy, but still needs to get done.?Some companies get so caught up in pursuit of BHAG’s, that people stop doing the things it takes to keep the lights on. Amabile’s Progress Principle tells us that we need to break goals down into smaller chunks over shorter time periods, so that people can see success along the way and stay engaged.?That makes a ton of sense, when you consider the emotional experience of work.?But, the chunking of goals and the timing of review still leave other open questions as to the substance and strategic context. MIT's Don Sull says goals should be FAST: Frequently assessed, Ambitious, Specific, and Transparent. That's kind of cool. You can find goal setting acronyms called CLEAR or DUMB. I don't love the idea of telling managers to do something dumb, but you can google it if you want. Any model or acronym is going to emphasize some good things at the expense of others. Like Ike’s famous quote about plans and planning, the value is in getting people to think critically about goals, rather than some magically perfect wording of the goals. Any model that helps people do that, can be useful.? But, just for fun, here’s a new acronym of my own:: Grounded in Reality Important to the Business Flexible as Conditions Change Tied to Required Resources and Support