Are SMART Objectives Really That Clever?

Ask any student of business and management about objectives and they will probably tell you that they need to be "SMART" in order to be effective. But has this notion served its useful purpose and does the concept of SMART objectives actually inhibit, rather than stretch, the goals of the individual or organization?

Whether you are an organization developing its goals to guide the business over the next few years, or a student mapping out your future career, you will probably start out by establishing some SMART objectives. This widely-used mnemonic disciplines the organization or individual to create objectives that encompass the following criteria:

• Specific - focused upon the precise requirements that are needed, rather than being too vague and broad;
• Measurable - able to be quantified, whether that is financial or non-financial, so that progress towards achieving the objective can be monitored;
• Achievable - not something beyond the abilities of the individual or organization at the current time;
• Realistic - rooted in reality and capable of being attained;
• Time-bound - achievable in a specific period of time, rather than allowing for an open-ended commitment.

SMART objectives are usually differentiated from goals and aims, because the latter are often characterized as being far broader in scope and less specific.

What makes an objective SMART?

On this basis, and all other things being equal, the following objectives might be considered SMART:

To achieve a 10% increase in sales of Product A, compared to like-for-like sales achieved at the end of the third-quarter last year, by the end of Q3, 2015.

To gain my sales and marketing qualification over the next six months and by the end of July and with a 75% pass rate, to enable me to start my job hunting campaign in the Autumn of 2015.

Assuming these hypothetical examples are realistic and achievable, and given the capabilities of the individuals and organizations concerned, then they would qualify as specific, measurable, and time-bound, and, therefore, SMART. As you can see, they give something to work towards and encourage a goal-directed focus that guides actions and activities to both strive towards and gain achievements that allow the individual or organization to develop.

Why would anyone disagree with that?

Some critics of SMART objectives have highlighted the fact that they actually limit or inhibit the organization or individual, rather than encourage them to stretch their performance to attain more. Some go so far as to suggest that SMART objectives are really just part of an obsolete management paradigm that considers the future as really looking much like the present and doesn't adequately acknowledge the scope for change.

They question why being specific is a good thing, when Apple's 'insanely great technology', led the organization to the cutting-edge of technological development and commercial success. Or that 'measurable' merely leads to mediocrity, because it encourages us to look at what we did in the past and just add something extra, like 10%! And as for 'achievable' and 'realistic', the individual isn't really tested to fulfil their potential, if all they do is set an objective that they know can be achieved, rather than push them to the next level of achievement.

There is a lot to be said for this argument.

So what are BHAGs?

One of the leading proponents of setting goals that encourage you to stretch yourself to achieve the impossible are management thinkers James Collins and Jerry Porras, who introduced BHAGs in their 1994 book entitled, 'Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies'.

BHAGs stands for "Big Hairy Audacious Goals" - usually pronounced as BEE-hags. In describing BHAGs, they explained that:

[a] true BHAG is clear and compelling, serves as unifying focal point of effort, and acts as a clear catalyst for team spirit. It has a clear finish line, so the organization can know when it has achieved the goal; people like to shoot for finish lines.

Collins and Porter differentiate between short-term BHAGs, that might relate to tactical goals relating to increasing sales or achieving qualification in a particular time-frame, whereas long-term BHAGs might steer the business towards achieving a goal that is twenty or thirty years in the future.

Some of the most inspiring BHAGs have been:

Organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. (Google)

A computer on every desk and in every home. (Microsoft)

This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. (President Kennedy talking about the race to the Moon)

Should we ditch SMART objectives?

No. They still remain a vital part of any personal development or strategy formulation process, but the critics of SMART objectives, and the lessons of BHAGs, do serve to encourage you not to be timid in setting those objectives, but instead be inspired by those who have chosen to aim beyond what was thought to be possible. A good example of this is Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, who wanted an electronic book reader that fitted in he palm of the hand and was affordable, his engineers said that it couldn't be done, but Bezos was insistent and the result is the Kindle.

So next time you need to draw up some objectives, whether corporate or personal, be bold and rather than say, "what did we do last time and add 10%", instead, say, "let's aim for the moon, because even if we miss, we'll land among the stars."

Good luck.

Will Trevor is the the Principal of York School of Business, offering sales and marketing qualifications via online distance learning. Please click ‘Follow’ if you would like to hear more from Will in the future. Feel free to also connect via his Linkedin page, or via Twitter and Facebook or email:[email protected]

Learn more about our sales and marketing qualifications at York School of Business: www.yorkschoolofbusiness.com