Why use SMART Goals?

Earlier this week, we covered why goals are important.

Even if you accept the proposition that goals are useful, you might wonder, "but why SMART goals?"
I asked that question on LinkedIn last year. Here are some of the responses I received. I also highlighted some comments that I found particularly useful:

• "The SMART philosophy is extremely useful. If you think about why major projects fail, it is because goals were not specific or measurable, and therefore not achievable or relevant because of the ambiguity and lack of result verification. Projects can also go on for months and years past the expected delivery date because specific deliverables were not identified and "time-bound" and/or resources were not properly allocated and dedicated to make them achievable and/or deliverables were not embraced and implemented which rendered them irrelevant."
• "I used SMART Criteria at work plus in my day to day life. I find it very useful to stay focused and see the progress and what I can do next time to improve."
• "I have used SMART goals for the last 8 years or so as it relates to variable incentive goals and personal goals on performance appraisals. The challenge is to have the measurements for goals tracked for at least a quarter before the goal period begins. This way accurate baselines are established. This is generally the weakest area of this system as I see at least one goal without historical measurements in place. Otherwise, this approach is the only way to establish effective goals."
• "In order for the SMART goals to be smart then I must add one more thing to them: they must link to corporate strategies and vision of the company. if they are not, then no matter how SMART they are, they will be useless." (glenn's note: This is Relevance)
• "(SMART goals are) useful if not pre-determined by external directives that do not reflect local/specific business needs at the lower level."
• "Goals that may be strategic may not be applicable to operational goals: goals that are contradictory are the norm, and thus, are they really SMART? If reducing parts usage for instance, also increases long down times, are they smart, as they negatively affect each other?" (glenn's note: Again, Relevance)
• "All I know is that when I use it; I reach my goals OH>>> so much faster! Like years faster!"
• "One noteworthy drawback of SMART goals is that they tend to become a bit too 'achievable' and do not stretch the employee/team to achieve exceptional results. The objectives drive toward performing nothing more than standard job requirements if not watched carefully." (glenn's note: hence, aggressively achievable)
• "It helps leave no margin for interpretation of desired outcome. It also sets expectations in a way that is meaningful to all parties involved."
• "I think the problem I see with objectives is less to do about whether or not they are SMART. But what is the process to develop, measure progress, and allow/disallow deviations. At more than one company I have worked at, annual objectives typically don't get set until 1/2 way through the year, by the time they are set, at least one of them loses its relevance at sometime in the year, and there are few checkpoints throughout the year to see how we are progressing against the goals."