Knowledge Centre | Human

Performance Technology by
DTS
Praise & Criticism: SMART Goal-Setting
Model
Written by Theo Winter | Nov 10, 2015 1:00:00 PM

This article is an extension to our "In a Nutshell" series. To

read our original overview of the SMART goal-setting
model click here.

Praise:
The SMART goal-setting model is generally well liked for
encompassing the key aspects of goal setting in an easy-to-
remember acronym. The model is simple, useful, flexible and
widely known, which are its main strengths.
Another strength of the SMART model is its ability to integrate
with other models. For example, many use the SMART model in
the very first step of the GROW Coaching Model since the "G"
in GROW stands for goal. Well-designed strategic measures
used in the Balanced Scorecard should take into account all
the SMART elements. Daniel Pink's Autonomy, Mastery,
Purpose Model helps people understand the importance of
developing goals that are dependant on intrinsic motivation,
not just external rewards. (This discussion can be had as part
of the “Relevant” step.)
Setting business targets and motivating employees to achieve
targets are fundamental aspects of organisational life. The
SMART approach represents a user-friendly, time tested and
popular approach to help structure goals, put in place
mechanisms to support their attainment, and eliminate
needless confusion around what is expected.
In general, goal setting is well supported from a research
perspective. In Enhancing the Benefits and Overcoming the
Pitfalls of Goal Setting the authors state:
“… more than 1,000 studies conducted by behavioural
scientists on more than 88 different tasks, involving more than
40,000 male and female participants in Asia, Australia, Europe
and North America, show that specific high goals are effective
in significantly increasing a person’s performance – regardless
of the method by which they are set. Assigned goals by a
manager, for example, are as effective as self-set of
anticipatively set goals if they are accompanied by logic or a
rationale from a manager” (Lock and Latham, 2006).
Specific elements of the SMART framework have been
supported by wide ranging empirical research. One of the
earliest researchers to establish a correlation between clearly
identified goals and performance was Edwin Locke, known as
the father of modern goal setting theory. One of the major
findings to emerge from his extensive research base supports
two key aspects of the SMART model: “Results from a review
of laboratory and field studies on the effects of goal setting on
performance show that in 90% of the studies, specific and
challenging goals led to higher performance than easy goals,
‘do your best’ goals, or no goals” (Locke et al., 1981).
Locke, who began his research on goal-setting in the 1960s,
has since worked closely with Dr. Gary Latham. Together they
identified five principles of effective goal setting: Clarity;
Challenge; Commitment; Feedback; Task complexity.
Numerous descriptions around how to get the most out of the
SMART framework overlap with these elements.
For example, many SMART descriptions stress the importance
of creating a sense of progress in order to drive commitment.
By "cascading" a big SMART goal into a set of smaller SMART
goals or "smarties" this can help make the process more
manageable and motivating. Like a trail of candy, smarties
should be spaced out at regular intervals that are always
within sight and provide a quick "hit" of achievement. When a
goal is too big it can be overwhelming and that means people
will often procrastinate and struggle to get started.
The importance of cultivating a sense of progress in daily work
is stressed by Teresa Amabile in The Progress Principle:
Using Small Wins to Ignite Joy, Engagement, and Creativity at
Work. Amabile’s research into nearly 12,000 daily diary entries
from over 200 professionals in 7 companies and 3 different
industries came to the following conclusion:
“… of all the positive events that influence inner work life, the
single most powerful is progress in meaningful work; of all the
negative events, the single most powerful is the opposite of
progress—setbacks in the work. We consider this to be a
fundamental management principle: facilitating progress is the
most effective way for managers to influence inner work life.
Even when progress happens in small steps, a person’s sense
of steady forward movement toward an important goal can
make all the difference between a great day and a terrible
one”.
The importance of designing small wins into the goal-setting
process is also supported by the goal gradient effect. This
motivational principle, which emerged from behavioural
science research in the 1930s, says that people and animals
will accelerate their efforts the closer they get to a reward.
For example, rats run faster as they near the end of a maze,
and humans will purchase more coffee the closer they get to
receiving a free coffee on a loyalty voucher. While the idea of
offering continuous rewards to influence behaviour has been
around for many decades, the application of this idea on
humans is almost certainly best demonstrated by the
publishers working in the video game industry.
Gaming principles, part of the rise in “gamification” that
organisations are increasingly embracing, is discussed in The
Game Changer (2014). Its author, Dr. Jason Fox, explains:
“The reason games work is not because they are games; it’s
because the goals, rules and feedback—the elements of all
games and work—are well designed. A good game is a goal-
driven, challenge-intense and feedback-rich experience”. When
goal setters incorporate these elements—clearly defined
outcomes, challenge, continuous feedback and rewards—into
their approach, both empirical evidence and common sense
tell us these individuals are more likely to succeed. The
SMART goal-setting model, in its many forms, will likely
continue to be the best basic starting point for designing
intelligent and motivating goals.

Criticism:
The most obvious criticism of SMART concerns the lack of
standard definitions arising from absence of author ownership.
The degree of variation and distinction that is used among
authors is substantial. There doesn’t appear to be any one
version that is significantly more popular than others. This can
lead to confusion when two individuals have received training
of slightly different models and are unaware of the degree of
interpretation that exists.
People may also feel that they need to have a detailed
description for each step and can get stuck trying to provide
the “correct” answer. SMART might actually become an
impediment to making progress if people see the goal-setting
process as laborious and time-consuming. If the purpose of
goal-setting is to make people more motivated and committed
to the process of goal achievement, then being asked to
provide a detailed SMART analysis could be counter
productive. People may begin to see it as boring “paperwork”
and avoid the process altogether.
The SMART model has often been criticised for not taking into
account conflicting goals such as organisational,
environmental and ethical perspectives. For example, if the
performance of a customer service agent is measured in terms
of number of customers served, the agent may deliberately
shorten conversations at the expense of customer satisfaction
in order to meet their prescribed target. In many SMART
models, there is no accounting of the cause-and-effect
relationship between the goal and its wider impact like in
the Balanced Scorecard. In addition to this, SMART
descriptions often fail to mention any evaluation step (for
example, when a goal is no longer desirable or circumstances
shift). For the above reasons, some have suggested the model
should be changed to SMARTER (E – Ethical / R – Re-evaluate).
Surprisingly there is even research suggesting that publicly
announcing your goals makes you less likely to succeed. In a
TED Talk with more than 3 million views, Derek Silvers says
“repeated psychology test have proven that telling someone
your goal makes it less likely to happen”. Silvers refers to the
work of Gollwitzer et al. who ran four separate experiments
and concluded: “When other people take notice of one’s
identity-relevant behavioural intentions, one’s performance of
the intended behaviours is compromised”. (For more on this,
refer to the 2009 research article When Intentions Go
Public by Gollwitzer, Sheeran, Michalski, and Seifert.)
Other researchers have investigated problems more
specifically related to goal setting in organisational settings.
In their HBR paper Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side
Effects of Over-Prescribing Goal Setting the authors argue, “…
the beneficial effects of goal setting have been overstated and
that systematic harm caused by goal setting has been largely
ignored”. The four researchers identify several major problems
with the overuse of goal setting including a narrow focus that
overlooks fluid situational factors; increased unethical
behaviour; distorted risk preferences; negative impact on
organisational culture; and reduce intrinsic motivation
(Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, Bazerman, 2009).
Furthermore, author Aubrey Daniels lists stretch goals as the
number 2 mistake in Oops! 13 Management Practices That
Waste Time And Money (2009). Daniels notes that while a
large amount of anecdotal evidence suggests that stretch
goals work, anecdotal evidence is also the main endorsement
for many ineffective products, therapies, and interventions.
Among other evidence, Daniels cites research from Fisher et.
al (2003) and Chow et al. (2001) who found that employees
who repeatedly experienced failure in their attempts to
achieve assigned goals had their performance decrease over
time.
Lock and Latham list more than half a dozen common pitfalls
of goal setting. These include: giving people a difficult goal
can be less effective than telling someone to do their best
when people lack the competence to attain the goal; setting a
goal as a threat rather than a challenge (e.g., “find the answer
to 12 or more of these 15 issues” is better than “don’t mess up
on more than 3 of these 15 problems”); goal setters sabotage
one another when goals conflict (e.g., competing MBA and law
students will rip key pages from a journal article and feed their
peers false information); when goals are reached or exceeded
management then sets impossible goals; goal setters become
more conservative when failure to meet a high goal is
punished; goal setters become over-confident in past
strategies; and goal setters become stressed by having too
many goals (Lock and Latham, 2006).

https://blog-dtssydney-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/
blog.dtssydney.com/praise-criticism-smart-goal-setting-model?
amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&hs_amp=true&usqp=mq331AQKKAF
QArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16428416978820&referrer=https
%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From
%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F
%2Fblog.dtssydney.com%2Fpraise-criticism-smart-goal-
setting-model View full post