Will the Real SMART Goals Please Stand Up

Among the myriad of I-O psychology practices, goal setting has provided unparalleled utility. Backed by years of research data supporting its viability, goal-setting techniques work and work well (Locke & Latham, 1990). Because it works so well, goal setting is an extremely popular intervention across all types of professions. Surely, most of us at one point in our careers have expounded upon the virtues of goal setting and its impact on motivation and cognition. One tool that has simplified teaching the principles of goal setting (especially to non-I-O psychologists) is the use of what have been called “SMART goals.” The acronym and mnemonic device, SMART embodies the fundamental practices necessary for achieving increased motivation and improving the odds that one will actually accomplish a given set of goals. This has been an invaluable tool for quickly communicating years of robust research regarding what makes for an effective, motivating goal, and appears in countless training and self-help materials. Recently however, I learned that my SMART goals might be rather dumb! Having worked with SMART goals for a number of years, I came across an interpretation in a managerial training manual that was slightly different from my own understanding. This material explained that T in SMART stood for Trackable. How could this be? I always thought that the T represented Time-bound, referring to the notion that including a time frame inherently increases motivation. Well, it occurred to me that maybe I didn’t really know SMART goals after all. Intrigued (code for ego-threatened) and a bit befuddled, I decided to do some research, albeit unsystematically, via the Internet.