Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

SMART criteria

The SMART criteria is a widely adopted framework for effective , structuring objectives to be Specific (clearly defined), Measurable (quantifiable for tracking progress), Achievable (realistic given available resources), Relevant (aligned with broader aims), and Time-bound (set within a defined timeframe). Originally proposed by consultant George T. Doran in 1981 as a method to improve the formulation of goals and objectives—expanding the acronym as Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, and Time-related—the approach draws from earlier organizational on task and has since become a standard tool across diverse fields. Rooted in goal-setting theory pioneered by in the late , which emphasized the benefits of challenging yet attainable targets for enhancing performance, the framework refines this by providing a practical mnemonic to avoid vague or unattainable aspirations. In its original context, Doran's model aimed to foster a climate of excellence by linking individual and team objectives to organizational priorities, ensuring through assignability and in resource assessment. Over decades, the criteria have evolved slightly in interpretation—such as substituting "Achievable" for "Assignable" and "Relevant" for "Realistic"—to better suit applications beyond corporate , while retaining the core emphasis on clarity and feasibility. The criteria's versatility has led to its integration into various domains, including healthcare for patient and behavior change interventions, for student learning outcomes, and for habit formation. For instance, in community pharmacy settings, pharmacists use goals to support service-users in creating actionable plans that promote and measurable progress toward . In and , it facilitates performance appraisals and by breaking down complex initiatives into verifiable milestones, thereby increasing the likelihood of success. Despite its popularity, some critiques highlight limitations, such as potential overemphasis on quantification at the expense of , prompting extensions like SMART-EST (adding Evaluated, Specific, and Tailored elements) in specialized contexts like . Overall, the framework remains a foundational for turning abstract ambitions into concrete, trackable achievements.

Definition and Principles

Core Components

The SMART criteria framework delineates five interconnected components—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound—that collectively guide the formulation of effective goals by addressing clarity, trackability, feasibility, alignment, and urgency. This structure transforms vague aspirations into actionable objectives, with each element building upon the others to create a cohesive goal-setting process. Specific refers to goals that are clear, unambiguous, and detailed, specifying exactly what is to be accomplished, who is involved, where and how it will occur, and why it matters. This component avoids broad statements by incorporating action verbs and contextual details to eliminate confusion. For instance, rather than stating "improve ," a specific goal might be "train all front-line staff on new response protocols to handle inquiries within 24 hours." Measurable ensures goals include criteria for tracking progress and determining , often through quantifiable metrics such as numbers, percentages, or observable outcomes. This allows for of advancement toward completion. An example is shifting from "increase sales" to "increase quarterly sales by 15% through targeted client outreach," where the 15% figure provides a concrete benchmark. Achievable emphasizes that goals must be realistic and attainable given available resources, skills, time, and constraints, preventing overambition while encouraging stretch efforts. This component assesses feasibility to build confidence and momentum. For example, in developing a , achievability might involve confirming departmental approvals and to manage development milestones effectively. Relevant requires goals to align with broader organizational, personal, or strategic objectives, ensuring they contribute meaningfully to larger aims and are worthwhile in context. This alignment maintains focus and motivation by connecting individual efforts to overarching priorities. In the app development case, relevance could stem from its support for a company's initiative to enhance experiences. Time-bound incorporates defined deadlines or milestones to create urgency and facilitate , specifying when the will be accomplished. This prevents indefinite postponement and enables timely adjustments. Continuing the sales example, adding "in the next six months" establishes a clear timeframe for evaluation and completion. These components interconnect to form a robust : specificity lays the groundwork for measurability by providing details to quantify, achievability ensures by grounding goals in practical contexts, and time-bound elements tie everything together for timely execution, resulting in goals that are comprehensive and executable.

Goal-Setting Framework

The provide a structured for that integrates principles from and to enhance goal effectiveness. This approach emphasizes transforming vague aspirations into actionable objectives by systematically applying the acronym's elements—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound—within a broader process that promotes sustained progress. Rooted in , the aligns with established theories by ensuring goals are clear and demanding, thereby fostering directed effort and improved outcomes. The theoretical foundation of the SMART framework draws from goal-setting theory, developed by Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham, which posits that specific and challenging goals lead to higher performance than vague or easy ones. According to their research, across approximately 90% of studies reviewed, such goals direct attention, energize individuals, encourage persistence, and prompt the discovery of task-relevant strategies, ultimately boosting and task mastery. The SMART criteria operationalize these principles by embedding specificity (to clarify direction), challenge (through achievability and relevance), and timelines (to sustain effort), making the framework a practical extension of the theory in organizational and personal contexts. Implementing the SMART framework involves a step-by-step process to ensure goals are well-defined and adaptable. First, assess needs by identifying the overarching objective or gap, such as improving or process, to establish . Next, draft an initial statement in broad terms. Then, refine it iteratively using the SMART criteria: make it specific by detailing who, what, and how; measurable by defining success indicators; achievable by considering resources and constraints; relevant by aligning with broader priorities; and time-bound by setting deadlines. Finally, monitor progress through regular check-ins and adjust as needed based on or changing circumstances. This process can be represented textually as a simple : Assess Needs → Draft Initial Goal → Refine with SMART Criteria → Implement with Milestones → Monitor → Adjust and Review. By following these steps, the framework cultivates clarity in expectations, heightens through tangible progress tracking, and enforces via defined metrics and timelines.

Historical Development

Origins and Evolution

The SMART criteria were first formally introduced in November 1981 by George T. Doran, a consultant and former director of corporate planning for Washington Water Power Company, in his article "There's a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write " published in Management Review. While Doran's 1981 article is considered the first formal publication of the acronym, earlier similar ideas appear in Paul J. Meyer's 1965 work on personal success planning, using a variant focused on tangibility rather than time-bound aspects. Doran proposed the acronym as Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, and Time-related to provide a structured approach for crafting effective goals within organizations, emphasizing clarity to enhance and . This initial formulation emerged amid growing interest in systematic goal-setting practices, building on earlier concepts like Peter Drucker's (MBO) framework from his 1954 book The Practice of Management, which stressed defining clear objectives to align individual efforts with organizational aims, though Drucker did not use the acronym. In the 1980s and 1990s, the SMART framework began to evolve as it gained traction in business and management literature, with early adaptations appearing in works by influential authors. For instance, in 1985, Ken Blanchard incorporated a variant—Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Trackable—in his book Leadership and the One Minute Manager, shifting "Assignable" to "Attainable" to better emphasize feasibility and "Time-related" to "Trackable" for ongoing monitoring. By the late 1980s, further refinements appeared in Blanchard and Paul Hersey's Management of Organizational Behavior (5th edition, 1988), solidifying these changes and promoting wider adoption in leadership training. The framework's roots in Drucker's MBO principles facilitated its integration into corporate strategies, as MBO's focus on measurable outcomes complemented SMART's criteria, leading to its use in performance management systems across industries during the 1990s economic expansion. Through the 2000s, SMART criteria spread globally via business publications, consulting materials, and educational resources, becoming a staple in and human resource practices. The common modern interpretation—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound—crystallized during this period, with "Realistic" often evolving to "Relevant" to underscore alignment with broader objectives and "Assignable" consistently replaced by "Achievable" to highlight resource feasibility. This dissemination occurred through seminal texts and programs, marking key milestones such as its endorsement in standards and its translation into multiple languages for use, thereby establishing SMART as a foundational tool in goal-setting worldwide.

Key Contributors

George T. Doran, a management consultant and former director of corporate planning for the Washington Water Power Company, is credited with developing the SMART criteria as a structured framework for effective goal setting in organizational management. In November 1981, he published the seminal article "There's a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives" in Management Review, where he introduced the acronym to address common pitfalls in vague or unattainable objectives, aiming to foster a climate of management excellence through precise, actionable targets. Doran provided detailed clarifications on the acronym's intent in the article, explaining that "specific" means avoiding ambiguity by detailing who, what, and how; "measurable" involves quantifiable indicators to track progress; "assignable" ensures accountability by designating responsible parties; "realistic" accounts for available resources and constraints to prevent overambition; and "time-related" sets deadlines to create urgency and focus. These elements were designed to translate broad managerial visions into practical steps, enhancing alignment and performance in business settings. Peter Drucker, widely regarded as the founder of modern management theory, significantly influenced the conceptual foundations of SMART criteria through his pioneering work on (MBO) during the 1950s and 1970s. In his 1954 book The Practice of Management, Drucker advocated for collaborative goal setting between managers and employees, emphasizing objectives that are clear, challenging, measurable, and aligned with organizational priorities to drive motivation and accountability—principles that directly prefigured the structured specificity and measurability of SMART. Drucker's MBO approach, refined in subsequent writings like The Effective Executive (1967), shifted management from control to results-oriented planning, laying the ideological groundwork for Doran's mnemonic without explicitly using the . Brian Tracy, a leading advocate in and motivational speaking, played a key role in popularizing criteria beyond corporate contexts into individual goal achievement during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. As an author and consultant with over 80 books on success strategies, Tracy integrated principles into his teachings on self-improvement, notably in Goals!: How to Get Everything You Want—Faster Than You Ever Thought Possible (2003), where he described them as essential for clarifying ambitions, measuring progress, and maintaining discipline to realize personal visions. His seminars and resources, such as online guides and audio programs, have reached millions, adapting for applications in career advancement, formation, and planning while stressing its role in overcoming and building momentum.

Applications and Usage

In Professional Settings

In professional settings, the SMART criteria framework is widely applied to structure objectives within the (OKRs) system, particularly at technology companies like , where it helps adapt ambitious tech goals into actionable, measurable outcomes. At , OKRs emphasize specific objectives paired with quantifiable key results, aligning closely with SMART principles by ensuring goals are specific (e.g., focusing on a central area like product revenue growth), measurable (e.g., tracking metrics such as revenue per user increases), and time-bound (e.g., quarterly targets). For instance, a tech objective might be to "accelerate product revenue growth" with key results like launching a specific feature to all users by quarter's end or increasing revenue per user by 20%, incorporating SMART elements to maintain focus and verifiability while allowing for stretch ambitions beyond typical SMART attainability. This adaptation enhances alignment across teams in fast-paced tech environments, as outlined in 's OKR playbook. The framework is also integral to setting sales targets and employee key performance indicators (KPIs), where it ensures clarity and trackability in competitive business contexts. In , SMART goals might include increasing quarterly by 15% through targeted , such as generating $15,000 in monthly per representative by qualifying 50 leads with at least a 75% score, making the objective specific, measurable, achievable via defined activities, relevant to growth, and time-bound to the quarter. For employee KPIs, examples include reducing customer defection rates by 3% annually through retention strategies or achieving an annual value (ACV) of $180,000 per role, which ties individual to organizational metrics while adhering to SMART criteria for during reviews. These applications promote and data-driven adjustments in teams. In , particularly agile methodologies, criteria guides sprint planning and delivery milestones, fostering iterative progress in software and tech projects. A representative example is a to "deliver a software update with a 95% bug-free rate by the end of Q2," which is specific to the update's scope, measurable via bug detection metrics, achievable through sprint-based testing, relevant to product reliability, and time-bound to the quarter—aligning with agile's emphasis on short cycles while ensuring overall project viability. Tools like Tasks support this by integrating tracking with agile sprints and boards, enabling teams to monitor progress in real-time during software delivery. SMART criteria further integrates with performance management software, enhancing its utility in corporate workflows. Platforms like use AI to generate and track SMART goals, linking them to projects and portfolios for automatic progress updates, such as monitoring sales leads from integrated data to ensure time-bound objectives like quarterly deal closures. itself promotes SMART for performance goals, with features allowing teams to set specific, measurable targets like response times under 4 minutes, which sync with dashboards for ongoing reviews. In corporate training programs, SMART is embedded to drive , where participants set goals like leading three team meetings with feedback within six months or completing a in two months, leveraging platforms like to measure skill acquisition and align with business needs. This integration supports scalable goal management across organizations, from individual reviews to enterprise-wide initiatives.

In Personal Development

In personal development, the SMART criteria provide a structured approach for individuals to set and pursue life goals in areas such as , and daily routines, enabling clearer and tracking. By refining vague aspirations into specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound objectives, individuals can enhance self-motivation and without relying on external structures. For fitness goals, SMART principles help transform general intentions like improving physical into actionable plans. For example, an individual might set a goal to "run 5km three times weekly for 3 months to prepare for a half-marathon," which specifies the activity, quantifies the distance and , ensures achievability through gradual buildup, aligns with health relevance, and sets a defined timeline. This method has been recommended in health resources to promote sustainable exercise habits. In educational pursuits, SMART criteria guide personal learning objectives by breaking down skill acquisition into manageable steps. A common example is aiming to "complete an online in by studying 10 hours weekly over 6 months," where the certification defines the specific outcome, weekly hours provide measurability, the pace assumes achievability with consistent effort, relevance ties to career or interest growth, and the 6-month deadline creates urgency. Such goals support by fostering disciplined study routines. The SMART framework also plays a key role in habit-building applications and self-help literature, where it underscores personal accountability by encouraging users to own their progress. In apps like , which gamifies task completion, users apply to define habits such as daily reading or , earning virtual rewards for meeting time-bound milestones and building intrinsic motivation. Similarly, self-help resources emphasize for habit formation, as seen in works by experts like , who advocate its use to cultivate routines that align with long-term personal growth and self-reliance.

Empirical Effectiveness

Supporting Research

Empirical research on the SMART criteria draws heavily from goal-setting theory, which provides robust evidence for the benefits of specific, measurable, and time-bound goals in enhancing performance and attainment across diverse domains such as , , and sports. A comprehensive by and Latham in 2002 synthesized 35 years of studies, including multiple meta-analyses, demonstrating that specific and difficult goals—core to the "S" and "M" components of SMART—consistently outperform vague "do-your-best" instructions. These meta-analyses reported effect sizes ranging from d = 0.42 to 0.80, translating to performance improvements of approximately 20-25% on average, as seen in tasks like productivity logging where workers increased output through targeted, quantifiable objectives. The time-bound ("T") element further strengthens these effects by fostering urgency and , as deadlines direct and mobilize resources more effectively than open-ended goals. This aligns with broader goal-setting findings where time-bound structures reduced task abandonment and boosted rates by emphasizing finite horizons for achievement. In the , research has extended these principles to contemporary contexts like remote and virtual teams, where SMART criteria have proven particularly valuable amid distributed work challenges post-COVID-19. These findings underscore SMART's adaptability, with empirical data showing sustained performance gains in hybrid settings through its integrated framework.

Criticisms and Limitations

One prominent criticism of the SMART criteria is its overemphasis on specificity and measurability, which can lead to rigid goal structures that encourage unintended behaviors such as or ethical shortcuts, rather than fostering holistic performance. Ordóñez et al. (2009) highlight how such prescriptive narrows focus to quantifiable targets, potentially neglecting broader organizational priorities and prompting employees to manipulate metrics for short-term gains, as seen in cases like Wells Fargo's sales incentives. This rigidity may also undermine qualitative aspects of work, such as ethical considerations or long-term , by prioritizing easily tracked outcomes over nuanced progress. In fields involving ambiguity, creativity, or —such as , , or product development—the "achievable" and "realistic" components of can stifle ambition and exploratory efforts by discouraging stretch goals or iterative experimentation. Recent demonstrates that goals do not outperform less structured alternatives, like "do-your-best" or open-ended exploratory goals, in enhancing creative performance; instead, they may constrain by imposing premature boundaries on ideation. For instance, in innovation-driven roles, the framework's insistence on predefined attainability can limit breakthroughs, as highly ambitious pursuits often involve uncertain paths that defy early measurability. This limitation is particularly evident in dynamic environments where adaptability trumps fixed targets. Additionally, SMART criteria exhibit cultural biases, particularly in their time-bound element, which assumes a linear, deadline-driven approach that may conflict with non-linear, relational work patterns in collectivist societies. A 2018 study using cross-national data found that societal moderates the effects of (via clear goals and feedback) on outcomes like strain, with stronger benefits (e.g., reduced turnover intentions) in individualistic cultures compared to collectivist ones, where group harmony and contextual flexibility are valued over strict timelines. In such cultures, the framework's emphasis on and fixed endpoints can clash with polychronic time orientations, reducing acceptance and effectiveness by overlooking interdependent, long-term relational dynamics.

Variations and Alternatives

Modified Acronyms

One prominent modification to the original SMART framework is the SMARTER acronym, which extends the criteria by incorporating and revision to iterative improvement and ongoing . This maintains the core elements—Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound—while adding "Evaluated" to emphasize regular of progress against benchmarks and "Reviewed" (or "Revised") to enable adjustments based on outcomes, ensuring goals remain dynamic and responsive to changing circumstances. The rationale for this extension, developed by professionals, is to address the limitations of static goal-setting by fostering continuous feedback loops, thereby increasing the likelihood of long-term success in dynamic environments like and . Another evolution is the SMARTS acronym, which builds on by appending an additional "S" to incorporate elements like Stretch, tailored to encourage ambition or endurance in goal pursuit. In the Stretch variant, the extra "S" stands for Stretch, promoting goals that challenge individuals beyond comfortable limits to drive and higher , while still grounding them in the original criteria to maintain feasibility; this is particularly useful in high-achievement contexts where routine targets may stifle growth.

Related Frameworks

The (OKRs) framework, popularized by Intel's Andy Grove and later adopted by companies like , provides a goal-setting structure that emphasizes ambitious, outcome-focused objectives paired with measurable key results. While SMART criteria prioritize specific, achievable, and time-bound goals to ensure practicality and feasibility, OKRs differ by encouraging stretch targets that are intentionally challenging, often aiming for 60-70% attainment to foster innovation and growth. For instance, an OKR might set an objective like "revolutionize " with key results tracking user engagement metrics, contrasting SMART's focus on incremental, fully attainable milestones such as "increase by 10% in three months." OKRs are particularly suited for dynamic, high-growth environments where alignment across teams drives bold progress, whereas SMART excels in operational settings requiring precise, low-risk execution. Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAGs), introduced by Jim Collins and Jerry Porras in their 1994 book : Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, represent long-term, visionary targets designed to inspire and unify organizations over 10-25 years. Unlike 's emphasis on measurable and realistic criteria to guide short- to medium-term actions, BHAGs prioritize emotional engagement and audacity, often appearing unreasonable yet compelling enough to rally collective effort without needing detailed justification. A classic example is Boeing's 1952 BHAG to build the 707 jet, which stretched beyond immediate capabilities to transform the company, in contrast to a goal like "produce 50 aircraft components by quarter's end." BHAGs are ideal for establishing enduring purpose in mature organizations, serving as a north star that can operationalize through supporting tactics, but they risk demotivation if not balanced with achievable steps. The GROW model, developed by Sir John Whitmore in his 1992 book Coaching for Performance, offers a process-oriented coaching framework comprising Goal, Reality, Options, and Will stages to facilitate problem-solving and development. In contrast to SMART's static checklist for crafting individual goals, GROW provides a dynamic dialogue structure where the Goal stage explicitly incorporates SMART criteria to define clear, actionable outcomes before exploring current realities, generating options, and committing to next steps. For example, a coach might use SMART to refine a vague aspiration into a specific target during the Goal phase, then apply GROW's subsequent stages to build commitment and adaptability. This model complements SMART effectively in interpersonal or team coaching scenarios, such as performance reviews, where SMART ensures goal quality but GROW adds relational depth to overcome obstacles and sustain motivation. Another related framework is FAST goals, which stand for Frequently discussed, Ambitious, Specific to the individual, and Transparent. Introduced as an alternative to for more agile and collaborative settings, FAST emphasizes ongoing conversations and visibility to adapt to changing priorities, particularly in fast-paced organizational environments as of 2024. The WOOP method (Wish, Outcome, Obstacle, Plan), developed by psychologist , is a mental contrasting technique that builds on goal-setting by anticipating obstacles and planning responses, enhancing commitment and success rates compared to standard positive visualization. It integrates well with by adding a proactive barrier-identification step.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] Setting Goals and Developing Specific, Measurable, Achievable ...
    SMART stands for specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. • Specific – Objective clearly states, so anyone reading it can understand, what ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  2. [2]
    Being smart about writing SMART objectives - ScienceDirect.com
    Introduction. Doran (1981) first introduced the specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time-related (SMART) method for writing effective management ...
  3. [3]
    Doran, G.T. (1981) There's a SMART Way to Write Management's ...
    Doran, G.T. (1981) There's a SMART Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives. Journal of Management Review, 70, 35-36.
  4. [4]
    Are SMART goals fit-for-purpose? Goal planning with mental health ...
    Feb 19, 2024 · This study examined the use of SMART goals by Australian community pharmacists providing a brief goal-oriented wellbeing intervention with service-users.Measures · Results · Goal Quality
  5. [5]
    None
    ### SMART Goals Components Summary
  6. [6]
    [PDF] Writing SMART Goals - Furman University
    The objective of this presentation is to help staff members embrace goal setting – the foundation for successful performance. We will cover the purpose of SMART.<|control11|><|separator|>
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task ...
    A detailed discussion of the relationship of goal theory to other work motivation theories is presented in Locke. (1997). The effects of goal setting are very ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] Guidance on SMART Goal Setting
    Research by the creators of goal setting theory, Locke & Latham, found that in 90% of studies conducted, specific and challenging goals lead to higher ...Missing: connection | Show results with:connection
  9. [9]
    [PDF] SMART Goals: A How to Guide
    S. Specific. What will be accomplished? What actions will you take? M. Measurable. What data will measure the goal? (How much? How well? A. Achievable.Missing: credible | Show results with:credible
  10. [10]
    [PDF] There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write managements's goals and ... - EVAL
    There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives. George T. Doran. A characteristic of management excel- lence is a climate in which ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
  11. [11]
    Published History of SMART Objectives - RapidBI
    Jan 19, 2022 · SMART is used to mean – Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Trackable. This appears to be one of the first books to use the acronym.
  12. [12]
    With Goals, FAST Beats SMART - MIT Sloan Management Review
    Jun 5, 2018 · According to conventional wisdom, goals should be specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound. But SMART goals undervalue ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  13. [13]
    Why 'SMART' Job Objectives Are Exactly That - Forbes
    Nov 2, 2016 · The concept of “management by objectives” goes back, as does so much in management, to Peter Drucker, and his classic 1954 book, The Practice of ...
  14. [14]
    A Brief History of SMART Goals
    Dec 13, 2014 · Doran, G. T. (1981). "There's a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives", Management Review, Vol. 70, Issue 11, pp. 35-36.<|control11|><|separator|>
  15. [15]
    D2D: The SMART Method - DecisionSkills
    Dec 4, 2024 · In 1981 published a short article titled, "There's a SMART Way to Write Management's Goals and Objectives".
  16. [16]
    The history of SMART Goals and OKRs - Collective Genius
    The history of SMART Goals and OKRs. The concept of SMART goals emerged in the early 1980s when George T. Doran, a consultant and former director of corporate ...
  17. [17]
    https://www.briantracy.com/blog/personal-success/smart-goals/
  18. [18]
    https://www.briantracy.com/blog/personal-success/goal-setting/
  19. [19]
    Brief History of Talent Development in Government
    Aug 3, 2023 · The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) was founded in 1943. Its mission was, and still is (in its current iteration as ATD) ...
  20. [20]
    [PDF] The Results of the ASTD Training and Development Competency ...
    In 1981, the ASTD Board of. Directors charged the Profes- sional Development Commit- tee to "produce a detailed and updatable definition of excellence.
  21. [21]
    OKRs and SMART goals: What's the Difference? - What Matters
    What are SMART goals? · Specific Contain well-defined central objectives · Measurable Have a quantifiable element to serve as an indicator of success · Assignable ...
  22. [22]
    Guides: Set goals with OKRs - Google re:Work
    Google likes to set OKRs such that success means achieving 70% of the objectives, while fully reaching them is considered extraordinary performance. Such ...
  23. [23]
    17 SMART Sales Goals Examples for 2024 [With an Action Plan]
    Need sales goals that actually drive results? Discover 17 SMART, real-world sales goal examples with tips to boost performance and close more deals in 2025.Define Your Goals · 17 Smart Sales Goals... · How Leadsquared Helped A...
  24. [24]
    SMART Goals for Project Managers (Examples) | Hubstaff Tasks
    “SMART” is an acronym for five characteristics your goals should have to be effective: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound. Keep this in ...
  25. [25]
    Goal Management Software & Tools - Asana
    Set, track, and communicate about goals in one platform. Track goals in real time. See progress instantly with custom dashboards.<|separator|>
  26. [26]
    What are SMART goals and how to create them | Salesforce ANZ
    Nov 12, 2024 · The SMART goal acronym stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. It's a framework that ensures every objective you set is ...Turn Smart Goals Into Sales... · What Are Smart Goals? · How To Create Smart Goals
  27. [27]
    How to Set SMART Goals for Professional Development - Skillsoft
    Aug 27, 2024 · Measurable: Lead three team meetings and gather feedback on your performance. Achievable: Utilize your company's leadership coaching program.
  28. [28]
    S.M.A.R.T. Goals for Weight Loss and Fitness - WebMD
    Nov 17, 2024 · For example, a S.M.A.R.T. goal is “I will walk enough to burn at least 1,250 calories through exercise this week.” Specific. Rather than ...
  29. [29]
    Goal Setting and Action Planning for Health Behavior Change - NIH
    Sep 13, 2017 · Goal setting is one such strategy that assists individuals to identify specific behaviors to change and how to go about doing so.Goal Setting And Action... · Goal Characteristics · Action Plans
  30. [30]
    How To Write SMART Learning Objectives & Outcomes - Skillshub
    Sep 6, 2023 · The SMART framework breaks down learning objectives into five key characteristics: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
  31. [31]
    38 Examples of SMART Goals for Students (2025) - Helpful Professor
    Ensure your goal is relevant to your current class, lesson, or degree. A relevant goal for a student should be related to your education. ... State when you want ...SMART Goals Example · SMART Goals Template for... · SMART Goals for Students
  32. [32]
    Use Case Spotlight: Setting Realistic Goals
    Jan 9, 2018 · Also, be on the lookout for an upcoming Wiki post featuring more information on using Habitica to set SMART goals, a topic touched on by several ...
  33. [33]
    Accountable Goals, Habits and Routines – What, Why & How ...
    The SMART framework is an acronym which stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. It forms the foundation of accountability.Missing: criteria | Show results with:criteria
  34. [34]
    Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing ...
    We describe how the use of goal setting can degrade employee performance by narrowing focus to neglect important but nonspecified goals, motivating risky and ...Skip main navigation · Abstract · Emblematic Examples of... · How Goals Go Wild
  35. [35]
    SMART goals are no more effective for creative performance than do ...
    Oct 26, 2024 · Our results suggest that SMART goals do not perform worse than non-specific goals in creative tasks, yet they are not the superior goal setting ...
  36. [36]
    When SMART Goals Are Not So Smart
    Mar 21, 2018 · SMART goals can be problematic. It's hard to manage to specific, time-based targets when demand, technology, business models, and competitor sets are ...
  37. [37]
    Societal individualism–collectivism and uncertainty avoidance as ...
    Societal individualism–collectivism moderates the negative relationship between clear goals and performance feedback and strain, such that relationships are ...
  38. [38]
    Cross-cultural issues in goal setting. - APA PsycNet
    This chapter examines the effect of cultural values at the national level on individuals' perceptions of the meaning of goals, on their goal choice and goal ...
  39. [39]
    How to Use SMART(ER) Goals to Achieve Success at Your Program
    May 17, 2023 · Doran created the acronym SMART which stands for Specific, Measurable, Attainable (Achievable), Realistic (Relevant), and Time-bound. The ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
  40. [40]
    Goal Setting for Managers | Office of Organization Effectiveness
    Step 2: Draft Goals – Create SMARTS-aligned goals that support departmental and organizational priorities. ... Stretch – some, but not all goals, may ...
  41. [41]
    Set Your Goals and Make Them Happen!
    Jan 5, 2023 · To make a goal work best for you, make sure it is a “S.M.A.R.T.S. ... One thing to keep in mind with setting a “stretch” goal is to have goals to ...
  42. [42]
    Stretch goal-setting: motivating employees to outperform
    Oct 30, 2017 · Goals should ideally be SMARTS: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound and strengths-based (i.e. play to the person's strengths).Missing: acronym | Show results with:acronym
  43. [43]
    SMART Planning for New Beginnings - All4Ed
    SMART goals are intentionally explicit, transparent, and ideally shared among stakeholders. · SMART goals are time bound, which helps educators define timelines ...
  44. [44]
    SMART Goal Setting With Your Students - Edutopia
    Aug 27, 2014 · SMART stands for specific; measurable; attainable; relevant (and rigorous, realistic, and results-focused); and timely (and trackable).Missing: acronym | Show results with:acronym
  45. [45]
    OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) - Management 3.0
    OKRs are a mix of the PDCA cycle, stretch goals, SMART goals, the Lean Startup method and Management by Objectives. Basically, it's all of them wrapped up in ...Missing: criteria comparison
  46. [46]
    OKRs vs. SMART Goals: Similarities, Differences, and Uses - Quantive
    OKRs are a goal-setting framework, SMART goals provide a template for writing goals. OKRs and SMART goals facilitate goal setting differently.
  47. [47]
    OKRs vs. SMART Goals: How They Differ and When to Use Each
    SMART goals provide guidelines for writing specific, attainable goals. In contrast, the OKR framework offers more of a process to reach for stretch goals that ...
  48. [48]
    Concepts - BHAG - Jim Collins
    A BHAG (pronounced “Bee Hag,” short for “Big Hairy Audacious Goal”) is a powerful way to stimulate progress. A BHAG is clear and compelling, needing little ...Missing: SMART | Show results with:SMART
  49. [49]
    Do the Impossible with Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAGs) [2025]
    Feb 3, 2025 · BHAGs vs.​​ SMART is an acronym that stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound. This goal-setting framework ensures ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  50. [50]
    The GROW Model of Coaching and Mentoring - Mind Tools
    Establish goals that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound (SMART). This ensures clear direction and measurable progress in coaching ...Missing: criteria | Show results with:criteria
  51. [51]
    How to Use the GROW Model for SMART Executive Coaching
    Sep 18, 2023 · The GROW model and the SMART criteria complement each other, as they both help you and your client create and pursue effective goals. You can ...