I’ve always struggled with SMART goals.
You know, teasing out a goal so it was Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timebound.
I’d find myself particularly confused by Achievable and Realistic, which seemed to be circling the same point.
So I felt quietly validated when I read recent research which examined SMART goals in health and physical activity promotion.
Turns out SMART goals lack any scientific basis and can undermine people’s motivation to pursue them.
*** Cue the SMART goals pile-on and LinkedIn outrage 😡***
But here’s the thing.
👉 George Doran, the business consultant who coined the term in 1981, never claimed SMART was research-based.
In fact, the use of SMART goals has drifted in four significant ways from Doran’s original ideas.
1. A = Assignable, not Achievable
In Doran’s original article, A stood for Assignable – making clear who is responsible for the goal.
These days, it’s often changed to Achievable, which seems less about who does what and more about playing safe.
Doran: "Who is going to do it? This criterion is especially important in a large organisation.”
Now: “Make sure your goal is achievable” – often leading to overly safe or unambitious targets.
2. Optional, not mandatory
Doran was clear: not every goal needs to tick all five boxes.
He wrote: “It should also be understood that the suggested acronym doesn’t mean that every objective written will have all five criteria.”
Today, SMART goals pop up in checklists, templates, development plans, where all five letters are treated as mandatory.
3. R = Realistic was not about playing small
Doran used “Realistic” in terms of feasibility within existing resources, time and authority. Is the goal do-able?
Today, “Realistic” is often interpreted as “don’t aim too high,” which contradicts much of the goal-setting theory that supports the value of challenging goals.
For example, a marketing manager might set a goal to “increase brand awareness by 40% in six months.” That might be specific and measurable, but Doran would urge checking if it's realistic given budget, staffing, and market conditions – not whether it feels emotionally "attainable" or safe.
4. Advice, not scientific theory
Doran didn’t claim his model was based on behavioural science or psychology.
It was meant to help managers write clearer objectives in large organisations. The modern adoption of SMART into health, education, and personal development often overstates its empirical credentials.
So, while SMART goals never resonated with me, Doran’s original intent certainly does.
What about you?
Refs:
1. Swann, Christian, Patricia C. Jackman, Alex Lawrence, Rebecca M. Hawkins, Scott G. Goddard, Ollie Williamson, Matthew J. Schweickle, Stewart A. Vella, Simon Rosenbaum, and Panteleimon Ekkekakis. 2022. “The (over)Use of SMART Goals for Physical Activity Promotion: A Narrative Review and Critique.” Health Psychology Review 17 (2): 211–26. doi:10.1080/17437199.2021.2023608.
2. Doran, G.T. (1981) There’s a SMART Way to Write Management’s Goals and Objectives. Journal of Management Review, 70, 35-36. https://community.mis.temple.edu/mis0855002fall2015/files/2015/10/S.M.A.R.T-Way-Management-Review.pdf
🌟 If you found this interesting, let me know! Buy me a virtual coffee ☕ or forward this email ↗️ to someone who also might like it. Your occasional support means I can keep sharing ideas about behavioural science for free.
🧠 Learn the science of Influencing Action
📈 Be shown exactly what to do to get better results for your small business
Hey, are we connected yet?
