You are on page 1of 4

SMART OR HARD GOALS?

Farooq Omar
CEO SVN Corporate Consultants
@Chuck, you made a thoughtful and perceptive comment as it is usually evident in practice.
I just want to make a point that in many cases, when we get into estimations for type of
goals sometimes we find ourselves in a situation of where it seems that our estimation was
no more than a guestimate.
SMART becomes HARD, and it gets very intricate, problematic and knotty to change or
transform the 'shift' caused by the variations back to primary intent. The measurable
becomes distorted. Smarter gets a whip and Harder seems more plausible at times.
It, thus becomes a 'chessboard', where measured and originally deduced moves needs
'revision', therefore, essentially, the process of goal design needs a flexible approach, as
'Strategy formulation has to be flexible & porous' for continuous adaption for improvement.
Therefore, in my humble view,, one needs to do some rigorous assessment of how best the
dream can be realized based on organization's resources and competencies, and why? The
fundamental factor affecting all businesses and scenarios is high value of 'delta', and that is
the 'RISK'. The logical thing would be having a 'balance' as previously commented and
process design of goal attainment has to be proactive in retrospect.
The 'WHY"? part I mentioned should explain and define the purpose of setting goals first. Do
you want your steak to be rare, medium or well done, and then you follow the correct steps
leading to a process. Keeping all other variables (heat & Time), you'll get your steak
according to your intent, but slight variation in external factors (heat & time) will ruin your
steak and you have to either redo it or leave the thought of having a steak.
This is where goals are defined, to be SMART or HARD, or a blend. This situation, expertise
and impacting pressures and shift patterns would be the deciders, but the managers needs
to be very receptive and perceptive in understanding the true picture of now and 'then'.
According to a study conducted by' 'The Leadership IQ', out of sample of 4,182 participating
top managers, over 4000 opinionated that HARD goals are more challenging and motivated
for more drive to achieve, logic being that people attached to such type are more devoted
and affix and attaining their goals. I would conclude by saying that it is the organizational
culture mindset, capacity, core competencies and very importantly, the type of industrial
environment the company is in; creates a difference in the style and format of achieving its
goals. A low volatility industrial sector will have no problem in taking SMART goals as its
methodology, where, drive and motivation won't be too much required, in contrast to fast
paced innovation based industrial arena, where there are tremendous pressures, challenges
and matching rewards. Where, there is a need for emotions, urgency to perform (desire) and

extra commitment ( stretch) has to be entrenched and connected with the goal
achievement, is the requisite (Harder).
It is better to decide before hand, which direction to take, rather than get into switching.
Traditionally, the environment used to be less volatile and disruptive, easy to predict with
little variations and SMART worked well then in majority of the cases.

o
o
o
o

Like
Reply privately
Flag as inappropriate
26 days ago

Chuck
Chuck Dennis
Strategic Planner Emeritus (Retired)
Farooq, I like your extended follow-up comment on SMART v. HARD, especially your idea of
being smart about selecting your really hard goals.
I want to push back on the idea some have suggested that you need to have complete
control before you set a goal, and even, to a limited extent, on the idea that you have to
know in advance how to get there. "I don't control it" is the classic excuse of those who don't
want to set or take responsibility for achieving goals. The fact is, in the real world, you have
full control over almost nothing. Heck, I sometimes don't have full control over my own
behavior, let alone the behavior of other people I will need to achieve most goals. No
meaningful goal is going to be under the full control of any person or organization.
What you MUST have, before you set a goal, is significant INFLUENCE over the outcome.
Typically, you or your organization will control some aspects, but to achieve your goals,
you're going to have to work with -- influence -- a host of other people and organizations. In
fact, as the first step in exercising influence in your own organization, you're going to have
to convince your own naysayers that, despite the risks, they can and should pitch in to help
achieve meaningful goals that neither you nor they fully control.
As an example, Farooq mentioned chess. Your goal is clear, to retire your opponent's King.
You don't control the outcome; rather, you influence your opponent's moves, and your
opponent influences yours. What's more, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WILL ACHIEVE YOUR
GOAL. You have some ideas, and an agreed upon set of rules (you often don't even get that
in real life). But there is risk. Risk and influence. Move and counter-move. You learn from
your opponent, your opponent learns from you, and you both try to foresee the future.
Eventually, one of you does a better job of it and wins.
The fact is, any goal worth achieving is going to involve risk and influence, not certainty and
control. Being SMART about HARD goals means having a good idea of risks and benefits
going in, and judging that the potential benefits are worth the risks. Being SMART in
achieving HARD goals means managing risk (agility and adjustment are key) and effectively

influencing (and being influenced by; listening and observing are also key) not just those you
are working with, but competitors, regulators, and others in your environment

Farooq Omar
CEO SVN Corporate Consultants
@Sherry, you are right, sometimes, even measurable and so called 'achievable' goals
becomes 'HARDER",. therefore, the conversion possibility is always there.
Also, there is a catch to it, when SMART goals later on are not monitored during their
process, the confusion and lack of clarity and proper 'performance' cannot be gauged
adequately, resulting in increase in 'difficulty' to perform the tasks to a degree where whole
organizational goals are not met and even crisis occur. This 'difficulty' acts as a threat and
motivation, rather than something which can create 'drive' and challenge.
The reality is different than the goal setting theory, where anything can happen, where there
is no 'constant' factors and everything is dynamic. Therefore, it does not imply that SMART
are dumb & HARD is the answer, There is a strong relationship between the degree of
difficulty and performance centric motivators. Too much, the graph will have a negative
slope 'downwards'.
This topic is much more trickier than it looks when one takes into account of outcomes
based on 'evidence based management & practice of both ends of success and failures

Chuck
Chuck Dennis
Strategic Planner Emeritus (Retired)
Sherry, you're right about our "raging agreement" and that goals should be both smart and
hard, and I like Farooq's additions, particularly the thought that goal progress needs to be
monitored. Further, there needs to be at least a small staff to monitor goal progress, gather
intelligence about the organization's changing environment, and work with leadership to
change goals and strategies when needed. You're right as well that strategic goals shouldn't
be changed every year on some annual schedule. Most businesses, however, and certainly
governments, have a natural annual cycle revolving around their fiscal years where you
assess the previous year's financial and performance results, plan what you will do over the
next year (or more) based on your progress and your long term, strategic plan, and budget
appropriately.
Performance, then, should be monitored constantly and discussed on a regular basis
(perhaps monthly) with leadership, with an eye to making quick changes to bring lagging
measures back on track. On a longer (annual) basis, you assess whether you did what you

said you would and met your performance goals for the year and why.
For planning, the end of one annual cycle and the beginning is a good time, not necessarily
to change your goals, but to consider whether you should make changes to plans,
strategies, and perhaps long term strategic plans and performance goals in light of your
progress and failures, along with changes -- new opportunities and threats -- in your
environment.
Budgeting, of course, is key to both planning and performance. During the fiscal year, as you
adjust to improve performance and keep both your initiatives and performance targets on
track, shifting funds, insofar as it is allowed, has an important role. The budget process (for
business, the bottom line) is also a major source of pressure for process and efficiency
improvement, to get as much as possible out of each dollar spent. And, of course, forward
looking budgets need to support what the organization proposes to do to meet both annual
and longer term plans and performance goals.
So there is a lot to be said for making planning and performance as well as budgeting parts
of an organization's natural fiscal year cycle. Not enslaved to it, but an important part.

You might also like