Goal Thinking

SMART or PACT ?

"SMART goals" as a term has been around since the early 1980's and can be a great way to focus the mind on achieving a mission.

Being SPECIFIC will narrow the focus and should cause us to think about, well - the specifics. The tangible, identifiable aspects of what's hoped for.

MEASURABLE takes the subjectivity out of it; for example increase sales - OK, but be clear by how much.

ACHIEVABLE (ATTAINABLE) checks the practicality level. Too high a bar will fail, waste effort and can damage motivation for the future; too low and it's not much of a goal.

RELEVANT connects the mission to the strategy and should be traceable up to the guiding vision. This goal gets us this feature, which supports this strategy which helps reach this part of the vision.

TIMELY / TIME-BOUND tells us by when, simply because you can't take forever about it.

The absence or opposite of this guidance would be pretty lame: a goal that's vague, near-impossible, whimsical and that can be done whenever you get round to it doesn’t sound very appealing (* although it’s a fair way to describe how I feel about tidying my office room sometimes.)

* self deprecation moment folks. wince and move on.

However, SMART doesn't come without its drawbacks

Being specific is OK when something is predictable and clear in advance. This implies it's a controllable, knowable situation. Lots of things are not.

Up front specification (of anything) leaves little room for experimentation or discovery. What if during the course of the mission we find something new, or something that suggests this goal isn't the best idea after all ? There's no inherent flexibility, other than back to the negotiation table about the goal itself, which can be difficult if you're half way there (or have spent half the budget to reach this fork in the road).

That leads to another consideration; SMART goals are often set higher up in the organisation, imposed upon others. There's a risk of disconnect with what's really feasible. Granted, the 'attainable' part should hold that mostly in check, although it depends who declared it's attainable and what evidence they've used to inform themselves of that. Where there's a power imbalance, those with less of it will often simply comply, say "yes OK" to stay safe in the moment.

But even if that's not a big problem, someone else's goal isn't going to be as much a driver as one that's intrinsically motivated. Put another way, unless the person working on the goal can form an emotional connection with it - unless they mentally own it - it will probably lack true commitment.

With fairly predicable work that won't matter too much, but if things get complex and long-lived this may be where you see a wobble, because the person doesn't actually care that much and can grow weary of it.

Unfortunately when a goal is set for you rather than by you, compliance is usually the best level of commitment that's returned.

An alternative is the PACT.

It's simpler, a bit tighter and skips some of those concerns where the context might cause friction with SMART goals. PACT sounds good, like a promise to yourself.

PURPOSEFUL - does it move you in the right direction relative to the long term goal ?

Almost the deliberate opposite of specific, it allows for discovery and adjustment along the way which is ideal in new product development or highly experimental contexts. It can also co-exist with fine-grained specifics as they emerge through doing.

ACTIONABLE - does it focus on outputs you can control, today ? (i.e. can you actually do it ?) The emphasis here is on the person working on the goal saying its actionable for them, rather than being told it's theoretically in reach.

CONTEXTUAL - is it based on resources and information you have available, in this situation, in this situation right now

TRACKABLE - did you make it ? that's a yes or no answer.

The PACT is more about a journey to a long term goal, structured around short term actions to move towards it. It focuses less on the final outcome and more on what can be controlled, and points you to small steps that you can get started with that little bit quicker, repeating the cycle as learning shapes the direction.

As an agile practitioner this approach appeals to me more, but both PACT and SMART are good. And there are others to explore:

Positively stated, Understood, Relevant and Ethical

Challenging, Legal, Environmentally sound, Appropriate and Recorded

The point is, with any approach - even goal setting - there's nearly always an alternative way to look at things, so if one appproach doesn't feel right, check out other ways of working and choose what looks the most appropriate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

* The PACT acronym and structure was created by Anne-Laure Le Cunff of Ness Labs