SMART goals have been standard advice for about forty years. Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound — taught in every management course, printed on every worksheet.
Like most things that survive that long, some of it is genuinely useful and some of it persists because it fits the acronym.
Specific and measurable: the two that hold up
Specificity is the most valuable letter, and the usual justification for it is wrong.
The standard reason is that vague goals can't be measured or committed to. The better reason is that a vague goal doesn't tell you what to do on a Tuesday. Get fit requires a translation step before any work can begin, and that translation is invisible unrewarded work that gets deferred every single time you look at it.
So specificity isn't a motivation device. It's a memory aid for a version of you three weeks from now who has forgotten what you meant and has forty minutes. Swim at Castleton before work, Tuesday and Thursday removes three decisions that would otherwise have to be remade at seven in the morning.
Keep it, with a caveat below.
Measurability is fine when the thing being measured is something you do and something that doesn't need estimating.
Two applications a week is measurable and useful. Sixty per cent through the first draft is measurable and a lie, because the denominator was invented at the point of least information and the work goes backwards when you cut a chapter.
The generalisation: measure behaviour rather than progress towards a destination. Behaviour is countable without estimation and stays honest when the project turns.
There's also a version of measurability that beats both, which is days since you last touched it. Nobody has to estimate it, it can't be gamed by doing the easy tasks, and it's equally true in good months and bad.
Achievable: the harmful one
This is the letter to be suspicious of.
Achievable means, in practice, an estimate made by the least informed version of you — the one at the start, who hasn't done the work and doesn't know what it involves. Setting the target at what that person thought was realistic caps you at their imagination.
It also encourages a specific bad habit: setting goals you already know you can hit, so the exercise produces a comfortable list of things that were going to happen anyway.
And it interacts badly with everything creative or exploratory. You cannot know what's achievable in a project whose shape you'll discover as you go, and demanding that you decide in advance produces either a false constraint or a fictional number.
The useful replacement isn't ambition for its own sake. It's achievable this week — is there a next action small enough to actually happen — rather than achievable in the aggregate.
Relevant and time-bound: one underrated, one overrated
Relevant is usually treated as a box to tick, and it's the letter that would prevent the most wasted years.
The question it's gesturing at is whether you want this — and the honest test isn't relevance to some stated objective, it's the relief test. Imagine deciding tonight that it's over, permanently. Lightness means the goal is wrong. Loss means keep it.
Run that on a list of twelve and you'll usually delete two or three, and gain more capacity than any amount of specificity would have bought you.
Deadlines work when something happens on the day. A client is expecting it, the exam is sat, the guests are coming. That external event is doing all the work.
A deadline you invented has none of that. It can be moved silently at eleven at night and nobody will notice, so it doesn't create urgency. What it does create is a day on which you fail — and a goal that has failed is much easier to abandon than one that's merely unfinished.
For practices with no completion state, for work of unknown size, and for anything where an extra month improves it at no cost, the date is doing harm. A rhythm works better: two evenings a week, with a review point rather than a delivery date.
Keep time-bound where the deadline is real. Drop it where you made it up.
The strongest defence of SMART
The counter-argument, because it's easy to be clever about a forty-year-old framework.
It was designed for organisational objectives, and in that setting most of the criticisms above dissolve. Work assigned to someone else genuinely needs to be specific, measurable and time-bound, because otherwise nobody can tell whether it happened. Achievability matters when you're committing a team. Relevance matters when resources are being allocated.
Applied to its original context it's sound. The failure is in its migration to personal goals, where the conditions are entirely different — nobody else is checking, the deadlines are self-issued, and the work is often exploratory rather than defined.
And a person following SMART badly is still ahead of someone with get fit written on a list. Two of the five letters would fix most of what's wrong with most people's goals, and the framework at least gets them asked.
The same goal, five ways
Get fit is the starting point.
SMART-ified as taught: lose 8kg by 30 June by going to the gym four times a week. That's specific, measurable, time-bound, and it contains an invented deadline, an outcome you don't fully control, and a frequency estimated by someone who hasn't yet tried it.
The version that survives contact with a real year: swim at Castleton before work on Tuesday and Thursday. Because my back stops hurting when I swim regularly.
Specific, kept — it says what happens on Tuesday. Measurable, kept as behaviour rather than as weight. Achievable, replaced with a floor: one session in a bad week, which is the number that survives a February. Relevant, tested with relief rather than assumed. Time-bound, dropped, because nothing happens on 30 June and the practice has no completion state.
Three letters intact, two replaced with something that works.
What gets counted
Days since you last swam, which is a fact that needs no estimating and stays honest in a bad month.
The reason line — because my back stops hurting — sits underneath and does the job relevance was supposed to do, which is to tell you in June whether this is still yours.
Everything else was a way of feeling organised about something that was going to be decided at seven on a Tuesday morning.
That's the general shape of the criticism. SMART is a framework for describing goals well, and describing goals well is a small part of the problem. What determines the outcome is whether the thing gets touched in month seven, and none of the five letters has anything to say about that.
Related: Write the goal so tomorrow-you knows what to do · Outcome goals vs process goals · Goals with no deadline
Share: