Why SMART goals are dumb (sometimes)
(These are my personal opinions and do not represent the official stance of the psychological profession or the College of Alberta Psychologists)
I like setting goals.
I like writing them down.
I like reviewing them with myself and others.
I'm a therapist. I do it everyday. But since the 80's goal setting has been dominated by a framework designed in the business world, for the business world, that often misses the mark when it comes to authentic human progress.
For the last 30 years we have been told to set SMART goals which are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound (the acronym varies slightly depending on whom you're asking but this is the gist). We are encouraged not to work on an objective unless it meets these criteria. I believe that this framework often misses the mark, especially at the organizational level.
Let me first explain how this has looked in the fields of education and counselling as far as I can tell.
Sometimes when it comes to data: qualitative > quantitative
First, psychology and its many branches of theories and therapies are strongly motivated to have solid, measurable data. The field wants to be considered a hard science. We want quantifiable measures that give us definitive answers. So on both the research and clinical side we see an effort to quantify human experiences and emotions so that we can measure progress. Some assessment tools have been strongly validated although in my humble opinion, none are perfect. Some assessments on the other hand mean very little to me. Many tools are oversimplified, self-report scales that at best take a snap shot of a person's emotional well-being. These tools are used to measure progress so that a clinician can show evidence of the client's improvement. If you score high on the scale one day it could be argued that your symptoms are alleviated and treatment is no longer necessary. If a significant number of individuals improve their scores on the assessment tool then it can be argued that the therapy is effective. As I write this I can think of a number of cases where this is true.
Take Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for example. It is the most researched and empirically validated modality of psychotherapy and I do love data, so I agree that it should be the most widely used therapy. Somehow though, I just can't get behind it personally. There is no doubt that it helps many people but the type of psychological support that I personally need is not CBT and that is because what I need is difficult to measure and quantify. This is my argument. Much of human experience is not easily quantified or standardized. Even if you can score higher on a survey you may not have actually made any significant, internal changes.
As psychologists look to prove their theory or hypothesis they often look to statistical variances or other quantifiable measures to support their argument. This is important and certain studies need this type of evaluation. This type of data lends itself to broader applications and more universal explanations but may lack depth. Qualitative research on the other hand, offers an in-depth exploration of a lived experience. Some of the most salient research I have ever read came from studies that used qualitative methods. To me the counselling process itself is qualitative. It's about the process of being invited into someone's most sacred space. You just can't measure the experiences I have had in my office. (This makes it difficult to really argue my efficiency or effectiveness as a therapist but I remain confident and most importantly the clients do too.... for the most part I think.)
Let's talk education now. The establishment loves standardized tests. We can hold up those results to compare students, schools, districts, provinces, countries, etc. We love comparing because we want to know where we stand. Here in Alberta, we love standardize tests because we perform better than just about any other province or country. Best education in the world! Yay! But I argue that doing well on a test and being educated are not as correlated as we might think.
Quantification makes sense the higher up you are in an organization. The minister of Education can't make policy changes based on a few observations or anecdotes, I get it. The numbers are there to tell a broad story across the jurisdiction. It's not feasible to get the whole story from every teacher or student. In my opinion, the higher up you are in an organization the less grip you probably have on the day-to-day lived experience of those at the "bottom". CEOs deal with numbers so that they can get the big picture but they rarely understand in detail what is happening on the battlefield. This is where data that includes stories and experiences can depict a phenomenon with more depth and detail.
If a tree isn't measured in the woods, does it exist?
Let's get back to SMART goals. I take issue mostly with the M. There are some who believe that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. On the other side of the spectrum there are those who believe that measurements are meaningless. I'm somewhere in between. Some goals really lend themselves to measurement. For example, I want to lose 20 lbs. this year. Either I lose it or I don't. Easy. Other goals are harder to quantify but even in the example I just gave there lies a potential flaw; this is that losing 20 lbs. if I am really introspective, is not what I am actually intrinsically motivated to do. I want to feel better, I want to have better overall health, I want to be stronger, faster, and I want to improve my endurance. Losing 20 lbs. is likely to help me improve in all of these areas but losing the weight in and of itself is not the motivation. What I mean by this is that I could starve myself for a few weeks and drop the 20 lbs. but be less healthy. The number isn't exactly related to the actual goal.
When we seek to quantify a goal we are simplifying it and I argue that we sometimes simplify too much. We judge high schools by its graduation rate yet behind the scenes we see students who get dragged across the stage and have barely earned their diploma if at all. I know a few teachers that should have at least 40 high school diplomas on their wall because they are the ones who really did the work. These same students then move on to the 'real world', drastically ill-prepared for work or post-secondary, thus rendering the statistic less meaningful. I may sound like a jerk but it's in everyone's best interest for students like that to fail because even though they have a piece of paper they have actually failed in gaining the skills and experience needed to succeed.
Any significant human change comes from a place of meaning and purpose and these are not constructs easily defined or measured. Our best way of quantifying life's most treasured experiences like love, meaning, or creativity is by looking at key indicators. SMART proponents would then make measurable goals that would look to increase these indicators which makes sense except that often the correlation is not reciprocal. For example, creative people might watch less TV but watching less TV will not automatically make me more creative in and of itself.
I set goals specific to each of my significant life roles every year. At the top of my list is always, 'be a better husband and father'. Sometimes I would make measurable goals like going on more dates or being home for bed-time more often. These are good SMART goals but every year I still feel inadequate in these areas. I believe that this is because being a good husband does not involve a checklist of behaviours for me to complete. Being the husband that I want to be is more about process than product. Sure there are outcomes that are likely to occur as a result of my improvements but to target those indicators as separate goals would be to put the cart before the horse.
Process > product
Some goals require a more process based self-evaluation. Hard scientists will scoff but I would ask, "How does it feel now versus before?" or "What is it like?" We have intuition that is powerful and often accurate. We have the capacity to self evaluate based on whether it feels right or not and we shouldn't devalue this ability just because it doesn't lend itself to a number. I find so many people will list accomplishments as quantitative proof that they have achieved a certain value or quality while they are still lacking the true change they wish for. In fact, these accomplishments end up blinding them to what their gut is saying, which is, you still haven't really improved much in this area. "I take the garbage out, I watch the kids, I make the money, I do the dishes... how can she still be unhappy with me?" It might have something to do with the fact that you never look her in the eye, you don't smell her hair anymore, you don't flirt or reassure her when she's insecure or a million other so-called little, process related behaviours.
Sometimes process > product. Some of life's most cherished moments and relationships can't be summed into a simplified statistic. You know when you have it and you know when you don't and setting a measurable goal to ameliorate it might miss the mark.
Value the vision
Maybe it's semantics but what I propose is setting some goals that are more process related and qualitatively assessed. These will end up sounding like what most people might call a vision statement. It's less specific but intrinsically meaningful and motivating. A grade 2 student I work with set a goal to be more empathetic. We thought about how we could try and measure that goal with a chart of some kind but I think ultimately if your purpose is to be more empathetic you will have a sense of it when it happens. Maybe you would ask for descriptive feedback from those closest to you or maybe you listen for responses like, "exactly" or "you've got it".
The point is, anecdotal evidence can be valuable. I'm not calling for a complete rejection of measuring your goals but I would suggest including more qualitative, process related assessment methods to make sure you're hitting the actual, meaningful target.
Disagree? Comment below. Maybe you can convince me that SMART goals aren't always that bad.
I like setting goals.
I like writing them down.
I like reviewing them with myself and others.
I'm a therapist. I do it everyday. But since the 80's goal setting has been dominated by a framework designed in the business world, for the business world, that often misses the mark when it comes to authentic human progress.
For the last 30 years we have been told to set SMART goals which are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Bound (the acronym varies slightly depending on whom you're asking but this is the gist). We are encouraged not to work on an objective unless it meets these criteria. I believe that this framework often misses the mark, especially at the organizational level.
Let me first explain how this has looked in the fields of education and counselling as far as I can tell.
Sometimes when it comes to data: qualitative > quantitative
First, psychology and its many branches of theories and therapies are strongly motivated to have solid, measurable data. The field wants to be considered a hard science. We want quantifiable measures that give us definitive answers. So on both the research and clinical side we see an effort to quantify human experiences and emotions so that we can measure progress. Some assessment tools have been strongly validated although in my humble opinion, none are perfect. Some assessments on the other hand mean very little to me. Many tools are oversimplified, self-report scales that at best take a snap shot of a person's emotional well-being. These tools are used to measure progress so that a clinician can show evidence of the client's improvement. If you score high on the scale one day it could be argued that your symptoms are alleviated and treatment is no longer necessary. If a significant number of individuals improve their scores on the assessment tool then it can be argued that the therapy is effective. As I write this I can think of a number of cases where this is true.
Take Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for example. It is the most researched and empirically validated modality of psychotherapy and I do love data, so I agree that it should be the most widely used therapy. Somehow though, I just can't get behind it personally. There is no doubt that it helps many people but the type of psychological support that I personally need is not CBT and that is because what I need is difficult to measure and quantify. This is my argument. Much of human experience is not easily quantified or standardized. Even if you can score higher on a survey you may not have actually made any significant, internal changes.
As psychologists look to prove their theory or hypothesis they often look to statistical variances or other quantifiable measures to support their argument. This is important and certain studies need this type of evaluation. This type of data lends itself to broader applications and more universal explanations but may lack depth. Qualitative research on the other hand, offers an in-depth exploration of a lived experience. Some of the most salient research I have ever read came from studies that used qualitative methods. To me the counselling process itself is qualitative. It's about the process of being invited into someone's most sacred space. You just can't measure the experiences I have had in my office. (This makes it difficult to really argue my efficiency or effectiveness as a therapist but I remain confident and most importantly the clients do too.... for the most part I think.)
Let's talk education now. The establishment loves standardized tests. We can hold up those results to compare students, schools, districts, provinces, countries, etc. We love comparing because we want to know where we stand. Here in Alberta, we love standardize tests because we perform better than just about any other province or country. Best education in the world! Yay! But I argue that doing well on a test and being educated are not as correlated as we might think.
Quantification makes sense the higher up you are in an organization. The minister of Education can't make policy changes based on a few observations or anecdotes, I get it. The numbers are there to tell a broad story across the jurisdiction. It's not feasible to get the whole story from every teacher or student. In my opinion, the higher up you are in an organization the less grip you probably have on the day-to-day lived experience of those at the "bottom". CEOs deal with numbers so that they can get the big picture but they rarely understand in detail what is happening on the battlefield. This is where data that includes stories and experiences can depict a phenomenon with more depth and detail.
If a tree isn't measured in the woods, does it exist?
Let's get back to SMART goals. I take issue mostly with the M. There are some who believe that if you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. On the other side of the spectrum there are those who believe that measurements are meaningless. I'm somewhere in between. Some goals really lend themselves to measurement. For example, I want to lose 20 lbs. this year. Either I lose it or I don't. Easy. Other goals are harder to quantify but even in the example I just gave there lies a potential flaw; this is that losing 20 lbs. if I am really introspective, is not what I am actually intrinsically motivated to do. I want to feel better, I want to have better overall health, I want to be stronger, faster, and I want to improve my endurance. Losing 20 lbs. is likely to help me improve in all of these areas but losing the weight in and of itself is not the motivation. What I mean by this is that I could starve myself for a few weeks and drop the 20 lbs. but be less healthy. The number isn't exactly related to the actual goal.
When we seek to quantify a goal we are simplifying it and I argue that we sometimes simplify too much. We judge high schools by its graduation rate yet behind the scenes we see students who get dragged across the stage and have barely earned their diploma if at all. I know a few teachers that should have at least 40 high school diplomas on their wall because they are the ones who really did the work. These same students then move on to the 'real world', drastically ill-prepared for work or post-secondary, thus rendering the statistic less meaningful. I may sound like a jerk but it's in everyone's best interest for students like that to fail because even though they have a piece of paper they have actually failed in gaining the skills and experience needed to succeed.
Any significant human change comes from a place of meaning and purpose and these are not constructs easily defined or measured. Our best way of quantifying life's most treasured experiences like love, meaning, or creativity is by looking at key indicators. SMART proponents would then make measurable goals that would look to increase these indicators which makes sense except that often the correlation is not reciprocal. For example, creative people might watch less TV but watching less TV will not automatically make me more creative in and of itself.
I set goals specific to each of my significant life roles every year. At the top of my list is always, 'be a better husband and father'. Sometimes I would make measurable goals like going on more dates or being home for bed-time more often. These are good SMART goals but every year I still feel inadequate in these areas. I believe that this is because being a good husband does not involve a checklist of behaviours for me to complete. Being the husband that I want to be is more about process than product. Sure there are outcomes that are likely to occur as a result of my improvements but to target those indicators as separate goals would be to put the cart before the horse.
Process > product
Some goals require a more process based self-evaluation. Hard scientists will scoff but I would ask, "How does it feel now versus before?" or "What is it like?" We have intuition that is powerful and often accurate. We have the capacity to self evaluate based on whether it feels right or not and we shouldn't devalue this ability just because it doesn't lend itself to a number. I find so many people will list accomplishments as quantitative proof that they have achieved a certain value or quality while they are still lacking the true change they wish for. In fact, these accomplishments end up blinding them to what their gut is saying, which is, you still haven't really improved much in this area. "I take the garbage out, I watch the kids, I make the money, I do the dishes... how can she still be unhappy with me?" It might have something to do with the fact that you never look her in the eye, you don't smell her hair anymore, you don't flirt or reassure her when she's insecure or a million other so-called little, process related behaviours.
Sometimes process > product. Some of life's most cherished moments and relationships can't be summed into a simplified statistic. You know when you have it and you know when you don't and setting a measurable goal to ameliorate it might miss the mark.
Value the vision
Maybe it's semantics but what I propose is setting some goals that are more process related and qualitatively assessed. These will end up sounding like what most people might call a vision statement. It's less specific but intrinsically meaningful and motivating. A grade 2 student I work with set a goal to be more empathetic. We thought about how we could try and measure that goal with a chart of some kind but I think ultimately if your purpose is to be more empathetic you will have a sense of it when it happens. Maybe you would ask for descriptive feedback from those closest to you or maybe you listen for responses like, "exactly" or "you've got it".
The point is, anecdotal evidence can be valuable. I'm not calling for a complete rejection of measuring your goals but I would suggest including more qualitative, process related assessment methods to make sure you're hitting the actual, meaningful target.
Disagree? Comment below. Maybe you can convince me that SMART goals aren't always that bad.
Comments
Post a Comment