Smart Goals Made Wise

How do we know whether we have set good goals? A popular acronym for goal-setting is SMART:

• S - Specific

• M - Measurable

• A - Achievable

• R - Realistic

• T - Time-bound

This provides a basic list of criteria for evaluating a goal. Suppose you set the following goal:

• ‘I want to get fit.’

The SMART model requires that the goal-setter ask questions such as the following:

• How specifically do I want to get fit?

  • Get stronger?

  • Run faster?

  • Cycle for longer?

  • Stretch more flexibly?

  • Perform better in a sport?

• How much or by what measure do I want to be fit?

  • X number of kilograms?

  • X number of seconds?

  • X number of kilometres?

  • X number of degrees?

  • X number of points?

• Is this goal achievable?

  • Do I need to adjust my goal?

  • Do I need to adjust my skills?

• Is this goal realistic for me?

  • Am I deluding myself?

  • Is this goal humanly possible?

• When or by what time do I want to achieve this goal?

  • Within the next month?

  • Within the next quarter?

  • Within the next year?

The benefit of the SMART model is that it brings ideals down to earth, transforming vague notions into concrete steps.

However, there is a small problem with the SMART model that needs to be addressed. Fundamentally, it is instrumental - and that’s the issue.

Suppose you set the following goal:

• ‘I want to be a good person.’

Does goodness concern specifics? Is it measurable? Is it achievable or realistic? Is it time-bound?

First, goodness seems to depend on our worldview or value system. If a person has a flawed value system, and takes something to be good when in fact it is bad, then it does not matter how specifically they set their goals.

Second, measuring goodness seems to defeat the purpose of being good. Suppose a person says, ‘I did 17 good things for someone today’? Would the intentions of the person making this type of statement be sincere? Why keep a tab on good deeds?

Third, goodness seems unachievable or unrealistic, if only because human beings are imperfect, but this is no reason against setting goodness as a goal. Also, ‘achievable’ and ‘realistic’ seem to mean the same thing. Rather than provide insight, this division seems artificially created to force the acronym ‘SMART’.

Finally, goodness does not seem time-bound. Rather, goodness is a timeless value. Setting a deadline on it would imply permission to be not good afterwards.

Replace the word ‘good’ in the criticisms above with any other intrinsic value, such as happiness, peace, justice, freedom, beauty, etc and the same sort of criticisms will still apply. This is because the SMART model is limited to instrumental values.

This summarizes the negative side of the SMART model. Now, for something positive.

By turning the above criticisms into ‘how’ questions we can add four more criteria to the model:

• W - Why is this goal valuable according to my worldview?

• I - Are my intentions sincere, and how can I avoid keeping a tab on good deeds?

• S - Am I willing to strive for this goal despite my limitations?

• E - Is this goal based on timeless values, and hence worth striving for endlessly?

In short, goal-setting should not merely be SMART but also WISE.