Where SMART came from
SMART goals come from a two-page article by George T. Doran in the November 1981 issue of Management Review, titled "There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives"1. Doran was a consultant and a former director of corporate planning at Washington Water Power Company. He wrote it because, in his words, "most managers still don't know what objectives are and how they can be written"1.
His letters were not quite the ones most websites list today. Doran's version was1:
| Letter | Doran, 1981 | Common version today |
|---|---|---|
| S | Specific: target a specific area for improvement | Specific |
| M | Measurable: quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress | Measurable |
| A | Assignable: specify who will do it | Achievable or Attainable |
| R | Realistic: state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources | Relevant |
| T | Time-related: specify when the result(s) can be achieved | Time-bound |
Two things changed. The owner dropped out: "Assignable" meant naming who will do the work, and most modern versions have no letter for it. And "Relevant" came in, a check that Doran's list did not have.
Doran also added two warnings that rarely get repeated. First, not every objective has to be a number. In some jobs, "particularly in staff middle-management positions," forcing a number means losing "the benefit of a more abstract objective"1. Second, not every objective will meet all five tests. The acronym is a guideline: the closer a goal gets, the better1.
How to write a SMART goal well
Name the result, not the activity. "Run a webinar series" is a task. The goal is what the webinars are for, such as more trial sign-ups. A goal about activity can be met in full while nothing improves.
Say from where to where. "Increase sign-ups" has no finish line. "From 200 to 300 a month" does. Use your real starting number. If the tool above guessed one from your context, replace it.
Put a name on it. This is Doran's lost letter. A goal owned by "the team" is owned by no one. Write down the one person who will report on it.
Tie it to something bigger. "Relevant" is the check most people skip. Say, in one line, which company goal or plan this goal moves.
Pick a date and a check-in. A deadline alone lets a goal drift for months. Add when progress will be reviewed along the way.
A weak goal and a stronger one
The business below is invented for illustration: a 12-person software company whose new customers often stall in their first week.
| Test | Weak: "Improve customer onboarding" | Stronger |
|---|---|---|
| Specific | Unclear what "improve" means | More new accounts finish setup in their first week |
| Measurable | No number | Setup completion from 40% to 60% of new accounts, from the product's own sign-up data |
| Owner | None named | Priya, customer success lead |
| Achievable | Unknown | A stretch: the best month so far reached 52% |
| Relevant | Assumed | Accounts that finish setup are the ones that renew, and renewal is the company goal this year |
| Time-bound | None | By June 30, reviewed every two weeks |
Written as one sentence: "Priya will raise first-week setup completion from 40% to 60% of new accounts by June 30, to lift renewals." Anyone can check it, and everyone knows who to ask.
What the research says, and the "achievable" trap
Doran's article gave no studies; it was advice from practice1. The research on goals came from elsewhere. Edwin Locke and Gary Latham summarized 35 years of goal-setting studies in the American Psychologist in 20022. Their core finding: specific, difficult goals lead to higher performance than easy goals or a vague "do your best," as long as people are committed, have the ability and get feedback2. Effects are weaker on complex tasks that people are still learning2.
That backs the S, the M and the T. It cuts against how many people read the A. If "achievable" or "realistic" means "a goal the team is sure to hit," it steers people toward the easy goals the research says produce less. A 2022 review in Health Psychology Review by Christian Swann and nine colleagues made a broader case: the SMART acronym is not based on scientific theory, is not consistent with the evidence, repeats itself across its letters, and is often not used the way it was first meant3. That review looked at physical activity goals, but the points about the acronym itself apply anywhere.
The fix is simple. Read "achievable" as "possible with effort and the resources you have," which is close to what Doran wrote1, not "safe." A useful test: if the team is certain to hit it, it is probably too low.
Stretch goals have their own risks. In "Goals Gone Wild," published in Academy of Management Perspectives in 2009, Lisa Ordóñez and three colleagues listed side effects of goal setting: neglect of what the goal leaves out, riskier choices, more cheating and less learning4. Locke and Latham replied that these come from badly designed goals5. Either way, do not tie a stretch goal to pay, and watch what it leaves out.
Where SMART struggles, and what to use next
SMART is a checklist for one goal. It is good at making a single goal clear. What it does not answer:
- Whether this is the right goal. A goal can pass all five tests and still be the wrong thing to work on. Decide what matters most first; SMART only sharpens the wording after.
- How several goals fit together. A team with eight separate SMART goals has no way to see which one wins when they compete. OKRs pair one objective with a few measurable key results, which suits a team or company plan better. The OKR generator drafts a set.
- Which number to watch. "Measurable" does not tell you what to measure. The KPI picker helps choose the numbers worth tracking.
- Work that is still being learned. When the task is new and complex, a goal to learn (for example, "test three ways to shorten setup and pick one") can beat a hard number, per the research above2.
Frequently asked questions
- What is an example of a SMART goal?
- "Increase qualified demo bookings from 20 to 35 per month by the end of Q3" is SMART: specific (demo bookings), measurable (20→35), time-bound (end of Q3), and tied to a relevant business outcome.
- Why use SMART goals?
- Vague goals ("grow the business") can't be tracked or owned. SMART goals force you to name the number and the deadline, so progress is unambiguous and everyone knows what success looks like.
- What is the difference between a SMART goal and an OKR?
- A SMART goal is a single well-formed target. OKRs pair a qualitative objective with several measurable key results. SMART is great for individual goals; OKRs scale better across teams.
- What does SMART stand for?
- Today it usually stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound. The original, from George T. Doran in 1981, was Specific, Measurable, Assignable (who will do it), Realistic and Time-related1. Many teams add the owner back, because a goal with no named owner tends to drift.
- Who created SMART goals?
- George T. Doran, a management consultant and former director of corporate planning at Washington Water Power Company. He introduced the acronym in "There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives," in the November 1981 issue of Management Review1. He called it a guideline and said not every objective will meet all five tests1.
- Are SMART goals backed by research?
- Partly. Goal-setting research summarized by Edwin Locke and Gary Latham in 2002 supports specific goals with a clear measure and deadline, and finds difficult goals beat easy ones2. The acronym itself was never tested, and a 2022 review in Health Psychology Review found it is not based on scientific theory3. Treat "achievable" as a stretch that is possible, not a goal that is safe.
- Can a goal be too realistic?
- Yes. Locke and Latham found that difficult, specific goals lead to higher performance than easy ones, when people are committed and get feedback2. If a team is certain to hit a goal, it is probably set too low.
Sources
- George T. Doran, "There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives," Management Review 70(11), November 1981, pp. 35 to 36.
- Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham, "Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey," American Psychologist 57(9), 2002, pp. 705 to 717. doi.org
- Christian Swann, Patricia C. Jackman, Alex Lawrence, Rebecca M. Hawkins, Scott G. Goddard, Ollie Williamson, Matthew J. Schweickle, Stewart A. Vella, Simon Rosenbaum and Panteleimon Ekkekakis, "The (over)use of SMART goals for physical activity promotion: A narrative review and critique," Health Psychology Review 17(2), 2023, pp. 211 to 226 (online January 2022). doi.org
- Lisa D. Ordóñez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky and Max H. Bazerman, "Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting," Academy of Management Perspectives 23(1), 2009, pp. 6 to 16. doi.org
- Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham, "Has Goal Setting Gone Wild, or Have Its Attackers Abandoned Good Scholarship?," Academy of Management Perspectives 23(1), 2009, pp. 17 to 23. doi.org
Written by Tom Olajide, Founder. Last reviewed September 24, 2026.