smarter than the average goals

[tim_maroney]

Today I read keith418's pieces on SMART goals for the OTO. The SMART formula seems workable enough, although I am always wary of smarmy, over-marketed planning models. We might ask why we should concentrate on goals and strategy rather than on requirements, whether a matrix organization or a traditional hierarchy would better fit the organizational goals,

Comments

[thiebes]

Well said! I agree that Keith's vitriol is difficult to wade through and that many of his points are vacuous.

Regarding the acronym particulars, I think Keith's rendering makes the most sense. "Specific" is only an elaboration on "measurable," and "attainable" and "achievable" are only synonyms for "realistic." "Action-oriented" might be a suitable compound word for the A, but anything that is accountable is implicitly action-oriented.

As far as your critique of Keith goes, as I said I agree with your overall assessment of his modus operandi. One thing that I would point out is that SMART should be a diagnostic tool used to examine goals, not people. My impression has been that Keith is not criticizing the leadership for not being SMART - he's criticizing them for not having goals which are. OTO leadership unquestionably has goals. But are they SMART? It's difficult to know, being outside the relevant e-lists and discussions. I have not yet seen a SMART goal presented by Grand Lodge, but that doesn't mean that they do not exist, and there is evidence to suggest that they do (i.e., progress is apparent, in a regular and seemingly planned fashion, toward implementation of the Blue Equinox).

Since there is a Grand Lodge building fund, for which donations have been earmarked and solicitations made, so I think Keith is wrong that he hasn't been asked to donate to it. Perhaps he once again failed to read his email (like when he was sent the OTO FAQ ahead of time to critique, but didn't get around to it until he had the opportunity to do so on his LJ).

In any case, I do see the utility of the SMART diagnostic as Keith has presented it. I use it constantly (since long before I entered OTO) and have taught others to do so. It makes life easier, especially when yer a flake like me, to have goals that meet these criteria. It just clarifies everything. I don't think that it's a useful diagnostic for critiquing the OTO or its leadership though. It doesn't make sense to ask whether a person or organization is "strategic, accountable, realistic, and time-based." I mean, you could ask that question, and someone could answer it, but that doesn't really suggest anything about the merits of the organization or lack thereof. The point of SMART goals is for organizations to use it to make goals that are well-formed, thought out, and clear.

Also I'd like to point out that the SMART diagnostic needn't be applied in order for a goal to have the characteristics of a SMART goal. That is, a goal may be SMART even if the person who crafted it is entirely unaware of the acronym. In my experience observing myself and others, goals which are not SMART never get accomplished. Yet, the OTO has goals, and is accomplishing them in graduated stages. This is a strong indication to me that the short-term goals they are setting would probably pass the SMART diagnostic, regardless if the acronym is ever explicitly used. By their fruits ye shall know them and all...

[tim_maroney]

Thanks for your thoughts, Joe!

I acknowledge that SMART goals is a workable formulation within the limits of goal-directed approaches to organizational problem-solving. I also think it is overmarketed, that the title indulges in a shameful pandering to the audience's vanity, and that it can be (and often is) used in a way that suggests an argument from authority. I don't think aligning a plan with a SMART model could be anything more than a quick first look at its overall sanity, and I also think there are inherent problems in applying a short-term-goal-directed approach to a spiritual and cultural endeavor.

One of the good points I thought Rubin made in his Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology piece was that SMART goals survive and remain useful despite the seemingly debilitating mutation of the acronym because "part of the value of SMART goals is that it focuses people on the act of setting goals and prompts discussion of these goals with others -- which in and of itself holds merit." I suggest that any reasonable review-oriented and goal-driven procedure would work about as well as the SMART formulation in any of its variations. Given your statement that "the SMART diagnostic needn't be applied in order for a goal to have the characteristics of a SMART goal. That is, a goal may be SMART even if the person who crafted it is entirely unaware of the acronym" I think we may be pretty much on the same page about the need for the SMART formula per se.

I also agree with your excellent point that the method is to be used to evaluate goals, not people. On those few issues where I agree to some extent with Keith that a problem exists, they are in human resources and management choice areas. These are more humanistic questions and so harder to develop in a purely goal-driven way -- again, more like gardening than entrepreneurship, though the two can coexist. They must involve careful considerations of such factors as human feelings, the ability for people to grow and learn from their mistakes, making people know they are valued, judgment and cultivation of character and communication skills, fair disciplinary procedures, constructive criticism and review processes, and the development and maintenance of a feeling of collegiality. I don't mean to say that goals shouldn't be set and tracked in these areas, only that goals can only describe one small part of the process.

This is a garden that I see the leadership tending, and one in which results over the last decade or so have been striking. We still have a long way to go but we have already come a long way as well. From reading his entries, I believe that these improvements are exactly where Keith would like to turn the clock back -- that they are the things in the OTO he is condemning as sentimental and egalitarian. I see them as necessary to the function of any successful organization, and especially any organization expressing the humanistic principle of Liberty and the Masonic principles of fraternal decorum and "perfect equality" in Lodge (cf. CI).