The Great SMART Goal Corruption
The world of management has a phantom in its midst. Since 1981, leaders have relied on the SMART acronym as the ultimate formula for setting objectives. We assume that the modern version (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) is the definitive version of the formula. I argue that this common understanding is a corruption of the original intent. It replaces rigorous management with a passive exercise in psychological comfort. Understanding the distinction between the modern myth and the historical source is vital for anyone who must deliver results.
I will show that the contemporary version of SMART prioritises safety over performance. I will examine the disappearance of Assignable and the redundant introduction of Relevant. I will also show how this creates a culture of non-accountability. Finally, I will show how restoring George T. Doran’s original 1981 definitions provides the necessary framework for genuine organisational growth.
George T. Doran created the SMART criteria to solve a specific problem: managers did not know how to write objectives and found the process threatening to their positions. In his original article, he defined the letters as Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, and Time-related.
The disappearance of the term Assignable is the most significant loss in contemporary management terminology. Doran used this term to specify exactly "who will do it". I argue that a goal without a name is merely a wish. One might argue that Achievable is a better fit because it ensures the team is not overwhelmed. However, Doran already addressed this concern with his use of Realistic, which requires that a result be possible given "available resources". I argue that a goal can be perfectly achievable in theory but will fail if no one is explicitly tasked with it.
The introduction of Relevant as a replacement for Realistic is equally problematic. This change created a domino effect of linguistic decay. One may counter that a goal must be relevant to the business strategy. While this is true, Doran viewed such debates over "labels" as a waste of time that hindered communication. By shifting Realistic to the "A" slot to make room for Achievable, authors made the "R" redundant. They then replaced the “R” slot with Relevant to fill the gap. This process deleted the Assignable requirement entirely. I argue that Relevant is a filler term that adds no diagnostic power to the process because relevance is a baseline assumption of all professional work.
The corruption of the acronym probably occurred as it transitioned into general self-help literature. For an individual setting a personal goal, Assignable is redundant because the actor is always the self. To keep the five-letter structure, authors substituted it with Achievable. Relevant was introduced to provide a sense of "alignment" or "purpose" in a personal context, ensuring a goal felt meaningful to the individual's life. This change was convenient for book sales but disastrous for corporate accountability. It transformed a tool designed for "management excellence" into a tool for personal motivation. I reject this modern version. It prioritises the feelings of the goal-setter over the actual output of the organisation.
In the fitness industry, the corruption of the acronym served a specific commercial need. Personal trainers required a framework for individual clients rather than corporate departments, which rendered Doran’s original requirement of being Assignable, specifying "who will do it", functionally redundant. To maintain the five-letter structure, the industry popularised Achievable and Relevant. While one might argue that "Achievable" preserves a cold assessment of resources, it actually shifts the focus toward the individual's psychological confidence. Replacing Realistic with Relevant also changed goal-setting from a management contract into a motivational tool. It prioritises a sense of personal alignment over the objective accountability and resource-mapping required by Doran's original 1981 criteria.
We must recognise that the modern SMART acronym is a hollowed-out version of a once-rigorous system. By reinstating the Assignable and Realistic criteria, we move past asking if a goal "feels good" and start asking who is doing it and what resources they need to succeed. Reclaiming George T. Doran’s 1981 definitions is the only way to close the loop of accountability and ensure that objectives are tied to specific owners rather than vague intentions
