SMART goals are the most famous goal-setting checklist there is. They’re also easy to misuse, because many people treat the acronym as a research result. It isn’t. It started as a tip in a management magazine.
This guide covers where SMART came from, what research on goal setting does support, and how to write goals that are clear without being timid.
Quick answer: SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Assignable (or Achievable), Realistic and Time-related. It came from a 1981 management article, not from research. Separate research found that specific, difficult goals led to higher performance than “do your best,” especially when people get feedback and are committed. So write clear goals, make them a stretch, and check progress often.
Where SMART goals come from
George T. Doran, a consultant and former Director of Corporate Planning for Washington Water Power Company, is credited with the acronym. It was first published in Management Review in November 1981, in a paper titled “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. Way to Write Management’s Goals and Objectives” (Project Smart). Doran’s original wording was:
- Specific: target a specific area for improvement.
- Measurable: quantify, or at least suggest, an indicator of progress.
- Assignable: say who will do it.
- Realistic: state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources.
- Time-related: say when the result can be achieved.
Later versions changed some words: the “A” is often read as “achievable” or “attainable,” and “SMARTER” adds Evaluated and Reviewed (Project Smart). That’s why you’ll see different versions online.
What research supports
Goal-setting research by Edwin Locke and Gary Latham is where the evidence is. Their 2002 review concluded that “specific, difficult goals consistently led to higher performance than urging people to do their best.” Some details worth knowing (Locke and Latham, 2002):
- Specific isn’t enough. The authors note that “goal specificity in itself does not necessarily lead to high performance because specific goals vary in difficulty.” Specific goals mainly reduce ambiguity.
- Feedback matters. People need “summary feedback that reveals progress in relation to their goals.”
- Commitment matters. The goal-performance relationship “is strongest when people are committed to their goals.”
- Complex tasks are different. The effect was smaller on complex tasks: an effect size of .41 for the most complex tasks against .77 for the least complex. For complex tasks, the authors suggest specific, challenging learning goals.
Note the tension with SMART: if “realistic” pulls you toward goals you’re sure to hit, you may lose the benefit of difficulty. The review says performance leveled off or decreased only when the limits of ability were reached or commitment lapsed. So aim for a stretch, not an impossibility. (That’s our reading of their findings, not a rule they state.)
How to write a goal in five steps
These steps are our suggested method.
- Start with the result you care about. “More income,” “finish the course,” “launch the site.”
- Make it specific. What exactly will exist or have changed?
- Add a number or a test. How will you know it’s done?
- Add a date and an owner. Who does what by when? Write your own name if it’s just you.
- Make it a stretch. Ask: is this a little uncomfortable but still within reach given my time and skills?
Then set a short check-in, because feedback is part of what makes goals work. Put it in your weekly review.
Examples
These are illustrations to adapt, not targets.
| Vague | Rewritten |
|---|---|
| “Get more clients” | “Send 10 personalised proposals a week for 8 weeks, and review replies every Friday.” |
| “Learn to code” | “Complete one module of the course every week and build one small project by 31 January.” |
| “Be more organised” | “Do a 15-minute weekly review every Friday for 12 weeks.” |
| “Grow my blog” | “Publish one researched article every two weeks, and check which get search traffic after 60 days.” |
Where SMART goals go wrong
- They become a form-filling exercise. If you can’t say why the goal matters, you won’t stay committed.
- They’re too safe. A goal you’re certain to meet may not push you.
- They don’t help on complex work. When you don’t yet know how to do the work, a learning goal (“test three approaches and record what works”) may be better than an outcome number, based on Locke and Latham’s review.
- They aren’t checked. Without a review date, the goal is just a wish with a deadline.
Turning a goal into action
A goal says where; a plan says how. Break it into weekly actions, and put those on your calendar with time blocking. If the goal needs a new routine, track the small action with a habit tracker.
Frequently asked questions
What does SMART stand for? In Doran’s 1981 version: Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, Time-related. Many people now use Achievable instead of Assignable.
Who invented SMART goals? George T. Doran, in a 1981 Management Review article.
Do SMART goals work? The acronym itself isn’t a research finding. Research by Locke and Latham supports specific, difficult goals with feedback and commitment, which overlaps with parts of SMART.
How many goals should I set at once? We didn’t find a research-backed number. One to three at a time is our suggestion.
Updated 3 November 2026: we merged our older SMART goals posts into this guide, added the origin and research from named sources, and removed claims we couldn’t source.
Sources
- Project Smart: A brief history of SMART goals
- Locke and Latham (2002): Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation