Read on Twitter
I spent some time this month doing some reading on goals. What they are, why we set them, and how to set them well.
I, probably like many residents, feel like I suck at setting goals. Most didn't inspire action or really get me going - let's talk about how to fix that
I, probably like many residents, feel like I suck at setting goals. Most didn't inspire action or really get me going - let's talk about how to fix that
Most of us know SMART goals - a framework to structure goals that are specific, measurable, attainable (originally "assingnable"), relevant, and time-bound - proposed for managers by George Doran in 1981
https://community.mis.temple.edu/mis0855002fall2015/files/2015/10/S.M.A.R.T-Way-Management-Review.pdf
https://community.mis.temple.edu/mis0855002fall2015/files/2015/10/S.M.A.R.T-Way-Management-Review.pdf
Should every goal be a SMART goal?
Doran specifically says not necessarily - it is just a mnemonic for managers to avoid crummy goals/objectives. This doesn't mean that we should abandon SMART goals, but rather understand that some we shouldn't lock ourselves in that frame of mind
So what makes a goal a good goal? This is where goal-setting theory comes into play. At its most basic, goal-setting theory states good goals increase motivation and productivity. Simple enough. But "good goals" are elusive and hard to define.
Locke and Latham say that good goals have four purposes:
1. Provide direction
2. Energize the goal setter
3. Promote persistence
4. Promote task-positive behavior
But the "core" of a good goal has only two parts: difficulty and specificity
https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/09%20-%20Locke%20&%20Latham%202002%20AP.pdf
1. Provide direction
2. Energize the goal setter
3. Promote persistence
4. Promote task-positive behavior
But the "core" of a good goal has only two parts: difficulty and specificity
https://www-2.rotman.utoronto.ca/facbios/file/09%20-%20Locke%20&%20Latham%202002%20AP.pdf
Goals that define specific, difficult aspirations are the most likely to lead to consistent progress, as opposed to goals like "do your best"
But keeping up progress requires consistent motivation
But keeping up progress requires consistent motivation
Ryan and Deci propose that there is a spectrum of motivation to achieve goals which is a function of how much you have internalized the reason for pursuing that goal. External pressure is far less motivating than believing a goal aligns with your values
https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf
https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf
Good goals should align with your values and foster autonomy, mastery, and purpose
The other feature of good goals is avoid fragility - they don't rely on external events outside of your control to achieve them
The other feature of good goals is avoid fragility - they don't rely on external events outside of your control to achieve them
Wording is also important to influence attainment. Goals are almost always about doing or getting. They focus on attaining something that is largely up to chances you only have a small ability to control.
Reframe fragile goals to internalize the process needed to get there. Instead of "get the job," maybe "focus on making the best application to maximize my likelihood of getting the job"
You might not get the job for reasons out of your control - but you still achieved your goal.
You might not get the job for reasons out of your control - but you still achieved your goal.
So the next time you're asked to set some goals, first think about why you are setting them. Is it because you need or because you want to? Not every goal needs to be SMART, but make it specific and difficult, internalize the process, and find satisfaction in the journey.
