Brad Stulberg in his book, The Way of Excellence: A Guide to True Greatness and Deep Satisfaction in a Chaotic World (HarperOne, 2026), writes that “SMART goals are great - until they become too narrow or constraining.” He recommends that we “adopt a process-over-outcomes mindset.” Having spent a career helping people and organizations write strategic plans, and, in particular, SMART goals, I find Stulberg’s comments intriguing, and deeply thought-provoking.
First, let’s unpack the the definition of a SMART goal. In basic terms, it is an acronym, where each letter represents a specific word. Therefore, a SMART goal stands for the following:
- specific
- measurable
- achievable
- relevant
- trackable & time-bound
As Ken Blanchard in his book, Leading At a Higher Level: Blanchard on Leadership and Creating High Performing Organizations (Prentice Hall, 2006), explains that SMART goals help leaders measure performance frequently, and provide opportunities to praise progress. He also writes that “Three to five goals are the ideal number on which peak performance can concentrate, according to most research.”
Yet, I hear Stulberg’s comment that SMART goals are great “until they become too narrow or constraining.” This is the challenge with SMART goals at this time period. Once they are written, their specificity is both a strength and a weakness. Their strength creates focus and measurable progress. Their weakness is that they assume there are no unforeseen variables that will surface, which would cause one to reconsider the goal or rewrite the goal.
Building on this perspective, I often pointed out to groups when I was helping them create strategic plans that every strategic plan had a decay rate, namely the plan was only as good as the information that went into the planning process. If, for example, something surfaced once the plan was being executed that called into question certain assumptions that were made during the planning process, then the plan may no longer be viable, because of this new information.
What most people don’t think about is that a SMART goal assumes, to a degree, that there is a technical solution, i.e. one that falls within the range of current problem solving expertise, to any and all current problems. Thus, once the problem is clearly defined, the goal is to implement known solutions with current know-how using existing skills, resources, and processes. In short, a classic SMART goal restores order, maintains norms, and protects the company from external threats.
However, given current events, most problems that are trying to be solved now require new expertise and new solutions. Many problems are adaptive challenges where defining the problem may require learning, and may call into question fundamental assumptions and beliefs. If one were to create a SMART goal to solve an adaptive problem, the goal itself may not support a change in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits, and loyalties. It also may not tolerate the emergence of conflicts, and the challenging of cultural norms or systemic norms. Furthermore, many solutions to adaptive challenges evolve over time.
And yet, a classic SMART goal, as defined above, does not tolerate a “We will just have to wait and see what happens next” mentality. However, this is a standard mindset when dealing with adaptive challenges. We plan and move forward. We pause, and re-evaluate what has worked, and what has not worked so far. Then, we scan the environment to see if anything new or different has shown up. If not, we proceed. If so, we modify the goal and move forward. In short, strategic intent more than a strategic goal defines the direction and the progress when dealing with an adaptive challenge.
Nevertheless, I think Stulberg is right in his recommendation that we “adopt a process-over-outcomes mindset.” SMART goals are outcome focused, and there is a time and a place where this is exactly the right thing to create and execute. But, when working within a VUCA environment, borrowing a term from the US military, we need to realize that instability is chronic, uncertainty feels permanent, change is accelerating, and disruptions are common. Therefore, the goal setting process along with routine strategic reviews becomes more important than ever before. The combination of the two create time and space to make better decisions, and to write more adaptive, rather than rigid goals.
In summary, SMART goals work, but they are not always best when working through a time period of high uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. At periods like this, I advise we clarify strategic intent, and then design and implement highly flexible goal setting systems which include routine and in-depth strategic reviews to make sure our goals are still the right goals as events unfold.
As Jim Collins and Morten Hansen in their book, Great By Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck - Why Some Thrive Despite Them All (HarperCollins, 2011), pointed out so many years ago, “Given this rise of complexity, globalization, and technology, all of which are accelerating change and increase volatility, we must come to accept that there is no ‘new normal.’ There will only be a continuous series of ‘not normal’ times.” And when that happens, we need to be very mindful about how we choose to create goals, and execute them over time.
© Geery Howe 2026
