M: How do you approach setting goals for yourself? In training sessions, it’s almost embarrassing to talk about SMART goals, because everyone knows the concept, but when it comes down to it, real-world application proves to be more challenging.
A: One of the most important things for me regarding goals is the idea that it’s worth aiming higher than you want to achieve, and ultimately, bigger goals are easier to hit. This is my maxim. The truth, however, is also that sometimes a bigger goal is unattainable. And now—if you habitually set goals that are not achievable, first, we forget about SMART, and second, we demotivate the team and lower energy levels.
There’s a movie about this—Whiplash. It tells the story of a student-mentor relationship at a music academy in the States. The music teacher pushes the boundaries of his protégés’ capabilities to an extreme degree to reach a level of genius. The problem is that this applies to one per mille of people in the world who actually achieve above-standard results through pressure and “pushing.” Most of us, however, are not that one in a thousand, and people are more likely to be destroyed this way.
M: The costs of this process are enormous.
A: I recommended this film to many of my leaders, especially those who came to me and said: “Aleksander, this is f… impossible. It can’t be done. These are goals that are unattainable in such a timeframe, with such resources.” I say: yes and no. However, watch this film. Sometimes, when you theoretically exceed your maximum capabilities, you achieve something extraordinary—and you also need to look at it from that perspective.
M: So, realistic, but also ambitious? People need to feel progress, to see that things are moving forward, but at the same time, they must dare to do more. I remember a conversation with one of Google’s managers who said they deliberately set unattainable KPIs, because they found that by reaching for the impossible, people still achieved more than if they had planned rationally. So there isn’t one simple answer—you have to look at it from both sides.
A: Less is more. That has always worked for me. Goals should be clearly defined, but there shouldn’t be more than five of them.
Deming’s methodology assumes check and adjust. You have a plan, then there’s check and adjust. I very often use this in relation to goals. You define a strategy, form a hypothesis, and based on that, an action plan is created and implemented. But at some point, you have to say: “I’m checking.” The leader’s role is to define the plan and implement it, but also to check and adjust. During follow-up, you need to pause, refer to what you wanted to achieve, and ask one fundamental question: “Is it working or not?” If it’s working—continue. If not—engage adjust and update the goal.
And this is precisely the difficult moment in working with goals. If you see that you are consistently 20% below assumptions, below target, and the trend in no way indicates that you can achieve it, it’s time to say: “OK, let’s do SMART and set this goal completely differently.” That’s why I listed it as a separate point—I would say: a milestone in the process—because it’s simply necessary.
Changing Assumptions
M: It’s not always easy to honestly admit that we need to change the assumptions of the original plan.
A: Many leaders lose their power and authority when they blindly, with blinders on, pursue a goal that is unattainable. The team identifies this very quickly. The leader’s role is to be able to say: “OK, this can’t be done. We have to do it differently.” There’s a quote attributed to Einstein: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
M: It also happens that you have to face goals that you don’t fully believe in yourself, but which have been set by the organization. For me, it would be inappropriate if I went to the team and said: “Listen, these goals are pointless and unrealistic, but management decided so, so we’re pushing through.” In my opinion, a leader cannot say something like that.
A: Should not.
M: It’s difficult and not black and white. Neither artificial enthusiasm nor sincere defeatism will work—both weaken morale. What if I have a goal I don’t identify with, but I have to “sell” it to the team and enforce it?
A: Every goal is achievable—resources are key. The leader’s role is to define them in such a way that the goal becomes attainable. Resources can be time, knowledge, or people. The question is: how does the leader define resources for a goal that has been imposed on them?
M: So assertiveness from the leader is also needed in “upward” communication — what is possible and what is not.
A: Exactly. It’s a bit like being given a fire hose to put out a fire, but without the water turned on. In such situations, there’s nothing better than teamwork and collective brainstorming. Telling the team directly: “These are very difficult goals—stretch targets—both in terms of time and resources. Let’s think together about what we can do and what means we can use.” Then the plan isn’t created in one person’s head—everyone contributes something. The burden of the goal is distributed across the entire team. It often turns out that additional resources are needed, and then the organization redirects them.
M: But you have to talk about it, you have to stop and analyze it. Strategic meetings and reflection are key here.
A: And you have to be aware that if a goal is unattainable and there’s no indication it will succeed, a leader’s maturity lies in going to the client or principal and saying: “It can’t be done.” You can’t bury your head in the sand.
M: Do you recall any stories where people didn’t dare to say this in time—or you had to communicate it?
A: It happens constantly. In Poland, we tend to grit our teeth and, at our own expense, drive ourselves to very difficult health conditions, loss of authority, and weakened leadership.
M: Do you communicate with your people to ensure they have the courage to come and say it? I feel that if we don’t agree on this, people—raised in a culture of “I’ll somehow deliver”—won’t say it directly. Especially if they have experience with other bosses where it didn’t pay off. One of the managers I work with comes to mind—he has a very dominant personality. If he didn’t keep telling me: “Martyna, I need you to challenge me sometimes and have the courage to disagree with me,” I’d probably do half as much.
Taking Initiative in Goal Setting
From a different perspective, based on your experience, to what extent should one take temporal and decision-making initiative in the context of goal setting, when theoretically they should be assigned from above?
A: How it looks in terms of time and decisions results from various conditions related to HR systems and the calendar, which usually determines what should happen in the company and when. Namely: in the fourth quarter, employee self-assessment takes place, followed by the manager’s annual review, then a calibration meeting, and finally a feedback meeting with the employee. At the beginning of the year, the process of defining goals by the corporation opens and usually lasts several weeks.
The result is that the system opens for goal definition at the end of February or beginning of March, which physically shortens the period for goal achievement to 9 months, meaning the first quarter is lost.
M: If that’s indeed the case, what’s your approach to it, and how do you define goals?
A: From my experience, there’s no point waiting for the organization, and often you have to take the initiative. I try to define goals already in December. In the first weeks of December, it’s already more or less clear what challenges the current year has brought and what needs to be focused on in the new, upcoming year. That’s why I sit down to work on goals in mid-December, and once I have a draft, I schedule a meeting with my Boss to discuss their perspective on expectations.
Such a meeting concludes with a so-called Sign-off, and the goals are ready to be communicated.
At the beginning of the new year, I communicate the goals for the entire organization to my team, most often in an Excel format that precisely and measurably defines what I care about in the new year.
M: But shouldn’t your supervisor set your goals?
A: Yes, theoretically, yes. However, for many years I’ve found that if you don’t take the initiative yourself, the process radically lengthens and isn’t effective enough. Often, organizations lack a global strategy that clearly defines priorities, and that’s when it’s worst. Therefore, instead of waiting for your Boss, it’s better to take the initiative and take the bull by the horns.
In summary:
- Less is more – ensure the number of goals doesn’t get out of control and that everyone knows the top 5 most important ones.
- Deming in practice – check & adjust as a mandatory ritual – not “someday”.
- Leader’s courage – to be able to say: “Yes, I want more… but not blindly.” And when necessary: “It can’t be done – we’re changing our approach” (quoting a classic: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”).
- Resources = feasibility – time, people, competencies. If the goal is imposed, I negotiate resources and transparently engage the team in joint brainstorming.
- Take initiative – don’t wait for the “system to open” in February/March.
An exercise for reflection:
- Consider whether you are able, without looking at any documents, to write down your top five most important goals for the company right here and now?
- If you were to ask your leaders/managers about this, would they be able to write the same thing, or do you have unquestionable clarity here?
- How often do you check how unified and consistent the priorities are?
- How often during the year do you monitor with your team where you stand in relation to the initial assumptions, and is there time and space for Deming’s analysis and eventual correction of assumptions?
Leave a Reply