Being SMART - S is for...

Words: 1,000 Reading time: 3 minutes 20 seconds

The SMART acronym is past its sell-by date and highly ineffective, but still heavily in use by unthinking project managers, unimaginative trainers and uninspiring coaches.

Acronyms and abbreviations are supposed to add colour and texture to the written and spoken word and to life in general. Their purpose is to assist in memory retention and learning.

They lose all of that whenever they become trite, confusing or uncertain. SMART has managed all three.

Those that are still trotting out this tired old carthorse claim that the goal, task or project must meet these criteria to be effective. But just what are the criteria?

There is zero agreement on what SMART is supposed to stand for. That’s why it’s such a useless tool. Just take the ‘S’ of SMART. A very quick search on the internet yields us the following alternatives for use in formulating our objectives:

Self-controlled; self-managed; self-owned; sensible; significant; simple; specific; strategic; stretching; straightforward; succinct; synergistic; systematic

This list is by no means exhaustive, but how helpful are even these few candidates as possible progenitors of ‘S’?

Self-controlled and self-managed are very close in meaning. Neither adds very much to the process of formulating the goal. If the path to the objective is not in our control, then it’s likely to be someone else’s objective rather than ours. It’s the same with self-owned. As possible roots for our ‘S’ they are little better than tautological.

Sensible? Some of the most awesome and inspiring goals were and are anything but sensible: climbing Everest; deep-sea exploration; curing AIDS; world peace.

Significant or strategic might seem acceptable after that last list, but many goals we set ourselves are neither of these in the great scheme of things. Will every single one of our goals be really significant or strategic – even to us? They may well be worthy, useful and desirable; but hugely significant and / or strategically imperative? I think not.

To be effective our goal must be simple or straightforward. Really? So a goal that is not simple or straightforward is not effective? Well, that’s it for mankind, isn’t it?

Actually, no. Many of the goals we set ourselves are complex, yet we follow them and achieve them despite the doomsayers of SMART. The Large Hadron Collider was built under the Swiss countryside. I have no idea what it does, how it does it or why anyone who does know might want to, but that highly complex objective was achieved.

Specific is a favourite candidate for the ‘S’. The case is that the goal needs to be concrete, detailed, precise, explicit, focused and action-oriented with a well-defined result.

Lovely, but I can think of many huge goals, all achieved, that had none of those characteristics. Churchill’s stated objective in 1940 was to win the war. It was as vague as that. He had no idea exactly how that could be done, when it would be achieved, or what form the victory might take. The rest is history.

When John Kennedy committed the USA to putting a man on the moon and bringing him safely back again there were neither vehicles to do it, nor the guidance systems to get them there. Less than 10 years later I watched it all on TV and cheered with relief.

So much for being specific.

Stretching goals are those that promote some form of discernable personal growth. Yet there are serious, important goals that do not necessarily deliver on that front at all.

Getting our frail and ageing parent into a good social care environment might occupy all our efforts for a considerable period, although it is unlikely that we will feel we are better people at the end of it. Often, we will feel worse because of lingering guilt. Nevertheless it is clearly identifiable as a goal.

Succinct: if we are going to tick all those boxes – being concrete, detailed, precise, explicit, focused and action-oriented with a well-defined result – is succinct even possible?

If it is, then is it necessary? Sometimes a longer, fuller description paints a more colourful, seductive picture making it easier for us to visualize the outcome, to commit ourselves to its pursuit and helps us keep the whole project vibrant and alive.

If all our goals had to be synergistic (2+2=5) then there would far fewer goals. Of course, single-point goals will usually have spin-offs, but those are by-products or unintended consequences. Imposing genuine intended synergy as the prerequisite of good goal-setting sounds like severely over-egging all puddings. Nice if we can do it, but hardly necessary.

Finally, finally, systematic: I suspect this one came with one foot in the project manager’s camp. Again, it’s not an absolute, indispensable requirement for our common or garden goals. Someone like Benjamin Franklin was highly systematic and got great results. But goals are often reached despite the system used to search for them, rather than because of it.

The biggest problem with penicillin was producing enough of it. Florey and another researcher travelled from Britain to the U.S. to talk to chemical manufacturers. Corn (maize) was tried as the nutrient base and it yielded almost 500 times as much as it had before. That helped, but more vigorous and productive strains of the mould were also needed, and one of the best came from a rotting cantaloupe in the market at Peoria, Illinois.

Systematic (the maize) helped, but serendipity (the cantaloupe) was also necessary.

Serendipity helps more often than SMART protagonists care to admit. The amazing story of post-it notes are another case in point.

There are other, possibly undiscovered, ‘S’s:

How about saleable – so that we can get others on board?

How about seaworthy – so we know that the goal will float?

How about sanguineous – so that we’re always full-bloodied about our objectives?

With so many stars to steer our ship by, how on earth is the ‘S’ from SMART going to help us?

SMART and its ‘S’ are touted as necessary and sufficient for all goals. Clearly, they are not.

Lessons in Staying Positive – #10

Words: 375. Reading time: 1 minute 15 seconds.

Feeling positive, when others feel anything but, often invokes a degree of fear or guilt in the positive individual. This can stem from a number of sources:

~ We assume it is wrong to be positive when so many others are not;
~ We take responsibility inappropriately for the feelings of others;
~ We feel others will reject us because we are now different to them.

Well, each of us has our own version of the world and we have no right to steal another’s responsibility for their own thoughts and feelings.

Despite appearances to the contrary a can-do / positive attitude is a natural state for all of us. Psychologists confirm that we are born with only two basic startle reflexes – sudden loud noises and falling. Other fears and phobias may develop along the way, but children have one innate quality that drives most limitations away – curiosity.

It’s only “adults” that have trained us to curb our natural curiosity for fear of nameless consequences. More often that not these consequences are by no means certain; they are not even likely; but they may hover on the edge of vague possibility. Yet we allow such uninformed trepidation to limit our journeys, halt our exploratory missions and curtail any investigations.

A young child would have no such qualms – as most parents will testify!

When we set out we were positive people – and I hope we still are.

a) How many of us gave up trying to walk before we were 3 years old?
b) How many of us believed that we could not learn a foreign language – which our native tongue was at the time, as were all languages?
c) Who remembers as a kid saying “let me, let me, let me”? I know I did.

That’s who we really are – so stop acting your age – this is our chance to be more childlike and authentic.

Let’s turn up our curiosity!

Negativity is when we only think we know; it doesn’t mix well with curiosity.

As Mary Kay Ash said: “There are three types of people in this world: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who wonder what happened.”

The question is: in which group are you going to be?

Average or Amazing?

Words: 971 Reading time: 3 minutes 14 seconds

Under the heading ‘Ordinary or Awesome’ I expressed the view that what is awesome and what is OK is firstly conveyed and then established partly by the customer. If we want awesome and we keep getting ordinary, then customers have to accept part of the blame.

But only part of the blame, because there are at least two parties to every transaction. In one context we are customers; in another context we are the providers. And in the many cases where we are providers, whether that is in a commercial setting or not, we too are in a position to be average or amazing. As someone wrote many centuries ago, “by their fruits you will know them”.

Few people set out to do a deliberately bad job. Even the apocryphal husband, who deliberately drops dishes as a ploy to escape doing the washing-up, is doing the best he can with the resources available to him – his vision of how the world should be.

In the context of employment many workers are made to feel they can go “only so far” in the job that they do. The organisational view is that the value of the transaction in question – or just the implicit gain to the company – allows for only so much resource, no more.

This can be traced back to management taking a short-term, transaction-by-transaction, view. In the face of a complaint and taking the short-term view, management weighs up the margin on that particular transaction and uses it as the limiting factor in determining how much more they are prepared to do to meet what the customer wants.

That would be fine if the transaction was totally divorced from all subsequent transactions, but it’s not. It’s either one of a stream of potential transactions stretching into the future – the so-called life-time value of the customer, or it contains the advocacy potential of a “raving fan” gained through amazing products and astounding service, even if it’s a one-time deal.

Management that ignores the wider setting of any transaction runs the risk of making the insignificant hugely significant by throwing away a large amount of future business for the sake of “a few dollars more” in the very short-run.

Either that or, they are on a personal ego trip with an unknowable cost.

Amazing helps deliver the future, because ordinary – and certainly less than ordinary – is no longer good enough.

Authors like Jeffrey Gitomer make the point that mere satisfaction is hardly going to light up someone’s life and get them talking about you. Satisfaction is when it’s just OK. Amazing is when it’s in a totally different league.

Do not measure customer satisfaction; it’s taking you in entirely the wrong direction.

And good doesn’t cut the mustard either. As Michael Bungay Stanier points out, many organizations are focused on delivering ‘good’’. And they want to sustain the way things are, so that there's minimum interruption to that ‘good’’.

But good gets in the way of GREAT. To stop at just good misses everything that flows from amazing and it short-changes both parties to the transaction. As Jim Collins found, great is a matter of conscious choice. It’s no coincidence that Good To Great companies first got the right people on the bus and the wrong people off.

If organisations wish to thrive then Presidents, Vice Presidents, Chairmen, Directors and Executives need to recognize that amazing products and astounding service are only delivered by people who are encouraged to exercise the necessary attitude.

Anyone can do it, given the right mindset and appropriate encouragement. As businesses we need to build a sense of pride and place the magnificent ahead of the merely measurable, because measurable places a huge roadblock in the way of being amazing.

This is why.

We are told that we get what we measure. And the unfortunate inference is that we get only what we measure. So, to get something we always have to be able to measure it. Right?

We know that isn’t true. Great art, of whatever hue, cannot be measured; yet it is still produced. Compassion cannot be quantified, yet it is poured out in huge abundance around the world. Not always, but more often and to a greater degree than one would suppose for something that no one has attempted to gauge.

Humour, ambition, grief – all these human qualities are not susceptible to measurement, but still they come forth. And so do their opposites like oppression, cruelty and neglect.

Being amazing, whether in production, in customer service or in life does not mean making a vast and overwhelming effort every minute of every day. Good grief, most of the averages we get are so poor that being even just 1% more remarkable will put you into the area of amazing.

To be amazing is not a call to abandon everything that you do and everything that you are. On the contrary, it a call to deliver your full potential, to be everything you can be, rather than what someone else would keep you from being or doing.

What can you do more of that makes a difference, shifts the balance, has an impact, moves minds, adds beauty, changes the status quo, creates something that’s worth creating, improves life, shows love, moves things forward, stops waste, starts a dialogue and engages people?

Jump right in. There are opportunities all around you and any one of these suggestions will start transforming the average ending into an amazing outcome.

Of course, from time to time the desire to be truly amazing, to settle for nothing less, will go against the flow. But where the broad river of humanity is going is not what we should be aiming at.

“The best work is not what is most difficult for you; it is what you do best.” ~ Jean-Paul Sartre

Shoes from a Sweet Shop

Words: 736 Reading time: 2 minutes 27 seconds

“Why can’t we just give the customer what he wants and needs and stop worrying about our own systems and processes?”

You may be familiar with this recent gripe I heard from a business trainer. It’s not uncommon from people who engage directly with clients when their own grand schemes seem to be going awry. And it does seem to pick up on common themes of listening and customer service.

How well does it work in practice?

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, just giving the customer what he wants and needs is a process in itself, if that is how the business decides to operate.

A process is “a sequence of interdependent and linked procedures which, at every stage, consume one or more resources (employee time, energy, machines, money) to convert inputs (data, material, parts, etc.) into outputs. These outputs then serve as inputs for the next stage until a known goal or end result is reached.” [businessdictionary.com]

Whereas a system consists of elements which continually influence one another (directly or indirectly) in order to achieve the common purpose the 'goal' of the system. All systems have (a) inputs, outputs, and feedback mechanisms. Systems underlie every phenomenon, and are everywhere one looks for them. [businessdictionary.com]

So, really, the call is not to abandon systems and processes, merely to operate different ones that are seen as better serving this advocate; whether such a change would better serve the business as a whole is an entirely different question.

One of the extreme models of customer service, and a very successful one, is Nordstrom. For those that don’t know, Nordstrom’s is a chain of department stores in the USA. At the end of 2000 they had 77 full-line stores and 24 clearance stores in 25 states, generated annual sales of almost $5 billion and boasted a sales-per-square-foot of $400, which is almost double the industry average.

A central plank in the service ethic that underpins Nordstrom is the single rule governing all employee actions:

“Use your good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.”

That’s interesting. All it calls for is good judgment, not an unconditional abdication to whatever the customer demands. For example, in the early 1990s the residents of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles expressed a strong desire to have a Nordstrom store in their community, because of the improvement it would bring. At the time of writing, as far as I can tell, they are still waiting.

Even Nordstrom sets boundaries.

Ryanair can be seen as being at the other end of the spectrum, yet it's a highly successful business. It got that way by deciding exactly what it wanted to do and sticking to it.

Ryanair aims to be a low cost airline, so it flies to low-cost airports which are in out-the-way places. If a Ryanair flight is diverted, perhaps due to bad weather, there will be no coach laid on at the alternate destination. Ryanair is a low-cost airline. Coaches are not part of the package.

Michael O'Leary, the Irish airline's boss, now wants to abolish the luggage check-in. He proposes that people carry their suitcases to the boarding steps, where staff will stick them in the hold. This would be unacceptable at BA. At Ryanair it’s expected.

On opening up new routes Michael O'Leary has said, “I don't give a toss where people want to go. I'm in the business of creating a market for people to go where they have never heard of.”

Ryanair – we do what we do.

So, just giving the customer what he wants and needs misunderstands what customer service is about. Certainly, one must listen to customers, but one must also learn. And part of that learning may be that what this particular person wants is not what this particular business does.

Others may do what they want a lot better. In that context good service would consist of steering the person in that direction. They were never your customer in the first place, because a customer is someone who pays you for what you do.

And as a business trainer my complainant should have understood this.

“Why can’t we just give the customer what he wants and needs and stop worrying about our own systems and processes?”

Let’s be charitable and put it down to frustration. The simple fact is, you can’t buy shoes from a sweet shop.