Do SMART or FAST Goals Actually Empower Others the Most?
Most effective leaders implement goal-setting as a common practice. Setting goals helps align an organization’s focus and resources. It also provides staff and volunteers a pathway for how to best use their time and energy. Most of all, setting effective goals and striving towards their fulfillment helps organizations keep their mission and vision front and center for everyone.
The acronym SMART or SMARTER is commonly used to define, describe, and assist leaders in setting clear, concise goals.
S - Specific
M - Measurable
A - Achievable
R - Relevant
T - Time-Based
E - Evaluated
R - Reviewed
In an article on MIT Sloan Management Review, authors Donald Sull and Charles Sull, introduce the FAST acronym as four core principles for goal setting.
F - Frequent
A - Ambitious
S - Specific
T - Transparent
Here is a chart from the Sulls article explaining these four FAST key principles.
I would suggest that this isn’t an either/or proposition as the two authors suggest. Instead, I believe there are great advantages to thinking of these two approaches as complementary. Here are some thoughts for your consideration, as you weigh the two approaches for your organization:
In Strategy Matters, my coauthor, Ken Willard, and I suggest the church goals are reviewed at the monthly board/council meetings. This is also suggested as a best practice for accountable leadership in Mission Possible. SMART goals can and should be reviewed frequently just as the FAST approach indicates.
In the achievable portion of the SMART acronym, I encourage the churches I work with to stretch themselves in setting goals, but don’t go so far as to make the goal unattainable. Stretching will prompt innovation, but making goals unattainable is defeating and often detrimental to the whole process. This seems to be the same principle as ambitious in the FAST model.
Since both SMART and FAST have “specific” as part of the process, both practices are on the same page when it comes to simple, distinct, and very clearly defined goals. The “specific” portion of the FAST model is also incorporated into the “time-based” principle of the SMART goal method.
It is always suggested that church goals are shared with staff, volunteers, and the general congregation. Therefore, transparency is an underlying principle in the SMART process just as it is suggested in the FAST process. Since the objectives for staff and ministry team leaders are created directly from the church goals, everyone can clearly see how their ministry area aligns and supports other teams.
Here’s the bottom line: Rather than choosing one approach or the other, use them together to strengthen both approaches. Consider SMART as a method for setting goals and FAST as principles to implement when setting SMART(ER) goals. The FAST principles provide a deeper understanding of the why of goal setting and helps in understanding how to better implement the SMART(ER) goals approach. Incorporating the principles of FAST into the process of creating SMART(ER) goals is a win-win for leaders!
