An example might help to clarify. Consider this phrasing:
“Ensure that all work is done properly.” This is an example of an
exceedingly vague goal. It’s likely it will mean different things to
the employee and to the manager and then, when the time
comes to discuss or evaluate performance, these differences in
understanding can cause conflict. This goal is simply too gener-
al. Contrast this with a more specific goal: “Complete monthly
financial reports and submit to manager by the end of each
month.” This one is far more specific and less likely to be inter-
preted in different ways. When it comes time to determine if the
employee has achieved this goal, the process is quite straightfor-
ward. All the manager and the employee have to do is answer
the question,“Were the monthly reports completed and submit-
ted to the manager by the end of each month?”
So, we want specific goals and we want goals that can also
be measured, if possible. With our vague example, there’s no
measurement criterion we can apply to determine if the goal has
been met. The second includes a criterion: we can measure
whether the employee achieved the goal if we check whether
the report was submitted by the end of each month.
Now, here’s the catch—the balancing act, if you want to call
it that. The more specific the objective, the narrower it is. Narrow
goals don’t cover much ground because they are so specific. So,
the more specific and narrow the goals, the more goals you need
to accurately describe what an employee needs to accomplish.
At some point you hit the point of diminishing returns, where
setting goals becomes so time-consuming and frustrating that
the goal-setting process costs more than it benefits.
Or, in the pursuit of specificity and measurability, we can end
up with goal statements that are very long and involved. For
13Setting Performance Goals That Work