SMART objectives are widely associated with George T. Doran's 1981 management article. Later evaluation literature has also warned that context matters when SMART criteria are applied. For employee onboarding, the wording should help a person understand good work, not turn every day into a numerical target.
The short answer
A strong onboarding outcome describes a useful piece of work, when it should be reviewed, the quality expected, and proportionate evidence that can support a conversation. It should sit within the person's control, acknowledge important dependencies, and leave the final assessment with an accountable human manager.
Begin with the work, not the acronym
Start by asking what a credible result would look like in the real role. Then identify the quality standard, the evidence a manager can reasonably check, and the point at which the result should be reviewed. A useful outcome should be concise enough to guide action.
Separate the result from the evidence
The result describes what should be achieved. The pass standard describes the quality or condition that makes the result acceptable. The evidence explains what the new hire should provide or what an authorised manager should observe. Keeping these elements separate makes the expectation easier to understand and review.
- Broad instruction
- Improve our social media and get recruiters more involved.
- Outcome
- By Day 30, maintain a four-week approved content calendar across the agreed social channels, with named publishing responsibilities and a weekly performance review.
- Pass standard
- Each planned item has a channel, owner, and due date; required approval is recorded; missed activity has a named recovery action.
- Evidence
- Approved calendar, published links, approval record, and weekly performance summary.
Two more examples across different roles
- Recruitment consultant
- By the agreed review point, prepare a compliant shortlist for one live vacancy using the approved brief and candidate-record process.
- Fair standard
- The shortlist reflects the essential criteria, explains material gaps, and has been reviewed with the line manager. It does not promise a placement, which depends on clients and candidates.
- Operations coordinator
- Complete the weekly supplier reconciliation using the approved source records and raise any unresolved variance through the agreed route.
- Fair standard
- The record is complete, material variances are identified, and escalation is timely. The person is assessed on the quality of the process, not on whether an external supplier responds.
Avoid four common mistakes
- Do not ask the new hire to promise a lagging result they cannot control, such as a guaranteed follower count.
- Do not combine several independently assessable outcomes into one sentence.
- Do not ask for evidence that is excessive, irrelevant, or difficult to verify.
- Do not treat polished writing as proof that the underlying work was completed.
Account for dependencies and reasonable adjustments
An outcome is not fair if the person is waiting for access, training, information, approval, workload capacity, or another team's action. Record the dependency and decide whether the review point or expected result needs to change. Invite the new hire to identify ambiguity or support needs early, rather than waiting for a missed result.
The wording and evidence route should also work with agreed reasonable adjustments. The standard can remain meaningful while the method, timing, format, or support is adapted to the individual and the role.
Use AI as an authoring assistant
AI-assisted drafting can help an authorised manager turn a broad aim into clearer wording. The draft should remain editable and should only be used after the manager checks the role context, feasibility, fairness, and evidence requested. AI should not judge employee performance or make an employment decision.
The Information Commissioner's Office explains that meaningful human oversight requires reviewers to stay engaged, interpret the output, and retain the authority to challenge it. That is a useful standard for any AI-supported HR authoring workflow.
A target is not an employment decision
An outcome provides structure for work and review. It is not, on its own, proof of overall capability or a substitute for a fair process. A manager should consider the quality of the evidence, starting context, support provided, agreed adjustments, dependencies, and the person's explanation before deciding the next step.
Is the result specific to the role? Is the standard proportionate? Is the evidence relevant and fair? Can the person control the expected work? Does the wording respect company policy, reasonable adjustments, and lawful process?
Sources and further reading
- Doran, G. T. (1981), There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives, Management Review, 70(11), 35–36.
- Bjerke and Renger, 2017, Being smart about writing SMART objectives
- ICO, Individual rights and meaningful human oversight in AI systems
- Acas, Reasonable adjustments at work
Turn broad role aims into clearer onboarding expectations.
See the manager-led workflow using one role from your organisation.