A useful performance goal explains the work, expected standard, relevant timing and evidence of completion. It should be understandable to both the employee and manager. A number alone does not make a goal fair or meaningful if the person cannot influence the result.
Use these checks when discussing goals for a role. This is a practical drafting framework, not a substitute for your organisation’s formal performance process or advice on a disputed employment decision.
1. Name the work or outcome clearly
Replace broad phrases such as improve efficiency with a defined task or outcome. Identify the scope: which process, customers, reports or projects are included? The employee should be able to explain what is expected without guessing.
Hypothetical example: “Prepare the weekly service summary using the agreed definitions and submit it for review by the confirmed deadline.” This describes work more clearly than “be more proactive”. Keep the goal connected to the role rather than adding unrelated responsibilities without discussion.
2. Check what the employee can influence
Identify dependencies on other teams, approvals, systems or external events. Distinguish the employee’s contribution from the final result that several people affect. A goal can include collaboration without pretending one person controls everything.
For example, a coordinator may be responsible for submitting a complete request and following up, while another owner approves it. Discuss how delays outside the employee’s control will be reviewed. Do not quietly change the measure from their action to an outcome they cannot determine alone.
3. Define quality as well as quantity
Clarify the standard that makes the output useful. A target number of reports means little if the reports are inaccurate or omit required information. State the relevant review criteria in plain language.
Avoid creating incentives to rush, hide exceptions or close unresolved work. If speed matters, pair it with the quality checks appropriate to the task. The goal should encourage the work you actually want, not merely a count that is easy to display on a dashboard.
4. Use evidence that can be checked
Agree where the evidence will come from and how the measure is defined. Specify the period and counting unit where relevant. If a judgement-based review is needed, explain the criteria rather than implying that a subjective impression is an objective number.
Do not invent a baseline because none has been recorded. Establish what is known and what needs observation first. A transparent starting point is more useful than a precise-looking improvement target with no reliable comparison behind it.
5. Make timing and priorities realistic
Confirm the deadline or review period and discuss competing responsibilities. If a new goal is added, clarify whether another task changes priority. Consider the actual resources and information required.
A goal can be challenging without ignoring constraints. Ask the employee to identify foreseeable obstacles and how they would raise them. Do not interpret every concern as resistance; it may reveal a dependency that should be addressed before the goal can be assessed fairly.
6. Agree support and review points
Record the guidance, access, training or feedback needed. Set a practical point to review progress and resolve uncertainty before the final deadline. The employee should know where to seek a decision when priorities conflict.
Support commitments should be specific enough to follow up. “Manager will review the first draft against the agreed criteria” is clearer than “support will be available”. If promised support is delayed, consider its effect when reviewing progress rather than ignoring the dependency.
7. Confirm how changes will be handled
Work can change after goals are agreed. Decide how revised scope, timing or measures will be documented and communicated. Keep the earlier context so the final review does not compare performance against an expectation introduced later.
Ask the employee to summarise the goal and correct misunderstandings. A signed form alone does not prove shared understanding. Keep the agreed version in the appropriate record and use the organisation’s process for any formal assessment or dispute.
A before-and-after example
Vague: “Improve reporting.”
More useful, hypothetical: “Prepare the weekly service summary for the agreed reporting period, include the defined measures and unresolved data issues, and send it to the named reviewer by the agreed deadline. Review the first draft together before the routine becomes independent.”
The revised wording identifies work, quality, ownership and support. It still needs actual dates and role-specific criteria before use; it is not a universal target.
Does every goal need a percentage?
No. Use a meaningful, checkable standard. An unsupported percentage can create false precision.
Can goals change during the period?
Follow the organisation’s process and make the change explicit. Review the effect on priorities, resources and evidence.
Use training-needs questions if a capability gap emerges, and the constructive feedback guide for a specific work example.
