Writing Goals With Clear Success Criteria

"Improve stakeholder communication."

It sounds like a reasonable goal. It's relevant to the role. It addresses a real development area. And it's difficult to use for driving improvement or conducting fair evaluation.

Why? Because when the review period ends, neither the employee nor the manager knows whether it was achieved. "Did communication improve?" becomes a matter of opinion—shaped by recent memory, relationship quality, and the manager's internal standards.

Here's how to write goals that people can actually achieve, track, and evaluate fairly.

Why Vague Goals Fail

Goal-setting research is clear: specific goals outperform vague ones. But in practice, most goals are specific in form without being specific in substance.

"Increase customer satisfaction by 10%" sounds specific. But what counts? NPS? CSAT? Survey response rate? A 10% increase from what baseline? What if the product changes mid-year, affecting satisfaction independent of this person's work?

Without defined success criteria, "specific" goals become subjective judgments at evaluation time. The manager decides whether the goal was met based on their interpretation—which can reintroduce the subjectivity we're hoping to reduce.

The research on Goal Attainment Scaling, validated over 55 years, offers a solution: define what success looks like at multiple levels before the period starts.

The Five-Level Approach

For every goal, define what "significantly exceeds," "exceeds," "meets," "partially meets," and "does not meet" expectations look like. Use observable, verifiable criteria.

Example transformation:

Vague goal: "Improve stakeholder communication"

Goal with success criteria:

• Significantly exceeds: Weekly updates sent consistently; monthly reviews with 90%+ attendance; stakeholders proactively request input on adjacent projects; unsolicited positive feedback from 3+ stakeholders
• Exceeds: Weekly updates sent consistently; monthly reviews with 80%+ attendance; stakeholders ask substantive questions and engage; no escalations about communication
• Meets: Weekly updates sent (90%+ weeks); monthly reviews held with 75%+ attendance; responds to queries within 24 hours; no more than 1 minor escalation
• Partially meets: Updates sent but inconsistent (75-89% of weeks); attendance below 75%; response time occasionally exceeds 24 hours; 2-3 minor escalations
• Does not meet: No regular updates; reviews not held or poorly attended; multiple complaints about responsiveness; major escalation to leadership

Now evaluation becomes verification: "Based on what happened, which level was achieved?" The criteria were agreed upon before the period started. Both parties know what success looks like.

Quality Criteria for Goals

Not all success criteria are created equal. Research on Goal Attainment Scaling identifies what makes criteria work:

Observable. Could an independent third party assess whether this was achieved? If it requires reading minds or interpreting intent, it's not observable.

Verifiable. Is there evidence that would confirm or refute achievement? Documents, metrics, feedback, artifacts?

Distinguishable. Are the levels different enough that the correct one is clear? If "meets" and "exceeds" could both apply to the same outcome, the criteria need work.

Agreed upon. Did both the employee and manager review and accept these criteria? Goals imposed without input produce weaker commitment and more disputes.

Stable. Were the criteria defined before the period started and not retroactively adjusted? Changing criteria mid-period undermines fairness.

The "Expected Outcome" Anchor

The most important level to define is "meets expectations." This is what solid, reliable performance looks like—not exceptional, not failing, but what the organization should be able to count on.

Many goals fail because "meets" isn't clear. Managers have different standards. An employee who thinks they met expectations may receive a "partially meets" rating because the manager had a higher (unstated) bar.

Define "meets" concretely, get explicit agreement, and the other levels become easier to calibrate.

Common Mistakes

Binary goals. "Complete project X" has only two states: done or not done. This doesn't capture quality, timeline, scope, or impact. Convert binary goals into spectrums: completed ahead of schedule with expanded scope → on time and scope → slightly delayed → significantly delayed → not completed.

Unmeasurable aspirations. "Build stronger relationships with the sales team" sounds good but can't be verified. What would stronger relationships look like in observable terms? Joint meetings? Collaborative projects? Fewer escalations?

Manager-only criteria. If the employee didn't participate in defining success criteria, they may not understand or accept them. This reduces commitment and increases disputes.

Too many goals. Five to seven goals is the research-supported range. More than that diffuses focus and makes tracking impossible. If everything is a priority, nothing is.

Set-and-forget. Goals need attention throughout the period—progress check-ins, criteria refinement if business conditions change, ongoing feedback. Annual goal-setting followed by annual evaluation skips the process that makes goals work.

The Collaborative Process

Goal-setting with clear criteria isn't something managers do to employees. It's a conversation:

1. Identify priorities. What are the 5-7 most important outcomes for this person in this period?

1. Draft success criteria. For each goal, what would each level of achievement look like? Start with "meets expectations" and work outward.

1. Review and refine together. Does the employee agree these criteria are fair and achievable? Are there factors outside their control that should be acknowledged?

1. Document and finalize. Write down the agreed criteria. Both parties should be able to reference them throughout the period.

1. Check in regularly. Are goals still relevant? Is progress on track? Do criteria need adjustment because circumstances changed?

Try This

For your next goal-setting cycle, require that every goal includes written descriptions of at least three levels: "exceeds," "meets," and "partially meets." Share them with the employee before the period starts. At review time, point to the description.

Notice how the evaluation conversation changes when criteria were defined in advance versus interpreted in hindsight.