THE NEW DYNAMICS BLOG

Goal reviews: keeping, changing and abandoning goals mid-cycle

How to run a goal review meeting, the five legitimate reasons to change a goal mid-cycle and the two bad ones, how to record a change so it is not moving the goalposts, and how to close a goal that should stop.

Published Updated 8 min read

TL;DR

  • A goal review produces one of three decisions: keep, change or stop. Meetings that only ask how it is going produce none of them, which is why obsolete goals survive until the annual review notices them.
  • There are five legitimate reasons to change a goal mid-cycle and two bad ones. The bad ones are that it is going badly, and that a lower target would look better. Everything else is honest reprioritising if the trail is recorded.
  • Record the original goal, the change, the reason and the date, and keep both versions. A goal changed openly with a written reason is reprioritising; a goal quietly edited in September is moving the goalposts.

Every organisation has them: goals everyone knows are dead, still on the form in October, quietly embarrassing both the person who owns them and the manager who set them. Nobody killed them, because nothing in the process gives anyone permission to.

This article covers the meeting that prevents that: when to hold it, what it should decide, when changing a goal is legitimate and when it is not, how to record a change so it survives scrutiny, and how to close one properly. It describes the position in Great Britain and is general information, not legal advice.

Goals that are reviewed rather than filed need to be visible in between. See how New Dynamics goals and OKRs keep goals, progress and check-ins in one place.

When to hold it

Quarterly, for thirty minutes, with a quick check on progress in the ordinary one-to-ones in between. Acas's own worked example sets exactly this pattern: the employee and manager "discuss progress in regular check-ins" and "arrange a meeting to review it in 3 months' time".

Add one whenever something significant changes. HSE lists Change, "how organisational change (large or small) is managed and communicated in the organisation", among the six areas of work design that affect health and productivity, and a reorganisation that leaves last quarter's goals untouched communicates that nobody is paying attention.

The agenda

The four parts of a goal review meeting: honest status with evidence, obstacles including the manager's half, whether it is still the right goal, and the decision to keep change or stop.
If every goal is amber, the status scale is not being used.

1. Honest status. On track, at risk or off track, for each goal, with a sentence of evidence. Not a percentage invented in the lift.

2. Obstacles. What is in the way, and which half of it is yours. Acas is clear that employers "must provide 'adequate resources' to enable an employee to do their job", including training, so a goal blocked by missing support is the organisation's problem before it is the person's.

3. Is it still the right goal? The question most reviews skip. Would you set this goal today, knowing what you both know now?

4. The decision. Keep, change or stop, said out loud and written down.

A note on status language. If every goal is amber, the scale is not being used. Make at-risk mean something specific, such as "will not be met without a change", and expect some reds in a year where anything interesting happened.

Five good reasons to change a goal

Good reasons to change a goal mid-cycle: the priority changed, a dependency moved, the scope was wrong, the measure was wrong, or the person's role changed. Bad reasons: it is going badly, or a lower target would look better at review time.
Reprioritising is honest. Quiet editing in September is not.
  1. The priority changed. The organisation decided something else matters more. Say so, and say who decided.
  2. A dependency moved. The project this goal rested on was delayed, cancelled or handed elsewhere.
  3. The scope was wrong. It turned out to be three times the work, or a third of it.
  4. The measure was wrong. The number does not capture the thing you actually wanted, or the data source turned out to be unreliable.
  5. The person's role changed. New team, new responsibilities, a secondment. Our post on reviewing an employee who changed manager covers the wider handover.

And two bad reasons. It is going badly, which is a performance conversation rather than a goal change. And a lower number would look better at review time, which is the reason nobody states out loud and everybody recognises.

The practical test: could you explain the change, in one sentence, to the person whose goal depends on this one? If not, it is probably the second kind.

How to record a change

Keep the trail. Four fields are enough, and they are what separate reprioritising from moving the goalposts.

  • The original goal, kept rather than overwritten.
  • What changed, in the new wording.
  • Why, in one sentence, naming who decided if it was not the two of you.
  • The date, because a change made in March reads very differently from the same change made in November.

Acas treats the written record as part of performance management and says it should be shared with the employee. Share the change the same day, and if your system only allows editing in place, paste the old version into the notes before you edit.

Then say what it means at review time: the person will be assessed against what was agreed for each period, not against a target that only existed for six weeks.

Abandoning a goal

How to close a goal properly: say it is stopping in the meeting, record why and who decided with the date, capture what was already achieved, and decide what replaces it or that nothing does.
Leaving a dead goal on the form teaches people the whole exercise is theatre.

Some goals should stop. The work was cancelled, the problem solved itself, the opportunity disappeared, or it was simply the wrong goal. Leaving it on the form to die quietly is worse than closing it, because it teaches people the whole exercise is theatre.

Close it in four steps.

  1. Say it is stopping, explicitly, in the meeting.
  2. Record why and who decided, with the date.
  3. Capture what was done, because effort spent before a goal was cancelled still happened and still counts.
  4. Decide what replaces it, or deliberately decide that nothing does. A person with four goals instead of five is not under-committed if the fifth was cancelled by the organisation.

At review time, a cancelled goal is not a failure and should never be written as one. The honest line is that the goal was withdrawn in a particular month, by a particular decision, with whatever was achieved before that noted.

What HR should require

Not approval theatre. Two things: a change log with those four fields, and a check once a quarter on how many goals have not been touched since January. Our post on the meeting rhythm covers where the reviews sit, and the goal-setting conversation covers how they were agreed in the first place.

If a large share of goals turn out to be obsolete by mid-year, the problem is the goal-setting rather than the reviewing: goals set for a year in an organisation that replans quarterly are always going to rot.

Frequently asked questions

How often should goals be reviewed?

Quarterly in a dedicated thirty-minute conversation, with quick progress checks in ordinary one-to-ones in between, plus an extra review whenever something significant changes. Acas's own example of an objective includes discussing progress in regular check-ins and reviewing it after three months.

Can you change goals mid-year?

Yes, when the priority changed, a dependency moved, the scope or the measure turned out to be wrong, or the person's role changed. Record the original goal, the change, the reason and the date, and share it. What is not legitimate is changing a goal because it is going badly, or lowering a target to make the review easier.

How do you record a goal change?

Keep the original rather than overwriting it, write the new version, give the reason in one sentence naming who decided, and date it. Share it with the employee the same day. That trail is what makes the change reprioritising rather than moving the goalposts.

When should you abandon a goal?

When the work was cancelled, the problem solved itself, the opportunity disappeared or the goal was simply wrong. Say it is stopping, record why and who decided, capture what was already achieved, and decide whether anything replaces it.

Does a cancelled goal count as a failure at review time?

No. A goal withdrawn by the organisation is not a performance failure, and writing it up as one is unfair and obvious to anyone who reads the record. State when it was withdrawn, by whose decision, and what had been achieved before that.

What if every goal is amber?

Then the status scale is not being used. Define at-risk as something specific, such as not being met without a change, and expect some red in any year where priorities moved. A review where everything is amber produces no decisions, which is the point of the meeting.

Your next step: close two goals this quarter

  1. Open every live goal in your team and mark each one keep, change or stop.
  2. For anything marked change, write the four fields and share them the same day.
  3. For anything marked stop, close it properly and record what was achieved first.
  4. Count how many goals have not been touched since they were set, and tell whoever owns the process.

For an operating model where goals move with the work rather than with the calendar, read and download our continuous performance management guide. The guide is free to read, and the PDF uses our short download form.

Want goal changes recorded with their reasons instead of edited in place? Book a New Dynamics demo and bring this quarter's goals. You can also email contact@new-dynamics.com.

Keep the conversation going.

Bring out the best
in your people.

See what performance management could look like for your organisation.

Book a demo