Thanks for the response. I was debating deleting my comment, as it probably came in part from a poor frame of mind. But I'll leave it, now.
I was referring to getting out of a job that imposes such an approach. I've inhabited a number of corporate positions, and the goal-setting and attendant performance evaluation often follows the same pattern. In large part, your manager tells you what your goals are going to be. You may be responsible for "developing" them, or even "collaborating" on them, but you soon learn that what is really expected is to record what the manager tells you.
These goals are based upon: a) Assumptions (often overly aggressive or "rosy") as to what will actually happen; b) What your manager believes more senior management wants to hear.
During the course of whatever timeframe is addressed (typically a half-year or year), several significant variables change. Budget is found, or more typically not. Senior management changes and want to establish a new / its own direction. Estimates prove to be too low, and work in the pipeline takes significantly longer and/or consumes significantly more resources. Unanticipated support needs consume significant time and resources. Etc.
As a result: First, your goals were not really yours. I don't mean just or primarily what you "want" to do. I mean also, they don't adequately reflect or at least consider your expectation of what is realistically achievable or important. Second, the goals, which are -- despite all the corporate speak regarding continuous review and re-evaluation -- typically not visited again until near the end of the timeframe, become woefully out of touch with evolving circumstances.
In my albeit limited observation, higher levels of management seem to be more able to redefine their goals as circumstances evolve. If you are lower on the totem pole, you are at the mercy of your manager. They can agree to redefine things. This leaves the original goal seeming somewhat pointless; all the more so if/when you "fudge" the language of the evaluation to portray a successful outcome, instead of being open about what prevented its achievement. Alternatively, they can use your commitment to blame you, punish you, and/or manipulate you into a further course of action.
The communication occurs largely in one direction. You can't really "own" the goal; instead, it becomes a fence that constrains your behavior, typically towards a very conservative, corporate norm.
Perhaps my own goal management suffers more from personal issues such as possible ADD tendencies and the like. But I've observed in coworkers as well as myself not infrequently a "submissive" and/or frustrated attitude where the largest truly personal goal with respect to the job, however ill defined this goal's pursuit may be, seems to be to somehow leave the job and do something better.
So, I've been largely speaking of formal work goals as defined for a performance plan. SMART immediately reminded me of the heavy emphasis of this approach at my last employer. However, when each component of a goal could be redefined at will, it lost value and left a distinct distaste for the whole, corrupt process.
I think you are speaking more about personal goals. In my apparently long winded fashion, I'm asking whether experiences such as mine in corporate life, have put others off of the whole "goal" terminology. I guess the other question would be whether that environment is irrelevant and that, rather, the negative experience I describe comes from poor self-management.
I probably should not have followed up, as its becoming apparent to me that my post had more of an emotional basis than an intellectual one. I don't want to become the "vents about corporate life" troll, here. (Really, I don't. Note to self...)
But by way of explanation, I'll submit this clarification and then slink off to lick my wounds. ;-)