Of course, this sort of assumption happens in our world as well. For example, when it comes to estate planning, aren't we prone to assume that "family dynasty" creation (aka "leave it to the kids") is an emotional driver? Don't we subtly assume folks avidly seek the day they don't "have to" work? Truthfully, do you make these assumptions? Honestly? Though ascribing our own motives to others is constantly tempting, don't they deserve better?
What are our responsibilities for goal-setting assistance? Obviously, our work is fraught with ambiguity. We bear frequent witness to financially self-destructive behavior. Can we expect people to grasp long-term financial implications of transient short-term indulgences? Yet, the interface of money, hopes and dreams within our daily life activities must rise as at least one version of ascertaining goals and objectives. Is this not fundamental to the advisory function?
"How high is up?" Or, "What is justice?" These are questions perhaps more reasonably measured. Unfortunately for the analogy, these questions are not universally accepted aspects of our "six-step process." "Goals" and "objectives" are.
These issues are serious role-defining challenges. Within the continuum of legitimate possibilities, our responsibilities may range from mere order takers to wise, intimate personal advisors. Obviously, there are no precise formulae. Functional qualities depend upon contexts and expectations. Sometimes, our responsibilities vary based on different situations with a single client. Sometimes, a client just wants something functional to happen. Sometimes, a client seeks life-transforming magic. How can we tell?
Now don't complain that "goals" or "objectives" can't be defined or articulated-but you just know them when you see them. That would just be a lame throwback to Justice Black's "definition" of pornography. First, you are not a Supreme Court justice. Accordingly, you have no jurisprudential slack in your rope and nobody cares how you might strain logic and still look intelligent. Second, not good enough. Not good enough at all. This is one of the non-Web, non-tech arenas in which we ostensibly earn our livings. Clients trust us to get this part right.
Even if this is giving you trouble, please stick with the program. This goals and objectives business may just be the most critically complex yet vitally important work on our plate.
Some of us may rely upon client-provided numbers. Query: Do these articulate goals? Or do they mask goals? Or are they simply unexamined wish lists only slightly removed from a 6-year-old child's list for Santa Claus? How many layers must be stripped away before we know we have landed on the real deal? Again, how do we spot one?
Who cares? What's the fuss?
I do not mean to be harsh. Nor do I have magical answers. I am just trying to make a simple point. If we do not really know what we mean by the very first step in our very own mostly unquestioned process, how in heaven's name, can we complain about being misunderstood? How can we understand our purpose, place or function? How can we grow?
At best our collective understanding of "goals" and "objectives" seems lame. All too often, we allow our own biases and prejudices to seep unconsciously into the mix to impose our values into the lives of these others, our clients. If we are to be more than mere order takers, perhaps we owe the topic more than a cursory examination.