The Agreement on Goals is an agreement on the objectives that the worker must achieve. It is a motivational technique and is used by default in foreign service and project work, but also in other areas. In addition to trade and industry, it is increasingly used in public administration.  Objective agreements are between two parties, but the objectives are set unilaterally by the employer as part of its management rights.  Goal agreements are concluded once a year, usually at the beginning of the fiscal year. Clearly defined objectives must be formulated and agreed upon. The entire goal process requires staff to understand and accept objectives. In general, for reasons of clarity and feasibility, six objectives have not been agreed. Often, three to five business-related field objectives are linked to a soft goal.  S.M A.R.T.
Goals must continue to be formulated. They should be: objective treaty theory is the dominant approach to determining whether there has been mutual agreement on contract formation. According to objective theory, the manifestation of the approval of one party is considered to be what a reasonable person in the position of the other party would conclude that the manifestation meant. Objective theory is a sound approach to determining consent, because it reflects the pragmatic reality that the law must be based largely on appearance and not on the whim of subjective perception, it protects the basis of economic exchange in our trading system by imposing expectations through trust in external manifestations, and it preserves the characteristic principles of contractual freedom and personal autonomy. Regardless of the superiority of the objective approach, at least three doctrines relating to contract formation are at odds with objective theory. These doctrines are the rule that the supplier`s death nullits the offer, the rule that acceptance is effective when mailing in the mail (the “postbox rule”), and the rule that the consumer accepts the terms in standard form contracts is effective if he is not read himself in the light of the merchant`s knowledge that the consumer is contrary to one or more of the conditions.