o set goals right, the manager needs to go beyond numbers and measures and focus on helping define "how" his team member will actually get it done. If the employee does not know the "how", he will have to rely merely on luck, prayer and maybe good monsoon!
"Achieve sales targets for the product category, improve retail store profitability, reduce inventory, improve customer satisfaction, reduce cycle time, improve turn-around time, reduce lead-time, enhance productivity and so on," claim the goals of employees across organisations. "Improve interpersonal relationships, become more assertive, get more organised, think more strategically," exhorts the individual development plan set for the average employee in many the organisations.
The supervising manager who has signed off on these performance or development goals is very happy that he has "pinned down" his employee to some very `smart' goals. He is now convinced that his employee will perform well and cannot complain about subjectivity when it is assessment and rating time. Nor can he complain about not being clear about "what" is expected of him, he believes.
The supervisor believes that all that now he has to do is turn on the heat once in a while to ensure progress towards the goals is on track.
Unfortunately, at the end of the year, when the employee fails to achieve many of these performance or development goals, the focus shifts to figure out how to deliver the bad news and get him to agree to his poor rating.
The sharp focus on performance in many organisations today is, indeed, welcome. It has helped make employees accountable for results. However, all this isa reactionary response — a reaction to increasing employee costs and a desperate urge to get a "bang for the buck".
The art and science of goal setting is still a mystery to the average manager. As a consequence, there is often lament about managers not adhering to the process in spirit, and, more importantly, the lack of excitement among employees in using it as a performance enhancement tool or technique.
What is leading to this increasing employee frustration and growing discontent about the effectiveness of the goal setting process?
More `what' and little `how'
It does not take long to clearly define what needs to be done. Few managers, however, spend time sitting with their employees to discuss and document the strategies and actions that are needed to actually accomplish the goals. To do this, the manager and his employee need to understand the current situation and identify root causes. They need to identify broad strategic initiatives that will drive progress. Finally, they need to evolve specific actions that the employee will initiate to actually secure the results. This calls for time.
More importantly, it calls for a certain level of conceptual ability on the part of the manager. Where the manager himself is unclear about "how to achieve the goal" it becomes a mere gamble to just put the goal there and hope and pray that it happens.
Same is the case with developmental goals. Managers keep saying that their team members need to "become assertive".
If the team member were to ask him how, the manager quite often may draw a blank. Employees cleverly enough do not ask and the goal reappears the next year.
The lack of managerial investment in evolving a "how plan" is one of the biggest reasons for the failure of the goal setting process leading to employee cynicism and disinterest.
Other reasons why goal setting goes wrong
While the lack of clear direction on the "how" of achieving a goal is the primary reason for the failure of the goal setting process and the resultant acrimony in the ensuing appraisal sessions, there are other reasons too.
Safe goals
The linkage of pay to goals has led to the unintended consequence of people trying to set "safe goals" — goals that are set keeping in mind the incumbent's ability to secure his variable pay. This attitude only ends up creating an under-performing and risk-averse organisation in the long run. It is important for the leadership that they a display of flexibility in the way they interpret performance and results so that people trust the organisation to take care of them, as long as they put the best efforts without the fear of failure.
Goals for too many
In their anxiety to bring about performance orientation, many organisations try to bring every single employee under the goal setting process. This creates excessive but unproductive work for the managers. In my opinion, employees, in fairly predictable and operational roles, need to carry performance standards instead of individual goals, the difference being that performance standards are set for a role and are on-going while goals are set for each individual and change every year.
It makes sense for the senior management to focus its energy on getting the goal setting process right for the top 20-30 per cent of the population (by seniority), and use performance standards for the rest.
Team Goals
In their anxiety to hold individuals accountable for results, organisations are fighting shy of using team goals even when the job design calls for a high level of collaboration.
As a result, organisations pursue the path of individual goals and end up in asituation where all the individuals claim individual success while the team itself fails to accomplish its overall goal. Here, team goals become relevant.Goal setting is certainly the way to go. But to get it right, the manager needs to go beyond the numbers and measures and focus on helping define "how" his team member will actually get it done. If the employee does not know the "how", he will have to rely merely on luck, prayer and maybe good monsoon!
(The author is founder and CEO of Totus Consulting, a strategic consulting firm that designs and implements HR systems and process for organisations across diverse industries. He can be reached at [email protected])
Source : Business Line
"Achieve sales targets for the product category, improve retail store profitability, reduce inventory, improve customer satisfaction, reduce cycle time, improve turn-around time, reduce lead-time, enhance productivity and so on," claim the goals of employees across organisations. "Improve interpersonal relationships, become more assertive, get more organised, think more strategically," exhorts the individual development plan set for the average employee in many the organisations.
The supervising manager who has signed off on these performance or development goals is very happy that he has "pinned down" his employee to some very `smart' goals. He is now convinced that his employee will perform well and cannot complain about subjectivity when it is assessment and rating time. Nor can he complain about not being clear about "what" is expected of him, he believes.
The supervisor believes that all that now he has to do is turn on the heat once in a while to ensure progress towards the goals is on track.
Unfortunately, at the end of the year, when the employee fails to achieve many of these performance or development goals, the focus shifts to figure out how to deliver the bad news and get him to agree to his poor rating.
The sharp focus on performance in many organisations today is, indeed, welcome. It has helped make employees accountable for results. However, all this isa reactionary response — a reaction to increasing employee costs and a desperate urge to get a "bang for the buck".
The art and science of goal setting is still a mystery to the average manager. As a consequence, there is often lament about managers not adhering to the process in spirit, and, more importantly, the lack of excitement among employees in using it as a performance enhancement tool or technique.
What is leading to this increasing employee frustration and growing discontent about the effectiveness of the goal setting process?
More `what' and little `how'
It does not take long to clearly define what needs to be done. Few managers, however, spend time sitting with their employees to discuss and document the strategies and actions that are needed to actually accomplish the goals. To do this, the manager and his employee need to understand the current situation and identify root causes. They need to identify broad strategic initiatives that will drive progress. Finally, they need to evolve specific actions that the employee will initiate to actually secure the results. This calls for time.
More importantly, it calls for a certain level of conceptual ability on the part of the manager. Where the manager himself is unclear about "how to achieve the goal" it becomes a mere gamble to just put the goal there and hope and pray that it happens.
Same is the case with developmental goals. Managers keep saying that their team members need to "become assertive".
If the team member were to ask him how, the manager quite often may draw a blank. Employees cleverly enough do not ask and the goal reappears the next year.
The lack of managerial investment in evolving a "how plan" is one of the biggest reasons for the failure of the goal setting process leading to employee cynicism and disinterest.
Other reasons why goal setting goes wrong
While the lack of clear direction on the "how" of achieving a goal is the primary reason for the failure of the goal setting process and the resultant acrimony in the ensuing appraisal sessions, there are other reasons too.
Safe goals
The linkage of pay to goals has led to the unintended consequence of people trying to set "safe goals" — goals that are set keeping in mind the incumbent's ability to secure his variable pay. This attitude only ends up creating an under-performing and risk-averse organisation in the long run. It is important for the leadership that they a display of flexibility in the way they interpret performance and results so that people trust the organisation to take care of them, as long as they put the best efforts without the fear of failure.
Goals for too many
In their anxiety to bring about performance orientation, many organisations try to bring every single employee under the goal setting process. This creates excessive but unproductive work for the managers. In my opinion, employees, in fairly predictable and operational roles, need to carry performance standards instead of individual goals, the difference being that performance standards are set for a role and are on-going while goals are set for each individual and change every year.
It makes sense for the senior management to focus its energy on getting the goal setting process right for the top 20-30 per cent of the population (by seniority), and use performance standards for the rest.
Team Goals
In their anxiety to hold individuals accountable for results, organisations are fighting shy of using team goals even when the job design calls for a high level of collaboration.
As a result, organisations pursue the path of individual goals and end up in asituation where all the individuals claim individual success while the team itself fails to accomplish its overall goal. Here, team goals become relevant.Goal setting is certainly the way to go. But to get it right, the manager needs to go beyond the numbers and measures and focus on helping define "how" his team member will actually get it done. If the employee does not know the "how", he will have to rely merely on luck, prayer and maybe good monsoon!
(The author is founder and CEO of Totus Consulting, a strategic consulting firm that designs and implements HR systems and process for organisations across diverse industries. He can be reached at [email protected])
Source : Business Line