I know I’m a little bit of a broken record right now, but I am growing ever more annoyed with our goal-setting process this year. There is a stronger and more consistent focus on goals, with performance review points assigned, than ever before. Partly this is due to the economy’s effects on the F50C’s financial performance, and partly this is due to a change in leadership at the C-level.
The problem is, as a company and as a pyramid we’ve never been that consistent about setting measurable goals and don’t have a good methodology/discipline about it. I’m hella glad for the goal focus this year but I’m having a heckuva time trying to wrench my objectives into the weird structure that maps them to my leader’s goals. (His in turn maps to his leader’s goals, and hers to her leader’s and on up to the CEO). Cascading goals are not a bad idea but the way we’re executing them is wonky. Here is what I know about setting performance goals, and how we are doing at the F50C on each point.
1. Goals should describe your end state or desired outcome. Most of the goal setting literature agrees with this point. What will occur, be created, or be different as a result of your activity? How are we doing? Good. From the CEO on down, we are all expected to have goals related to bottom-line deliverables. But take note of my objective point in #2.
2. Objectives are the specific, measurable activities that you plan to undertake to achieve your goal. SMART goals, blah blah blah. If I achieve my objectives I will know my goal is met. And they’re measurable, so I can prove my goal is met. I’m not signing up for anything not directly impacting my goals, and I’m not undertaking any major work efforts not outlined in my objectives (and thus not prioritized). How are we doing? Fair. Problem is, everyone from the top on down has strategic objectives as well as goals. Maybe I’m just stuck on the language, because it’s being used imprecisely. The strategic objectives are really just squishier goals — goals where the measure of success is more subjective, or possibly where success is just having ‘moved the needle’ on an issue instead of outright solving the issue. I’m anchored to objectives rolling up under goals, so having a list of strategic objectives with other objectives rolling up under them makes no sense. See the next point for my further annoyance with these.
3. Objectives MUST be measurable. If you can’t find some kind of specific measure, you can’t set a baseline or a bar. If you have no bar, you can’t define success and you certainly can’t exceed expectations or outperform. And why on earth would you sign up for something you can’t prove you did? Sure, you might get off without being held accountable or held to task, but the downside of that is that you might also be accused of having done nothing when in fact you did a lot of hard work to great results. How are we doing? Poor. We seem to be completely let off the hook to measure the strategic objectives. It makes no sense to me. I’m designing measures for all of my objectives no matter whether they are “regular” or “strategic.”
4. There are lots of ways to measure, both objective and subjective.Pass/fail, % achieved, $$ achieved, customer/client/peer/partner satisfaction, movement up a maturity curve, etc. Use direct measures, surveys, self assessments. How are we doing? Good. The door appears to be wide open and I can set any measures I want, as long as I can make a reasonable case to do so.
5. Do not boil the ocean. The point of setting goals and objectives is to force you to reflect on what’s very important, and then set a focused plan of action for yourself to achieve that very most important stuff. Set 3 to 5 goals to keep you focused, and set perhaps 5 to 7 objectives at most for each goal. Too many goals dilutes what’s important and puts you at risk for diminishing returns vs effort. Focus like a laser, know what a successful outcome looks like, monitor progress, achieve your results, measure your results & compare to your baseline, and then check that sucker off your list. You can always set new goals later when you achieve your current goals. How are we doing? Poor. Today I looked at what my boss just signed up for on Monday and identified which parts of his goals & objectives I own. I also listed out everything major on my plate. I combined the two lists. I wrote out my goals & measurable objectives, outlining them to follow my boss’ goals. I had to jet to a 4:3o meeting, but by the time I left I was already up to ten goals, a few of which had more than five objectives. Way too many! I feel like everything on my list is important, but I’m not being forced to choose, and my boss/his team is not being forced to choose. Anyone can be great at a few things, but no one can be great at everything. Why would we want to set ourselves up to not be great?
Next steps: I’m going to re-roll and revise tomorrow. Some items that are separate goals should be collapsed. For some goals, I’ve got too many objectives and I will get focused and delete some. I’ll also challenge my boss about whether I should sign up for a couple of things at all.
Bottom line: We are going to be busy in 2009, and with fewer staff and resources! Having focused, well-crafted goals and objective that directly link to our leadership’s goals should help us work on the right things efficiently, instead of just working more hours.
December 19, 2008 at 9:11 am |
Hey there, you Superior Scribbler, you! First of all, I’m not “spamming” you; I promise! Second of all, I’d like to introduce myself: I’m Melissa B., The Scholastic Scribe, & I’m the “Original” Superior Scribbler! Third thing on my mind: I’ve been nominated for a pretty prestigious blog award; I’d greatly appreciate your vote, so if you click on over to my place, you’ll see the info. It’s an annual award from EduBlog, and I’m up for Best Individual Blog. And 4th thing on today’s agenda: I’ve got a cute “contest,” of sorts, going on at my place every Sunday. Please come by this Sunday for the Silly Sunday Sweepstakes. And, thanks for your support!
December 27, 2008 at 5:45 am |
As someone who is often called the Goal Guru I was most interested to read your piece on what seem to be pyramid goals – yours are included in mine and so on. It seems that there is a possible lack of ownership here. I also wonder to what extent subordinates are consulted before they sign up to be part of their boss’s goals. I traditionally facilitate workshops to get everyone sharing and owning but seems like a conference call at the very least is necessary. Sorry if I have missed the point.
December 28, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
Chris, you raise very good points: 1) I agree that there is risk of lack of ownership with cascading goals, if departments, teams or individuals are accepting goals blindly. New this year for every department at my company, performance review points are attached to our goals so that should help a little with accountability. (But like any measure attached to performance reviews,there’s big risk of giving rise to perverse incentives as people figure out how to game the system.) 2) It’s a bitter pill to swallow when your boss’ goals cascade down on to you and you’ve got no say in the matter. I appreciate how our department has done it: all the managers participated in an offsite to review my SVP’s goals and then set my boss’ goals in light of the SVP’s. In turn we’ll circulate my boss’ goals to the team for feedback — and I’ll do the same for my specific team, to get their feedback on my specific goals. To your point, though, I worry for any teams that are not undertaking to get mid-management and team buy-in!