Frankenstein started out with good intentions. The Dr. lost his brother to a tragic accident and vowed to bring him back to life. With all the best of intentions to create life, his work led to the creation of a monster. Management by Objective (MBO) is much like a Frankenstein monster. I am sure Peter Drucker had the best of intentions when he created the idea of MBO but it hasn’t turned out that way.
MBO is a tool to align all actions in an organization around a set of objectives by first identifying the objectives, giving employees objectives consistent with those of the organization, monitor progress, evaluate the employees and the performance (usually through performance appraisals), rewarding the achievers, punishing the slackers, and then revising the organization objectives again.
MBO is an outgrowth of a certain set of assumptions and these include:
• Employees won’t put in extra effort unless they are constantly reminded, rewarded, and threatened to work on what is most important. The pay-for-performance portion of MBO is a critical element for this.
• Improving the performance of individuals will improve the performance of the organization.
• Measuring results and holding people accountable to those results will create improvement
The unintended consequences of MBO (the monster) have just recently been confirmed thanks to the “No Child Left Behind” legislation passed by President Bush in his first term. A recent series of articles by USA TODAY uncovered frequent cheating by teachers and principals. This is not the first time cheating has appeared since No Child Left Behind was implemented. A study by the Wall Street Journal uncovered purposeful tampering of the Regents exams in New York. I think they should re-name the program: No “Cheating” Left Behind: MBO Fails Again!
Holding people accountable to results where they can’t control (or even influence) all the factors necessary for success will cause either manipulated numbers or cheating. The environment created by pay-for-performance and MBO encourages manipulation because of the pressure for results. Various studies show that students (when asked if they cheat) report as many as 80% admitting to some kind of cheating. The reports by USA Today and the Wall Street Journal confirm the pressure to achieve as one of the root causes.
Some of you may be thinking that these are isolated instances. If so, then why did Bausch and Lomb executives forge sales data and hide inventory to meet stretch goals? Why did Auto repair managers in Sears bilk customers with unnecessary repairs to meet monthly bonuses? Why did Jiffy Lube managers sell unnecessary parts to customers to meet weekly goals? Why did Enron executives manipulate projects? I could go on.
Pressure to perform damages employee engagement. It robs employees of pride and encourages breaks in rules to achieve the results. It puts results in front of ethics.
With the best of intentions your senior leaders may be creating a monster with MBO, stretch goals, pay-for-performance, and performance appraisals. This monster will damage employee engagement and stunt performance improvement. These are the exact opposite of the original desired outcomes. It is time to eliminate the growth of MBO and to reverse its course before it consumes more employee engagement and valuable resources. We must especially protect the engagement of employees and must especially protect our children. We must kill this monster now.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
How to Drive Results without Forcing “Employee Engagement” into the Ditch
Our current management model is still based on the military model. I say that because most organizations still use an organization chart showing a pyramid structure, pay-for-performance policies, and the performance appraisal policies to control behaviors. These are all symptoms of embracing the management model consistent with the military model where you give a command and you follow it. It is based more on fear than on trust.
Think about the language we use to describe how leaders must lead. We have managers who must “drive” results or drive outcomes. Drive is a control word. Drive is a military term. In the dictionary even the words “to manage” means “to control.” Control is a military term. The General, or manager, gives an order and you need to follow it.
What does it take to move away from the military model? It has served us well for years but it is as outdated as Windows 3.1 operating system.
The first thing we can do as leaders is to change our language. If, as leaders, we want to increase trust, leverage our knowledge (increase delegation with confidence), and create higher accountability we can begin to use the word “agreement.”
An agreement is a specific, measurable, and time sensitive task or action that a person can complete because they already have (or can predictably obtain) all the tools and/or resources necessary to complete the action (task). A goal is different. A goal is also a specific objective or task that can be measurable and time sensitive but all factors, resources, or tools may NOT be available.
My wonderful wife and I decided to lose weight together as a team. She brilliantly suggested that we skip dinners for six weeks and see how well we do. She most often makes dinner for us because I always work late. I told her this was a great idea for her because it would take the pressure off her to always plan and make dinners. She could exercise or do something nice for herself.
Our goal was to lose weight. We agreed to shoot for 20 pounds each. To accomplish the goals we agreed to keep the following agreements:
• Eat breakfast and lunch and skip dinners
• Remove all sweets and snacks from the house
• If we got very hungry at dinner time (or afterwards) we could have a treat like nuts or fruit but no large meals
• We would support each other
The agreements we made will predictably get us to our goal. The agreements are actions or steps that will lead us to our goal. The agreements represent the steps in a process.
Most leaders, because of the military model, still attempt to bribe or threaten to hold employees accountable to the results without thoroughly discussing the agreements that need to be performed along the way.
A Wall Street Journal analysis of high school Regents test scores in New York showed a “bulge” in scores of 65 or just barely passing. Apparently teachers saw scores close to the passing grade and just “pushed” those kids over the line to be sure they passed.
The goal of the teachers was to increase the number of kids passing the Regents exam. There was no apparent clear set of agreements to achieve that goal and avoid the “gaming” of the system. The teachers made up their own method by pushing kids over the edge. Also, how much are the teachers learning about their teaching methods and/or future improvements by “gaming” the system. This approach also damages learning.
Leaders who skip the step of the “creation of a process,” skip the creation of agreement, and then threaten or bribe employees are “driving” results. However, they risk unintended consequences. To protect employee engagement, improve performance, optimize learning, and maintain integrity, leaders must learn the skill of “facilitation of agreements.” They must begin to learn how to study a system, identify those steps necessary to reach a goal and then create the list of agreements from those steps.
It is a lot better (and sometimes easier) to hold people accountable to agreements than it is to hold people accountable for results.
Think about the language we use to describe how leaders must lead. We have managers who must “drive” results or drive outcomes. Drive is a control word. Drive is a military term. In the dictionary even the words “to manage” means “to control.” Control is a military term. The General, or manager, gives an order and you need to follow it.
What does it take to move away from the military model? It has served us well for years but it is as outdated as Windows 3.1 operating system.
The first thing we can do as leaders is to change our language. If, as leaders, we want to increase trust, leverage our knowledge (increase delegation with confidence), and create higher accountability we can begin to use the word “agreement.”
An agreement is a specific, measurable, and time sensitive task or action that a person can complete because they already have (or can predictably obtain) all the tools and/or resources necessary to complete the action (task). A goal is different. A goal is also a specific objective or task that can be measurable and time sensitive but all factors, resources, or tools may NOT be available.
My wonderful wife and I decided to lose weight together as a team. She brilliantly suggested that we skip dinners for six weeks and see how well we do. She most often makes dinner for us because I always work late. I told her this was a great idea for her because it would take the pressure off her to always plan and make dinners. She could exercise or do something nice for herself.
Our goal was to lose weight. We agreed to shoot for 20 pounds each. To accomplish the goals we agreed to keep the following agreements:
• Eat breakfast and lunch and skip dinners
• Remove all sweets and snacks from the house
• If we got very hungry at dinner time (or afterwards) we could have a treat like nuts or fruit but no large meals
• We would support each other
The agreements we made will predictably get us to our goal. The agreements are actions or steps that will lead us to our goal. The agreements represent the steps in a process.
Most leaders, because of the military model, still attempt to bribe or threaten to hold employees accountable to the results without thoroughly discussing the agreements that need to be performed along the way.
A Wall Street Journal analysis of high school Regents test scores in New York showed a “bulge” in scores of 65 or just barely passing. Apparently teachers saw scores close to the passing grade and just “pushed” those kids over the line to be sure they passed.
The goal of the teachers was to increase the number of kids passing the Regents exam. There was no apparent clear set of agreements to achieve that goal and avoid the “gaming” of the system. The teachers made up their own method by pushing kids over the edge. Also, how much are the teachers learning about their teaching methods and/or future improvements by “gaming” the system. This approach also damages learning.
Leaders who skip the step of the “creation of a process,” skip the creation of agreement, and then threaten or bribe employees are “driving” results. However, they risk unintended consequences. To protect employee engagement, improve performance, optimize learning, and maintain integrity, leaders must learn the skill of “facilitation of agreements.” They must begin to learn how to study a system, identify those steps necessary to reach a goal and then create the list of agreements from those steps.
It is a lot better (and sometimes easier) to hold people accountable to agreements than it is to hold people accountable for results.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Human Resources is Sadly Unsophisticated
I just read Susan Heathfield’s article in About.com on how to create an environment that encourages employee engagement. Susan claims organizations are bad at employee engagement because it is hard work. This response is true yet sadly incomplete and unsophisticated.
Susan is right about some things. We need to improve employee engagement. It is a critical condition for success as we continue to feel global competitive pressures. We must protect the intellectual property of our organizations by reducing turnover of employees and protecting the knowledge they continue to accumulate in their brains.
Susan and Human Resource professionals continue to avoid a sophisticated discussion about the root causes of the lack of engagement. They claim to know what managers should do to create employee engagement and they always list the same tasks, i.e. adopt an engagement as a strategy, align the values, listen to employees, measure performance, hold employees accountable, yadda yadda yadda. Most of these ideas are fine but they don’t address the real root causes.
Human Resources professionals continue to recommend these basic steps but fail to recommend the abolishment of performance appraisals and the dissolution of pay for performance. In fact, in Susan’s case she continues to support these policies by recommending holding people accountable for results. This recommendation is the same thing as supporting Management by Objectives which almost always includes the current performance appraisal as part of the process. She also recommends an effective reward and recognition program. She still recommends rewarding top talent and using pay for performance as a carrot and club to both threaten and motivate top performers. This dysfunctional policy is what got Enron in trouble and Human Resource professionals continue to ignore the data that supports its demise.
Human Resource professionals continue to be in denial. These two policies represent the root cause of organizations inability to fully accomplish these other steps.
This is disappointing coming from the typical HR professional. It borders on incompetence when it comes from someone who is supposed to be a professional consultant and an author and advisor for Human Resources on About.com. There is no excuse. Research abounds supporting the dissolution of performance appraisals and pay for performance and anyone who is supposed to be an expert with forward thinking recommendations should know it and at least discuss it. I am seriously underwhelmed.
Susan is right about some things. We need to improve employee engagement. It is a critical condition for success as we continue to feel global competitive pressures. We must protect the intellectual property of our organizations by reducing turnover of employees and protecting the knowledge they continue to accumulate in their brains.
Susan and Human Resource professionals continue to avoid a sophisticated discussion about the root causes of the lack of engagement. They claim to know what managers should do to create employee engagement and they always list the same tasks, i.e. adopt an engagement as a strategy, align the values, listen to employees, measure performance, hold employees accountable, yadda yadda yadda. Most of these ideas are fine but they don’t address the real root causes.
Human Resources professionals continue to recommend these basic steps but fail to recommend the abolishment of performance appraisals and the dissolution of pay for performance. In fact, in Susan’s case she continues to support these policies by recommending holding people accountable for results. This recommendation is the same thing as supporting Management by Objectives which almost always includes the current performance appraisal as part of the process. She also recommends an effective reward and recognition program. She still recommends rewarding top talent and using pay for performance as a carrot and club to both threaten and motivate top performers. This dysfunctional policy is what got Enron in trouble and Human Resource professionals continue to ignore the data that supports its demise.
Human Resource professionals continue to be in denial. These two policies represent the root cause of organizations inability to fully accomplish these other steps.
This is disappointing coming from the typical HR professional. It borders on incompetence when it comes from someone who is supposed to be a professional consultant and an author and advisor for Human Resources on About.com. There is no excuse. Research abounds supporting the dissolution of performance appraisals and pay for performance and anyone who is supposed to be an expert with forward thinking recommendations should know it and at least discuss it. I am seriously underwhelmed.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
“Work as a Team to Remove the Cookies” – Create Engagement by Discouraging Incivility
We have a problem with incivility in our country. We even hear the President of the United States appealing for it from Congress and from the public while conducting political debates.
A 2011 study by Blessing and White (a management consulting company) reports only 31% of employees are engaged. Employees who are not engaged or especially those who are actively disengaged will have a higher likelihood of exhibiting inappropriate or uncivil behaviors. This means that 69% of the employees in the average organization might exhibit discourteous behaviors.
A University of Michigan researcher (Lilia Cortina and her colleagues from two other universities) found that 71 percent of workers (1,100 surveyed) had experienced workplace incivility in the previous five years. The incivility was from coworkers and superiors.
The problem of incivility in the workplace is compounded by our tolerance of it. We teach what we allow and we are allowing it more and more. We need to change this. What do we do?
Like most of you I wanted to lose a few pounds. My first strategy was to eliminate all sweets. This is a huge challenge for me for a number of reasons including my wonderful wife is a great cook and she is Italian. These two factors combine into a large family with lots of birthdays and anniversaries and she shows her appreciation and love for family members by baking.
The very first morning of my new “diet” my wife made two dozen chocolate chip cookies. The smell filled the house. They are my favorite. Do you think I broke my diet pledge? You bet I did. I asked, “What harm could one cookie cause?” I ended up eating four.
Which strategy will work best to help me lose some weight? Take a seminar on how to be more disciplined or remove the cookies from the house? Improving discipline is always useful to ensure better behavior but removing the cookies is the most effective strategy.
Which is the best strategy for leaders who wish to remove incivility from the workplace? Should leaders continue to try to change the individuals who demonstrate incivility or should they remove the real root causes of the outbursts and frustrations?
How does incivility play out in the work place? How do it manifest? In my experience rude behaviors most often occurs because someone is upset that they can’t do their job with pride. It is not because the person was born a jerk. Everyone gets frustrated and some of us behave poorly. They act out. They say things they regret. They damage relationships. All they really wanted was to be able to do their job to the best of their ability but something got in the way. Something triggered a negative reaction.
One of my clients has an employee who is demanding and a high driver. He easily confronts people and often offends them because he is so demanding and wants to look good. He wants to do the best for his clients. His co-workers get offended. Certainly, his style is rough and some even say it’s obnoxious. Yet, he is not purposefully mean. He is driven to perform and he has little patience for what he calls “incompetence” of others. He defines incompetence as events when he doesn’t get the information he needs to do his job or when he can’t provide the very best service for his clients. His style stinks. His motivations and intentions are good. His communication method is damaging. His motivation to provide quality service is strong.
What should a manager do with this person? Sure, improvements in his communication will help. Coaching will help. But is the real root cause of his incivility communication style? Or, is the real root-cause poor hand offs of information within the processes that fail to deliver the information he needs?
The poor performing processes and the poor hand offs are the chocolate chip cookies in the kitchen. If the cookies weren’t in the kitchen I would not have broken my diet. If the hand off of information was optimal, there is no reason to misbehave. Which is better? Remove the reason or improve his style? This is the choice leaders must make. If you keep the dysfunctional processes and incomplete hand offs there will always be a high probability of incivility.
The answer of course is both. I just find it useful for everyone in the organization to work as a team to remove the real root causes of the dysfunction. I find it most useful for everyone to get the “cookies out of the kitchen.” Any effort to reduce poor behaviors in the workplace must include a two pronged approach. Help with coaching for improved communication style but remove the root causes. We need both to protect the motivation and engagement of employees.
A 2011 study by Blessing and White (a management consulting company) reports only 31% of employees are engaged. Employees who are not engaged or especially those who are actively disengaged will have a higher likelihood of exhibiting inappropriate or uncivil behaviors. This means that 69% of the employees in the average organization might exhibit discourteous behaviors.
A University of Michigan researcher (Lilia Cortina and her colleagues from two other universities) found that 71 percent of workers (1,100 surveyed) had experienced workplace incivility in the previous five years. The incivility was from coworkers and superiors.
The problem of incivility in the workplace is compounded by our tolerance of it. We teach what we allow and we are allowing it more and more. We need to change this. What do we do?
Like most of you I wanted to lose a few pounds. My first strategy was to eliminate all sweets. This is a huge challenge for me for a number of reasons including my wonderful wife is a great cook and she is Italian. These two factors combine into a large family with lots of birthdays and anniversaries and she shows her appreciation and love for family members by baking.
The very first morning of my new “diet” my wife made two dozen chocolate chip cookies. The smell filled the house. They are my favorite. Do you think I broke my diet pledge? You bet I did. I asked, “What harm could one cookie cause?” I ended up eating four.
Which strategy will work best to help me lose some weight? Take a seminar on how to be more disciplined or remove the cookies from the house? Improving discipline is always useful to ensure better behavior but removing the cookies is the most effective strategy.
Which is the best strategy for leaders who wish to remove incivility from the workplace? Should leaders continue to try to change the individuals who demonstrate incivility or should they remove the real root causes of the outbursts and frustrations?
How does incivility play out in the work place? How do it manifest? In my experience rude behaviors most often occurs because someone is upset that they can’t do their job with pride. It is not because the person was born a jerk. Everyone gets frustrated and some of us behave poorly. They act out. They say things they regret. They damage relationships. All they really wanted was to be able to do their job to the best of their ability but something got in the way. Something triggered a negative reaction.
One of my clients has an employee who is demanding and a high driver. He easily confronts people and often offends them because he is so demanding and wants to look good. He wants to do the best for his clients. His co-workers get offended. Certainly, his style is rough and some even say it’s obnoxious. Yet, he is not purposefully mean. He is driven to perform and he has little patience for what he calls “incompetence” of others. He defines incompetence as events when he doesn’t get the information he needs to do his job or when he can’t provide the very best service for his clients. His style stinks. His motivations and intentions are good. His communication method is damaging. His motivation to provide quality service is strong.
What should a manager do with this person? Sure, improvements in his communication will help. Coaching will help. But is the real root cause of his incivility communication style? Or, is the real root-cause poor hand offs of information within the processes that fail to deliver the information he needs?
The poor performing processes and the poor hand offs are the chocolate chip cookies in the kitchen. If the cookies weren’t in the kitchen I would not have broken my diet. If the hand off of information was optimal, there is no reason to misbehave. Which is better? Remove the reason or improve his style? This is the choice leaders must make. If you keep the dysfunctional processes and incomplete hand offs there will always be a high probability of incivility.
The answer of course is both. I just find it useful for everyone in the organization to work as a team to remove the real root causes of the dysfunction. I find it most useful for everyone to get the “cookies out of the kitchen.” Any effort to reduce poor behaviors in the workplace must include a two pronged approach. Help with coaching for improved communication style but remove the root causes. We need both to protect the motivation and engagement of employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
