In an online posting on “The 8 Stupidest Management Fads of All Time,” Geoffrey
James critiques some of the most common management techniques used over the
last few decades—Six Sigma, matrix management, reengineering, the search for
excellence, and so forth. One that he
attacks is management by objectives.
Anyone
who was involved in a large organization—profit, not-for-profit, religious—in the
last half of the 20th century has been exposed to and been expected to
practice management by objectives. As
James notes, the theory behind the approach is that you “define objectives
within an organization so that management and employees agree to the objectives
and understand what they are [to do] in the organization. Then [you] compare
the employee’s actual performance with the standards set and agreed upon.” This is often the basis for the employee’s
evaluation and compensation.
The
reality is that employees spend hours making plans for a future that looks
nothing like what we anticipated. As
James says, “As a result, everyone ends up either doing something that might
have worked a year ago or doing something that wasn’t in the original plan and
then spends extra effort making it look as if they were performing to the plan.”
Now James is not against
setting goals, but he sees all of this as either a waste of time or as a game
to be played where you set expectations as low as possible or set goals so
vague that you can interpret anything you do as success!
This caught my attention
because those of us who are life coaches work with individuals to set
goals. Many use the well-known SMART
approach. Such a goal has these
elements:
- Specific.
- Measurable.
- Attainable.
- Relevant or realistic.
- Time-measured.
SMART goals are formulated
to help an individual have direction or purpose in their personal development.
How does this differ from
MBO (management by objectives)? Let me
suggest several ways.
First, SMART goals are
made by the individual for his or her personal development rather than for an organization. They may be work related, but just as often
they deal with issues such as health, spirituality, and family relations. The “pay
off” is a healthier, more productive, and more satisfying life.
Second, in a coaching
relationship, the goals can be renegotiated as circumstances change. Life happens!
Coaches realize this and, without abdicating their responsibility to
help a person move toward his or her goals, they monitor both progress and life
situation and help the client to keep the goals realistic and attainable. The final decision about changes, of course,
is up to the individual being coached.
Third, the individual is
the final judge of whether he or she has met the goal. Although the coach helps the person develop
accountability structures, the final decision about whether the goal has been
achieved is up to the client.
In short, in a coaching
relationship, goals are not meant to be restrictive but empowering. When developed and used properly, they are an
effective means for individual growth and development.
Comments