A Management by Objectives history and evolution Goals and Objectives… from MBO, to Deming, to PM and beyond And more importantly… What the implications mean for you What Happened to Managing by Objectives (MBO)? Remember MBA ware in the 90’s? Well, maybe you don’t. How about management by objectives in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s? How about Deming and quality circles? What happened to those models for management and general productivity? What do you need to know if you’re interested in improving effectiveness and productivity for yourself and others in the work place? The MBO model sort of came and then left, without leaving much of an overt or visible impression on most. It seemed to exit from the fore-front of management focus by the downsizing and work group turmoil and market downturn of the early 90’s. Yes, almost every organization does some type of goal setting, but as the century turned, people looked to grow organizational effectiveness using macro efforts such as down-sizing, not an MBO style of managing, a way of organizing what topics and agenda to focus upon in a given day. With the upturn of the market and the start of the Internet gold rush, management by objectives slipped further into the past. The term “management” itself seemed to lose a sense of compelling interest. Riches were made based upon technology, upon acquisitions, upon something new, upon association with the WEB, not (for heaven’s sake) management of work effectiveness. Where we are going in this paper - observations about work models There are several points of observation or premises to be addressed in this paper, including: 1. Project management is an evolution of MBO theory, and in need of evolvement in specific directions itself… not necessarily more standardization. 2. MBO and previous models have all been eclipsed in history because their assumptions did not take into effect certain aspects in the workplace reality. The assumptions proved over time to be quite limiting, forcing the evolvement of management models with a new or improved set of assumption modifiers. 3. The current model of project management is also limited by its assumptions, with recommendations for needed change and expansion to the model. In effect, all of the work models to be discussed emphasize a certain perspective as key to achieving a goal or objective. Project management integrates certain perspectives pushed to the center of workplace thinking, and then adds its own emphasis. Each has a weakness in the assumptions that are included in their emphasis. Let’s start by reviewing some history, albeit in a very cursory manner. Goals and People People seem to need either a crisis or goals to achieve extraordinary outcomes. Sometimes they come bundled in the same package. The connection between goals and elevated performance has been in the literature as long as writing has been a part of civilization. In the last 50 years there have been more than 300 studies completed demonstrating repeated findings, or “basic truths” if you will, about humans and goals. Facts uncovered in repeated findings include: 1. People accomplish beyond their historical norm when they use goals. 2. People respond positively to stretch goals that they judge to be reasonable or attainable. 3. People stay attached to goals when leaders support a goal process by both modeling the goal related behavior and providing feedback relative to goal progress. What hasn’t been addressed or written up as clearly includes: 1. What happens when setting objectives or goals doesn’t work? 2. What happens when the effect of setting goals on organizing and directing behavior and achieving results is relatively nil? 3. Why are goals so significant for some, and relatively unused and apparently unneeded by others, both in and out of work? 4. Why with all the interest in setting goals over the years, does it have so little to do with most people’s day-to-day work experience? Note: In this white paper we will be using goals and objectives interchangeably. We will use the term G-O to describe a goal or objective for the purpose of describing in broad terms the process of defining some outcome to be accomplished that is not presently within reach. Management by Objectives (MBO) (It’s in the goal) In the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s it seemed like a good thing to manage work efforts by goals, hence the term “management by objectives.” The idea was to improve management and work productivity in general by being more defined about the intended outcomes MBO principals contained many precursors to the basic building blocks used by current project management tenants. The basic MBO principles included: 1. Establish a set of top level strategic G-Os. 2. Create a cascade of organizational G-Os that are supported by lower level definitive objectives and action plans. 3. Develop an organizational role and mission statement, as well as specific objectives and action plans for each member, often in a manner that involved participative decision making. 4. Establish key results and/or performance standards for each objective. 5. Periodically measurement/assessment of the status or outcome of the G-Os. The assumptive strength behind the MBO model, as commonly practiced, is the notion that if a desired outcome is defined as a G-O and progress is measured towards reaching that G-O, then the chances of reaching that outcome are enhanced. From a simplistic view, if you start out with a goal in mind, you are more likely to reach it. Or conversely, “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll probably get there” and it won’t be a goal based outcome. The MBO principles seem practical, even common sense, but the MBO theory didn’t survive very actively in the work arena. Why? One weakness was its assumption that becoming more defined about the traditionally broad or vague state of G-Os would lead to performance improvement. G-Os were accurately noted to regularly get broadly stated and stored in a bound annual volume somewhere, and only occasionally used as a measurement or reference device. An effort was made to shore up this weakness with a focusing upon the goal definition process, which became popularly known as the acronym SMART. To put it briefly, don’t just manage by objectives; manage by “smart” goals or smart objectives. Track your goals with enough specificity that you can apply periodic measurements and you will achieve them! Smart Goals (It’s not just setting a goal, it’s in the goal details) The SMART goal era of the 80’s and 90’s provided some helpful criteria about what makes G-Os more or less effective in shaping behavior. By definition, a goal that doesn’t shape behavior is ineffective. The theory went on to suggest that SMART parameters were good predictors of influential or effective goals. As an example, goals that were not specific or measurable were less likely to shape behavior than those that were high in these characteristics. Using a play on words, you were smart to include these characteristics in your goal and objective definition. SMART stood for the characteristics of: Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Reasonable and Time-bound. One of the almost palpable impressions of SMART goals is that they are pointed; they have an edge, often a sense of energy created by the specificity, the time limits and the measurement. Non-SMART goals seem flat in comparison (i.e. Improve productivity); bureaucratic, like one more strategic plan that’s going nowhere. While the enhancement to G-O definition was a helpful direction, it did not address fundamental weaknesses in this model. Weaknesses in the MBO model – why it doesn’t work very well Bottom line, MBO theory doesn’t work as well as might be predicted. What were the weaknesses in the MBO assumptive base that forecast its demise in the work reality? We think we know some of the reasons why, and here are three of them for you to consider before we march ahead in time and management theory: 1. It emphasized the setting of goals over the working of a plan. Do you remember when it was in vogue to “visualize” your goal daily… as if that was going to make it come to pass? Building an accurate plan and working it didn’t surface as critical to success, certainly not like using specific definitions and regular measurements. 2. It underemphasized the importance of the environment or context in which the goals were set. That context included everything from the availability and quality of resources, to relative buy-in by leadership and stake-holders. As an example of the influence of management buy-in as a contextual influencer, in a 1991 comprehensive review of thirty years of research on the impact of Management by Objectives, Robert Rodgers and John Hunter concluded that companies whose CEOs demonstrated high commitment to MBO showed, on average, a 56% gain in productivity. Companies with CEOs who showed low commitment only saw a 6% gain in productivity. That’s a whopping 50% difference in performance based upon whether the CEO effectively drives the program! 3. It didn’t address the importance of successfully responding to obstacles and issues as essential to reaching a goal. The model didn’t adequately cope with the obstacles of: • Defects in resources, planning and methodology, • The increasing burden of managing the information organization challenge, • The impact of a rapidly changing environment, which could alter the landscape enough to make yesterday’s G-Os and action plans irrelevant to the present. 4. It didn’t address the “human nature” issue. People, the world over, set goals every year but don’t follow them through to completion. One can surmise that this is the standard goal follow through behavior. Goal setting in this manner represents best intentions, “for the moment”, a good idea, or just aspirations. It doesn’t equate to the level of execution that would be required in a business for goal achievement. It is a part of human nature that is widely known, and in fact counted on by businesses such as work-out clubs who predictably sell more memberships at the first of the year, than they plan on supporting throughout the year. The problematic assumption is that if you manage by goals and objectives, direct reports and team members will organize their work around what you are managing by, e.g. those same goals and objectives. Deming and Quality Improvement (It’s in the product/process details) At roughly the same time, there was an emerging model that addressed some of what the MBO model didn’t. In the face of increasing change, information demands, distance from vendors and increase in breadth of competition, Deming suggested that G-Os are achieved by persistent, attentive measurement of the details and quality improvement. Identify and remove the defects, the issues, the obstacles, one at a time… and ultimately the objective will be achieved. Deming built a model around the importance of successfully responding to G-O quality issues, focusing upon reducing defects and process variations. . Deming’s model also addressed the environment and context - in a manner. Essentially it created a team environment (Quality Circles) at the mid-management level and below, to protect and nurture the (goal) effort. This also allowed upper management to support without participating and yet avoid the de-motivating impact of not-walking the talk or modeling the desired group behavior that harpooned the MBO model. Deming’s model provided two vehicles for addressing the complexity of work. 1. A singular or galvanizing focus of pursuing G-Os through achieving zero defects. 2. A structure for creating and following a series of best practices or task lists to ensure the optimal achievement (highest quality) of each objective The weaknesses in this model, which continues to evolve as exemplified by the Six Sigma effort, include: 1. Under estimating other (market) impact and feedback sources in the environment, with the presumption that removing defects and improving quality (making it the best) would provide the right “course corrections” and be the determining factor in reaching a business objective. 2. De-emphasizing the value of non-metric feedback loops (verbal feedback, insights, gut checks, what wasn’t said, delays in responding, etc.) when attempting to achieve something new, as contrasted with optimizing the existing. Managing information, in all its forms, becomes increasing critical to the extent the goal represents something different than the past. The more a project will encounter unforeseen changes, issues and obstacles, the less likely is the metrics behind process control going to provide all the key strategic decision data points. As both MBO and Quality circles began to fade, the power of personal computers, spreadsheets and computerized schedules were rapidly expanded. It set the environment for an emerging demand to manage the complex in an increasingly organized manner. The achievement of increasingly complex G-Os nurtured the developing model of project management with a new emphasis to solve the work efficacy challenge. The new emphasis was placed upon the specification, scheduling and deployment of resources as the chief predictor for work success and outcome delivery. Project Management… (It’s in the scheduling of resources and tasks) Think about project management as ultimately another approach to the achievement of G-Os. Drawing upon the influence of MBO theory (set clear objectives, build an action plan, and measure progress) and Deming’s work (optimize processes and products by identifying and practicing listed best practices behaviors), emerged the project management movement based upon certain key assumptions. In effect saying, 1. Yes, set clear objectives, and get key stakeholder buy-in and definition for the participant through explicit requirement setting. 2. Yes, put together a series of best practices action steps in the form of a work breakdown structure. 3. But, what primarily helps people achieve their objectives, is the planning, securing and scheduled deployment of resources, and the completion of tasks. The strengths project management brings to the market, also encompasses several fundamental limiting assumptions: 1. That linear planning provides an accurate map of real-world experience. 2. That the primary feedback necessary to manage a project is the notification of % complete, because essentially projects are a series of tasks waiting to be checked off. This stands in contrast to the critical thinking needed to provide an accurate assessment of a progress update that might include: Where are we, what’s working and what isn’t, what’s next, and why. 3. That project management is something everyone on the team will engage in, learn and practice. Baking a Cake from a Management Perspective Yes, I’m suggesting that project management at its bare essence is based upon the scheduling of resources and the completion of a task list. I know this review is very simplistic and full of omissions and arguable errors in emphasis and coverage given its simplicity. But, bear with me as I would like to make it even simpler and more concrete. Let’s approach the management models reviewed as if they are in fact approaches to achieving goals, but emphasizing different assumptive cores. Imagine for a moment that baking a cake is the goal, the desired work outcome. If you represented the three models discussed as various perspectives on what will most influence the success of achieving a G-O of baking a cake, it might look something like this: 1. The MBO model would emphasize setting a goal of baking a cake with as much specificity as possible as to the nature of the cake, and the timing and metrics relative to setting up the kitchen and the desired conducting cake baking activities. 2. The Quality model would add to that perspective by clarifying that you are never going to bake a cake unless you ensure that your equipment is functioning correctly, there are no bugs in the flour, the milk is of good quality, etc, otherwise all the goal setting and action planning will be severely compromised. Furthermore, you are not going to turn cake baking into an efficient production without measuring and optimizing each step and process involved. 3. The Project Management model would lightly address the two above and in effect state the best predictor of baking a cake is your ability to obtain the right ingredients and effectively complete the tasks of measuring, combining and heating the ingredients per the recipe (work breakdown structure). Incorrect combinations or measurement of ingredients (resource allocation and task completion) is the most significant contributor to overall success, regardless of whether or not this has been your specific goal, and regardless of whether or not you have made sure all ingredients and equipment meet quality specifications. Project management, although the other models embody it as well, most strongly adopts a linear environment (cake bake) view of the world. Framing the world of work as linear is a huge assumption – often an incorrect one. Let’s explore why with a few easy questions. Columbus proved the world wasn’t flat, why would we think it’s linear? What if a significant percentage of work goals and objectives impacting you, and specifically management, don’t fit the cake model? What if assuming that the approaching work manner in a linear fashion will produce success - is a bad assumption? Take a look at the following questions as indicators that the work reality we all operate within is in fact often non-linear. Here we go, ready? • What if it being successful this year involves making sure you do not practice what you did last year? • What if the (kitchen) business environment is not stable, and therefore a sequence or known formula that worked yesterday is not a guarantee of success next month or next year? • What if responding to change is, with all of its unpredictable-ness, is more closely tied to success than dutifully working your plan towards the big G-O? • What if you can’t respond to process and update information fast enough using your head and your voice box because of the challenges of managing information? It is the author’s premise that, in fact, today’s business and particularly today’s business management environment is frequently a non-linear, sometimes chaotic, only roughly predictable experience. Today’s business environment needs current management methodology to adapt and create a better fit than it does, at present, using the current project management model. Today’s business environment looks like a basketball game, requiring all sorts of “heads up” skills, not a controlled kitchen environment. A basketball game environment, where having a plan and being able to execute, is dependent upon both the right strategy and players, and the ability to sense and respond to changes. This is an environment where informed course corrections are just as important as the research into the initial plan. Why? Because planning is always an embodiment of assumptions about the future, and as such it makes the one acutely aware of the truth behind that old famous saying from the Army, “No plan survives the first encounter with the enemy.” Shifting from the “Cake Bake” to “Basketball Game” model for looking at work environment and what it takes to effectively reach goals and objectives, adds a “tipping point” to our discussion. You can’t go forward without reconstructing something. Let’s regroup on what’s been discussed and then review implications going forward. And let’s start by not doing it in a linear manner! Closing in on the Summary If we were to pull some of the key elements discussed thus far in the historical review of MBO, it might look like the following graphic. On a side note, notice how much easier or quicker it is to absorb information when it is presented in graphical context, as opposed to a linear mode. Both have their benefits, reflecting typically right and left brain functioning. If that’s the review, brief and truncated as it is, where are the implications and suggestions for next steps or “a better way.” A Needed Evolvement on the MBO to PM history (It’s a basketball game, not a cake bake) Remember our premises? Let’s review those as a means of starting to define what the needed evolvement looks like and concluding with an implication section. Premises 1. Management models for the past 50 years, really 100 years, have been eclipsed in history because their assumptions did not take into effect certain aspects in the workplace reality. 2. The current model of project management is also limited by its assumptions of emphasizing resource scheduling and task management. 3. Project management is an evolution of MBO theory and in need of evolvement itself. 4. The current work reality, with sharply increasing demands for managing information, is much more like the rapid dynamics of a basketball game, than it is a mechanical, predictable view of the world. One of the observations I would like to leave you with, is that as the work environment becomes less linear, less predictable, the present project management model becomes increasingly less effective. Hence, the large proportion of project outcomes that are unsuccessfully achieved in today’s work environment. Why projects fail is another larger discussion, but for the sake of simplicity, I’m suggesting that as the business and work environment becomes more like a basketball game and less like cake baking, the more the work focus and process needs to evolve – quickly and intelligently, or fail. Business is like basketball, where the environment is subject to fast swings, sudden shifts, turn-overs, misses and success. Where time and resources are limited and where planning is a necessary but limited tool; resulting in the increasing need for emphasizing coordination, playing heads-up, capitalizing on the emerging, brief opportunity and making adjustments. The basketball model is full of implications, but most of all it, suggests that a methodology that over-emphasizes resource scheduling and completing tasks will be bulky and slow in responding to change requirements. The management of work, including project management, needs to embrace a broader, multiple focused approach. I would like to suggest you consider the following 5 implications, the first three of which are a simple 1-2-3 work model we use at Performance Solutions Technology. Implications: 1. Work, every day, needs to start with an investigative-planning-prioritization process that balances long term goals, with current task demands and review of updates and impending due dates. This is our first key to playing “head’s up”. This is the opposite of playing “head down”, where you begin your day by diving into your email, your to-do list, your phone messages, the pending job orders and start cranking away on the first fire or task. 2. Work benefits from setting goals, but really happens when you execute a plan. So instead of drifting into fire-fighting, or free-lancing, or whatever seems most interesting at the moment, our second step in playing “head’s up” is work the plan, keep it in focus, remember that whatever deviations emerge, you will still need to work the plan to reach your outcomes at the end of the day. 3. Document your results. Playing “head’s up” means that you manage information throughout the day by documenting your results (both in narrative fashion, and in actual metrics if applicable), so that other people profit from your findings, so that other people don’t have to ask you “What happened?” The third step of playing “head’s up” is to realize most of what we accomplished is done so with the help of others, and the best way to keep a team coordinated and focused on the right priorities, making the right, up-to-date decisions, is to manage information actively. 4. The fourth implication, which hasn’t been developed in this paper but here goes, is that human nature is such the vast majority of people need leadership to reach stretch goals, whether they are defined as objectives or projects. Leadership that’s involved, that reviews, that follows-up on follow-through. Without leadership, the majority of the population does not organize their work life around the achievement of goals. Without leadership, the majority of the world organizes their work around task management and attending to what’s comfortable. 5. People need structure and technology tools to help them effectively reach goals and objectives in today’s work environment. Managing the influx (tidal wave may be more appropriate) of information and work processes and demands using memory, email and to-do lists is simply inefficient when working in any group or team environment. People need tools that are: • Flexible, relatively easy to learn and support the first three work steps above with clear structure. • Technology that’s not confined by the limitations imposed in the faulty assumptions reviewed in this paper. • Technology that helps them stay on top of their goals and tasks, in touch with people, and effectively identifying what’s priority and needed course corrections each day. • Technology that’s used in meetings, the primary coordination activity of all businesses. I’ll go over in further details what work behavior looks like when using the correct technology and leadership style below. But before I wrap up with that overview, let me suggest two important next steps: Next Steps: 1. Take a moment to do a quick review of one of our products, ManagePro. It’s easily laid out with screen shots in a PowerPoint format. Imagine what you could do with this kind of software technology at your work environment. Click here to view the tour. (http://www.managepro.com/sftwtour/managepro.htm) 2. Download a 30-day demo of ManagePro. There’s no charge, just go to the following link. Click for download. (http://www.managepro.com/demos.htm)  Or if you would like to look at the program interactively over the web without download to your PC, Click Here . (http://www.runaware.com/launch?c_app_id=4943&refname=managepro) [...]... integrates MBO basics with a current, innovative use of our software technology 1st Leg – Goals First of all, goals work; they just require reinforcement for everyone to use them versus just a few Given the choice, organizing work around goals… versus almost anything else (ex tasks, deadlines, crisis, meeting job requirements, looking good, you name it) improves performance But goal management really embodies . Weaknesses in the MBO model – why it doesn’t work very well Bottom line, MBO theory doesn’t work as well as might be predicted. What were the weaknesses in the MBO assumptive base that. 1. Project management is an evolution of MBO theory, and in need of evolvement in specific directions itself… not necessarily more standardization. 2. MBO and previous models have all been eclipsed. defined about the intended outcomes MBO principals contained many precursors to the basic building blocks used by current project management tenants. The basic MBO principles included: 1. Establish