Targets and Performance

Many years ago a colleague had been repeatedly unsuccessful in his pursuit of promotion. I asked him how he was coping with the set-backs and if he would have another go. He was most positive, saying that he was determined to achieve one last promotion before his retirement. He went on to tell me that every morning he looked into the bathroom mirror and chanted:

"Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better"

As he did so, he pounded his left palm with his right fist to drive home the message. This was his plan and he believed in it with a passion I envied. Sadly, he was unsuccessful to the end, although I think he enjoyed his journey.

When he told me about his improvement plan, my head screamed with a question that I saw no point in asking, such was his self-belief. That question is never asked enough and is born of a simplistic and systemic approach. It is....

"by what method.............are you getting better and better?"

If all we need to do is chant at the bathroom mirror in order to improve then mirror sales are guaranteed forever and all manner of improvement techniques, consultants and coaches are redundant.

Yet consider our frequent approach to performance management. We often identify an area of business which our analysis says is faulty and our response is usually to demand an improvement, pointing at those with responsibility to deliver. When told that they must improve, our colleagues are entitled to ask the same question ... "by what method".

If our colleagues do ask the question, consider how often it remains unanswered. More likely is the further managerial demand that not only must performance improve, it must be by a specific amount; in other words, we set a target. This seems to be a conventional wisdom for some managers now; that performance cannot improve unless targets are set and relentlessly, or 'robustly', pursued. This usually involves somebody driving something too. Please note, we still haven't discussed how, or by what method, we are going to achieve these targets, particularly if the target exceeds the capability of the system within which we operate and live.

Instead, we continue to build upon the target-setting approach. We now have a clear strategic direction - to improve' x' and by 'y' percent. It is the job of the strategist to set such aspirations, without cluttering his or her thoughts with the tactical details of how this will be achieved. The tactician, upon receiving these instructions, inherently knows that he or she has only two responses; to achieve, or to cheat.

Achieving usually requires managers to know their business and their people well, both of which demand time and effort. However, those managers whose ambitions do not value time and effort often find it easier and quicker to cheat. Cheating takes two forms - we either distort the data, or we distort the system in which we work. Both are perfectly natural responses to ridiculous targets and out of touch leaders.

Back to target-setting. Our strategists have now identified the area of business we need to improve and they have further helped us by telling us how much we need to improve it by. We might still be asking 'how', or 'by what method' are we to achieve these improvements and our corporate leaders might respond helpfully with a further definition of the target. We now have to improve 'x', by 'y' percent, and in 'z' time'. This of course allows the corporate strategists to continue to act strategically, dealing with matters of policy, safe in the knowledge that they have given the tacticians all the support and guidance they need to deliver continuous improvement. This in turn means that if the tacticians are unsuccessful in achieving the targets, then those under-performers can legitimately expect corporate sanction. Any better incentive to cheat?

I once had the pleasure of witnessing a very senior performance meeting in a public sector organisation where the tone was both inquisitorial and aggressive. I watched as experienced old hands danced around the issues, diverting blame whenever possible and offering plausible explanations when necessary. Plausible but false. The old hands knew that the best response to silly questions was to give silly answers, safe in the knowledge that those asking the questions knew less about the business than they did. So they told lies. Expertly.

Sadly, there was among them a new, bright and less experienced senior person, who was challenged over an area of departmental performance. His response was to be honest and to indicate that the targets were systemically unachievable given his level of resources. Audaciously, he requested the opportunity to discuss the performance framework he'd inherited and the staffing levels he had to work with. He was beaten to a pulp and instructed to see the CEO that afternoon. Remember - in the face of silly questions, make up silly answers and distort either the data or the system. Telling the truth will only reinforce your superiors' view that you aren't capable of achieving their legitimate targets. Oh, and you'll get a kicking too.

An alternative view

It is perfectly reasonable for organisations (and for individuals and teams within them) to strive for performance improvement. It seems to set us apart as humans that we have this drive to advance, to grow, to achieve. These simple aspirations alone are insufficient, otherwise the ends will justify the means and our growing ethical senses will be disappointed. Being successful or profitable now has fair trade constraints, numerous strands of diversity and a mass of legislation to negotiate - and rightly so. Our methodology has never been more important. "By what means" is a crucial phrase that demands specific consideration, at organisational, team and individual levels.

If the organisation has not been explicit in its values and its practices, does it have the right to criticise those sections which devise and implement their own plans?

If the team, however large or small, has not had the foresight to tell its members what is appropriate in the achievement of its performance, who is to determine what success means?

Where does this leave the individual, subject of an appraisal and reward system, who wants to improve, though has no guidance as to how?

All too often, coaching (at any of the above organisational tiers) is a well-intentioned process that encourages the client to talk about him/herself and feel better as a consequence. There is often some truth in that - too few people ever have the opportunity to 'discharge' and talk about themselves at length, so the process itself is cathartic. However, if you really want to improve, does your coach (again at whichever tier) have a proven methodology for getting you there? If not, you're just having a chat. A quite expensive one too.

Any coaching/performance improvement plan must have a method - one that the client is entitled to see, with case study evidence and testimonial support. A consultant/coach should only be interested in achieving ethical results in the shortest time available at the least possible cost for the client. Next time you engage someone to do this work with you, please be clear about how they will effect change, in what time and at what cost. Otherwise, just stand in front of the bathroom mirror and chant along with me. ...

Every day, in every way ...