Discussion: View Thread

Regarding George Graen's post:

I haven't read the Locke and Latham piece you cite but I am well aware of their activities in related quarters.  They consider themselves very knowledgeable regarding control theory, even (or perhaps especially) the Perceptual Control Theory of William T Powers.  Yet, demonstrably, they simply don't get it.  To wit:  The only goals that matter are the ones to which a person commits.  Whether they originate with the person or are adopted by the person doesn't matter.  Unless a person views the goals in question as their own, little effort will be expended in achieving them.

For managers, the issue of how to get employees to adopt management's objectives as their own is indeed a critical matter.  Frankly, how to get employees to do that isn't particularly difficult or challenging.  Indeed, I view it as a "piece of cake" compared to some other matters.  However, doing so requires many managers and executives to do things they don't ordinarily do (e.g., truly listen to their employees, especially regarding criticism of the objectives being pursued and the means used to pursue them; solicit input from employees in the course of establishing corporate goals and objectives instead of simply "cascading" goals and objectives that were dreamed up in a closeted environment; and, last, but far from least, being flexible regarding the courses of action intended to achieve the objectives in question).  In short, and generally speaking, management's goals and objectives don't really have much to do with managing and are instead simply a reflection of their inclination to "rule" instead of "manage."

What many, if not most supervisors, managers and executives seem to wish for are employees who can make happen what the boss wants to happen and do so while keeping their mouths shut and their brains shut down.  That ain't gonna happen.  The "ruling class" simply doesn't rule any more.  The shift from prefigured to configured working activities has seen to that.

So, while I harbor no ill will toward supervisors, managers and executives of the ilk just described, I do find that their laments provide me with a seemingly boundless supply of chuckles.

Be of good cheer, George; the practices of many managers are sources of humor, not despair.

Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479

Well, first it seems to me we need a way of differentiating levels of "acceptance" "commitment" or buy-in. I've offered a seven point scale in several places including Edwin's journal and Level Three Leadershp 4e that ranges from the bottom 7. Active resistance 6. Passive resistance, 5. Apathy, 4. Compliance (looking for loopholes), 3. Agreement, 2. Engagement, and 1. Passion each with definitions.  One doesn't simply get "commitment", one gets something along this scale.  You may have other ways of assessing this, but clearly it's not a binary construct.  Commitment does not equal commitment.

The next question is what kind of behaviors get typically what kinds of responses?  There are a range of stimuli one might give, including orders, threats, rewards, intimidations, invitations, logic, data, research results, etc.  Clearly the context and mindset of the receiver makes a big difference here-so the choice of how one sets the goal makes a big difference.  Jim Collins in a conversation averred to me that in Built to Last they didn't quite get it that setting BHAGs alone wasn't enough-lots of companies tried it and flopped.  Rather one needs to set BHAGs in the intersection of passion, competency, and economic return model.  Passion for me is that state of engagement in which the target activity is #1 in one's life so that one is willing sacrifice everything else to the achievement of that goal: health, relationships, exercise, peace, etc.  The so-called "balance between work and family life" only comes into play at level two of buy-in, engagement. 

In a chapter entitled "The Motivator's Dilemma" in Ulrich's latest book on future views of the HR field, I borrowed from Clayton Christensen and asserted (because I've seen it first hand with my clients) that managers can overshoot employee's willingness to respond by setting goals that are either too high or irrelevant to their interests.  The vertical axis in The Innovator's Dilemma was "percent utilization of features."  Here's it's percent utilization of employee total energy.  I also asserted that goal-setting in its various forms has been the major motivational tool used during the industrial era.  Many problems arise from not the least is the "wolf" problem-how many times can you say "great job, now just 15% more next time" before you engender apathy or compliance in the followers? (remember the classic article, Management by WHOSE Objectives?) I've seen firsthand the dramatic erosion of energy in an company when new management took a primarily numbers/goal oriented tack and how it eviscerated the organization's energy capital (my term). 

I posit that the more one uses what I will call Level One Leadership techniques (rewards, punishments, threats, intimidations, incentives) the more one will get low to middle level buy-in.  And that Level Two approaches (logic, data, charts, statistics, research results) will tend to get mid-level buy-in.  And that when you find people responding passionately and with engagement (BI 1 & 2) they tend to be responding to Level Three techniques (invitations that preserve choice, visions that inspire, stories that bond and inspire, purposes that are easy to understand and value-congruent with the employees [which making someone else rich tends not to do], and complete integrity [meaning truth telling, promise keeping, fairness and respect for the individual].  Those of you who have strong empirical bents or who are deeply ensconced in the academic literature (I tend to focus on practitioners) may know of studies that connect here (even I can find a bunch) and demonstrate these broad linkages. 

Will a goal issued from the outside-in motivate a person?  Much less than one generated from the inside-out.  Unless there's a congruency between the orientation of the as you all are calling it "goal imposer" and the goal receiver, what you may get is active resistance.  Witness Iraq and Afghanistan or Northern Ireland or Central Africa or Dubai or Palestine or Atlanta for example.   

In a message dated 3/26/2009 3:40:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Lmxlotus@AOL.COM writes:

"What actions does a goal imposer on others need to take to ensure the target person will accept it? 

Without this knowledge, MBO/goal setting becomes a theory without an engine.  Where's the engine?  Have I missed something?  It's not in this paper.  

Yes, George, The engine is in the level of trust created by the manager, by adhering to meaningful decision guidelines, especially those that pertain to appropriate participation. An example in my 2008 book explains:

It is often difficult to see whether or not a manager practices appropriate participation.  Take the example of a fire.  The battalion chief arrives first, moments before the first two fire engines.  He already knows who they are from his two-way radio contacts.  The building is heavily involved, with fire pouring out of windows on the first and second floors.  Two people are framed in third floor windows, screaming for help.  On the radio the chief gives these orders to the two officers on the way with their teams: "John, there are two people on the third floor.  Do not hook up (the water hoses).  Get these people out."  Then he continues: "Bill, hook up and protect John."

Was this participative decision making or was it a set of autocratic orders from a 'boss'?

Even though the example refers to a crisis situation where most people would consider 'orders' to be appropriate, it could be either, depending on the relationship.  If John heard that he has to get these people out or there will be unpleasant consequences, or, if either man felt that the assignment should have been reversed, and they were reluctant to point that out, then there was little or no participation.

On the other hand, it is possible that John interpreted the message as: 'Do your best to rescue these people, I know the task couldn't be in better hands'.  Furthermore, if both knew that, even though this was a crisis situation, they could make a quick plea for changing, even reversing the assignments, and be given full consideration of their point of view, then this was highly participative decision making, displaying very strong mutual trust. 

Participation, then, is like a book - it can't be judged by the cover, or, like beauty, can be skin deep, but usually isn't.  The mutual trust that is built by many instances of appropriate participation is the key to this most important management/leadership action.

THE SAME APPLIES TO GOAL SETTING, in my opinion.

Free Credit Report and Score Tracking! Get it Now for $0 at CreditReport.com.