Part 2 of a 2-part article In Part 1, we discussed the four basic steps in the Managing by Objectives (MBO) process and how each step can lead to positive organizational results. In Part 2 we discuss why the MBO process should not be used to evaluate employee performance, however, and how doing so undermines the value of the process.
Part 1 of a 2-Part Article An MBO process that helps produce positive business results has four basic steps:
- Objective setting or defining a desired result you want to accomplish by a specific point in time.
- Action planning or creating a plan for the steps you will take to attain that result.
- Periodic managerial reviews to check on your progress toward meeting the objective, and discuss needed adjustments, and
- A Final Managerial Review of objective attainment
You’re probably expecting this to be a story about how having kids turned my life around and diverted me from some wayward path. I hope you won’t be too disappointed. Not that I haven't ever taken some wayward paths, but that’s not what this is about. At least not entirely.
I had a wrestling coach who once told me “You don’t have that much potential, but you can make up for it with hard work.” I’m still trying to figure out how that works. It was right after a match……despite being tired and sweaty, I remember thinking, “Huh?...Doesn’t potential kinda set the ceiling?” The funny thing about this incident is that my coach was trying to encourage me; I shudder to think what he might have said otherwise. Luckily I had no illusions about my l wrestling capabilities; I’d always been somewhat of an over-achiever so the impact of his statement about my potential was minimal. I just loved the sport; it’s probably one of the most natural sports for a little boy growing up?
Imagine the scenarios for the executive teams of two different companies. The team for company A has been together for a number of years and they have been very successful in overcoming a variety of difficult problems. While they often disagree among themselves when making decisions, they respect each other and overall they share positive working relationships as well as temporary leadership with the president when a particular issue calling for their competencies emerges. Each member would tell you that they communicate openly and everyone thinks in terms of what is best for the organization. The company B team has been together for a shorter time and their interaction is characterized by very different dynamics. They have struggled to make decisions that everyone supports. The members have a lot of hidden agendas which prevent people from saying what they really think, and there is a lot of backbiting, and a lack of respect for each other. A number of members have been known to say that they think they could be doing a better job than the current president.
In Part 1 of this two-part article that can be found on this same web site, I discussed why trust is so scare in organizations, and some of the basic dynamics involved when a person decides whether or not to trust another individual. In this second part, I’ll discuss different ways of building trust and what two individuals must do to maintain that trust.
If someone gave you a hammer to dig a hole, and you didn’t know any better, you’d probably come to the conclusion that the hammer wasn’t a great tool. Of course, you’d be wrong because it’s the perfect tool for driving nails…it just wasn’t designed for digging holes.
Somebody Has to Do It, It’s ironic that HR began as a payroll function. Talk about a no-win situation, payroll is taken for granted when it’s done properly, and all hell breaks loose when there’s a mistake. Independent of whether you think money is a motivator or not, employees tend to get upset when their paycheck is wrong.