« Maturing Performance Improvement | Main | When is a system not a system? »

September 21, 2005

The Objective of Setting Objectives

Working through an approvals process?

"The gap between your personal culture and your corporate culture is what will keep you sane -- or drive you crazy." That's the caution that Steve Andriole from Villanova gives in a great January 24, 2005 article titled Politics, Culture & You.

By pointing out that approvals take place on terms that can as easily be philosophically-based as research-based, Andriole highlights the difference between appearance and reality when it comes to "objectivity". Objectives may make up the known framework for decision-making, but where did the objectives come from?

This is an important issue because an "objective" is, in the practical sense, a purposeful intent -- and the reasons behind that purpose may or may not agree with the motivation behind a new proposal. What's the difference here? Intent simply announces a type and direction of change; but real purpose is about "why" and may even be unannounced.

Now add to this that assessment and evaluation are also different. Evaluation will look for a rational decision based on fixed criteria; but assessment will weigh that decision in a context larger than the scope of the proposal. Approvals lean heavily on assessment.

That said, a proposal will be assessed not just by terms that measure alignment with intent, but also that measure compatibility with the purpose(s) of management objectives. This puts the sponsor of the proposal on the spot -- to understand whether the likely impact of the proposed change really aligns with the value system of the ultimate decision makers.

One way of pointing at this issue is through testing for "favorable demand" -- an approach used by experts such as Charles Chandler of the firm Assumption Analysis. Chandler outlines this amongst three keys to creating objectives that turn out to be reliable and actionable for both sponsors and approvers. He emphasizes that much of what is critical to an approval is "imbedded" in an organization and needs to be carefully exposed as part of shepherding new initiatives and proposals.

Along those same lines, Andriole shows that the implicit and explicit influences are at the personal level as well as the corporate level. By bringing this awareness to the foreground, Andriole and Chandler show why a change that would enable a strategy so often really needs a separate strategy for getting itself approved.

[Click here for a more extensive look into the culture around strategy...]

Posted by Malcolm Ryder at September 21, 2005 9:56 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.malcolmryder.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/137

Comments

Post a comment