Hitting the Four Targets
The significance of high quality management reports cannot be over-stated. Unless those responsible for the organization have this knowledge, they cannot function.
Information is significant but facts do not speak for themselves. Assessing requires discerning judgement that:
● puts facts into their situational context, &
● applies relevant values to the facts.
Alternating Foci
The focus of the tetradic targets alternates between:
- being objective and having an organizational focus, &
- being subjective and having a personal focus.
Monitoring indicators-CG41and evaluating outcomes-CG43 are essentially objective routes into making an assessment of the organization.
Why? ►
Indicators-CG41: If an indicator is trending the wrong way (i.e. revealing more waste, less efficiency, falling market share, less effectiveness, diminishing profits or increasing losses) that is problematic for the organization (or the relevant section) irrespective of who is accountable. An indicator within a department's remit often reflects a broader issue not under the department's control. In most cases, accountability for indicators is distributed and diffuse.
Outcomes-CG43: Poor implementation of a strategy, a significant cost-overrun or a failed major project harm the organization. Such outcomes are holistic because many people are involved, including those at the highest levels. There are also complex interactions with external suppliers and other bodies, as well as with wider society. As a result of this ramification, disentangling who is responsible can become so difficult, that it is futile. Often the 'system' or 'culture' is blamed, or the mess is buried and forgotten.
Appraising staff-CG42 and reviewing missions-CG44 provide essentially subjective views of people and groups.
Why? ►
Staff Appraisals-CG42: Staff appraisals are often linked to performance indicators relevant to the department or service for which the person is responsible. However, circumstances affecting their work that were out of their control never show up in indicators.
Mission Reviews-CG44: Review of a mission may be called for if indicators and evaluations signal red. However, the choice of mission is highly personal, even if it is shaped by powerful external factors and forces. The mission is delivered by a group and its members must believe in it for it to be effective.
THEE Note on Use of 'g': Within groups, internal levels are numbered using 'g'. So every Tetrad consists of: g1, g2, g3, and g4. The CL-# will vary according to the particular Tetrad.
Monitoring Indicators: CG41
Monitoring indicators of performance and relevant activities is the most basic form of management reporting.
It is required to:
- keep abreast of what is going on
- in relation to a wide range of matters
- both internal and external to the organization
- on a regular basis
- so as to identify trends and catch problems or threats early.
The practical focus here is on setting up multiple systems to collect whatever data is judged relevant. Reporting must be periodic and responsive to specific events.
Examples
The particular indicators chosen will vary according to the industry or sector, and in accord with the goals of a particular organization: e.g. daily output, absenteeism, sales per square metre of shop floor, quarterly profits, post-operative infection rates, delivery times, margin on sales, customer complaints, factory injuries per week, lost man-hours due to stoppages, &c.
Requirements & Problems
Monitoring of indicators requires relevant staff to:
g4: collaboratively set 
criteria and goals (CL4) to guide monitoring.
+
g3: acceptably grip issues (CL3) arising prior to or during monitoring and reporting
+
g2: be formally accountable (CL2) i.e. for choice of indicators, gathering data, analyzing figures and reporting.
+
g1: deliberately take action (CL1) to enable monitoring.
Problems in monitoring can occur at any of these levels. They usually reflect complacency leading to inadequate data collection, poor systems, and inappropriate or insufficient analyses. Other problems relate to selecting wisely from the vast number of possible indicators.
Responsibility Mechanisms
The primary responsibility lies with line-managers, both the main line-managers of the operational spine of any organization and line-managers within the off-line functions. All are expected to monitor within their remit.
As a secondary mechanism, staff in support roles and HQ specialist support functions also monitor. Often these support functions collect and disseminate information aggregates, to assist line-managers put their own indicators in context (cf. reducing risks in achieving).
Example
Primary: Each line-manager monitors absenteeism within their section because they must do something if it reveals problems. Personnel assistants to the line-manager may play a local role as well as reporting centrally.
Secondary: The Human Resources Division in HQ will also monitor absenteeism across the whole organization, scanning for trends and problems. If necessary, someone from the division will inform the local personnel officer or discuss a problem directly with the line-manager involved. The HQ officer may bring it to the attention of HQ top management at some point.
Appraise Staff: CG42
Appraising staff is essential:
- to specify (judge) an employee's value
- by putting outcomes of their duties and assignments
- in the situational context
- so as to adjust for unexpected stresses &/or good luck.
The focus is on the person-in-role. These appraisals should be regular and planned.
Note re CEOs: It is rarely valid to tie the work of any particular
employee, including the CEO, directly to indicators or outcomes for the organization-as-a-whole.
Requirements & Problems
Appraising staff requires the relevant staff to:
g4:collaboratively determine the information to be used (CL5) in the appraisal.
+
g3:acceptably set values and goals (CL4) for the appraisal.
+
g2:formally grip issues (CL3) relevant to the appraisal
+
g1:deliberately be accountable (CL2) for the appraisal.
Problems in making appraisals can occur at any of these levels, but putting results into the actual context for the individual is particularly difficult. Preventing personal biases from intruding may require self-discipline in some situations.
Responsibility Mechanisms
Primary: This appraisal is at the heart of the strong version of accountable line-managers. It is often the most stressful duty of managers, especially with marginally substandard subordinates. Line-managers have an incentive to report neutrally or even negatively on good staff, so as not to lose them by transfer or promotion. They may also come into conflict with, and start disliking, younger capable individuals who are natural mavericks or, perhaps, more creative.
Secondary: The line-manager-once-removed needs to be involved in regular appraisals, most particularly in appraising personal potential i.e. how far the member of staff being appraised could go, or whether he might be better used to meet organizational needs in another part of the organization.
Evaluate Outcomes: CG43
Evaluating outcomes, whether from a strategy, a change project, or on-going operations, is essential to determine whether expectations have been met.
Typically, an evaluation seeks:
● to determine the actual benefits
● in targeted areas
● over a suitable period of time
● while checking for unexpected consequences.
The focus is again internal to the organization, and reporting may be regular or ad hoc. Reporting on the effects of structure and culture are far more difficult than on new growth strategies or planned changes to operations.
Requirements & Problems
Evaluation of outcomes requires the relevant staff to:
g4: collaboratively share and channel aspirations (CL6) in relation to the outcome and hence relevant to the evaluation.
+
g3:acceptably choose and use information (CL5) for the evaluation
+
g2:formally set the goals (CL4) of the evaluation, and values to be adhered to in the process.
+
g1:deliberately grip issues (CL3) relevant to the project, its effects and the evaluation process.
Problems in evaluating outcomes can occur at any of these levels, and a general resistance to thorough evaluation is common, due to anxieties around how negative findings may be handled.
Responsibility Mechanisms
Evaluation of change requires support staff, often from HQ, to take primary responsibility because:
● such projects commonly cross line-managerial lines
● line-managers are liable to be biased and far too busy
● the process is sensitive and senior managers seek to control it.
Secondary: The secondary mechanism activated here involves use of external specialist consultants. It occurs if the complexity and sensitivity is so high that insider reports will not be fully trusted.
Review Missions: CG44
The mission defines the identity of the organization (or a coherent part). It contains values and specifies characteristic activities, competencies and products/services. It therefore defines membership and determines use of resources.
Reviewing missions is essential:
- to check the continuing fit and benefit of core purposes
- of the organization, a division, or a project
- within the context: locally and in wider society
- so as to adjust its identity (i.e. its values, principal objects & resourcing).
The focus is always on the relation of a part to the whole. If the part is the whole organization, then the whole is the industry or wider society.
THEE Note: Our focus is on businesses and service providers. Handling the mission differs in other types of organization in a systematic way. For details, see Ch.11 in Working with Values.
Requirements & Problems
Reviewing any mission requires the relevant staff to:
g4:collaboratively evolve mindsets (CL7) as part of the review process e.g. to get shared clarity on social forces and new relevant factors.
+
g3:acceptably channel aspirations (CL6) to provide willingness and commitment to the review.
+
g2:formally use information (CL5) in the review process e.g. in presentations and consultative documents.
+
g1:deliberately set values and goals (CL4) relevant to the review and any modification.
Problems in reviewing a mission can occur at any of these levels, often due to confusion around values and the self-interest of key players.
Responsibility Mechanisms
Determining the mission has to be a primary responsibility of the most senior management in the entity under review. For the organization, this means the CEO and top management team. (However, the Board ought also to be involved, to ratify the process and conclusions.) Mission review is also relevant to sections of the organization: business units, divisions, departments or major projects. Again, the leaders involved need to periodically review and possibly adjust the mission, as explained here.
The secondary mechanism here is based on informal support by influential staff in the organizations' core group. They must support the review and its conclusions if these are to be taken seriously.
More on the core group ►
In any organization, there is usually a «core group» of influential staff who play a major role in what happens and how it happens. Although a mission may be written down in formal documents, it has to be kept alive inside people and the core group is critical in that regard. It may be disrupted or disbanded by promotions or departures, resignation due to illness or other events, and especially change in the CEO. If there is a new CEO, then a new core group will develop with the natural aim of bringing their distinctive values and personal aspirations into play.
► Continue to the inquiry aspects of assessment.
Originally posted: 20-Oct-2011