Goals: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|hr|{{image|Knee-slide|jpg|Goal accomplished, yesterday.}}}}Why [[Performance conversation|performance goals]] — especially ones that are | ||
{{helvetica|'''S'''pecific}} <br> | |||
{{helvetica|'''M'''easurable}} <br> | |||
{{helvetica|'''A'''ctionable}} <br> | |||
{{helvetica|'''R'''ealistic}} and<br> | |||
{{helvetica|'''T'''ime-bound}} | |||
Aren’t | Aren’t so ''smart''.. | ||
===HR | ===They are [[HR]]’s idea=== | ||
This ought to be enough of a reason: any piece of management orthodoxy that | This ought to be enough of a reason: any piece of management orthodoxy that makes it easier for the [[high-modernist]]s of [[personnel]] to ''measure'', ''read'' and ''box'' you — will be little use to you, your [[line manager]], or the business you serve. | ||
The world is a far messier, less convenient place than is dream’t of in any [[HCM]] philosophy. “SMART” only works on one axis: whether by some arbitrary point in time, you did an arbitrary thing or not. | |||
A box can be ticked. Personnel happy, but — really, is that all your contribution amounts to? | |||
General rule: ''[[don’t tick boxes]]''. | |||
===They are a [[proxy]] for something else=== | ===They are a [[proxy]] for something else=== | ||
Goals | Goals are inevitably a [[proxy]] or a [[second-order derivative]] of an idealised state: “getting down to 70kg” rather than “becoming healthy, funny and physically appealing” — which is most likely what you really want. And, as with all Greek tragedies one can attain the proxy without achieving the end state it is intended to achieve — you starve yourself, you may attain 70 kg but have bad breath, a waxen complexion and liver disease. | ||
Working hypothesis: the ironies implicit in mythological fortune telling arise ''because'' the “fortunes” that flawed heroes seek are ''goals'' and not ''systems''. So, Macbeth indeed becomes King — SMART goal achieved! — but it isn’t the ''experience'' he had in mind. Might Macbeth have found self-fulfilment ''without'' being king? A happy grandfather, respected by the royal court? ''Alive''? | |||
===Goals are set in the past. Work lives in the future=== | ===Goals are set in the past. Work lives in the future=== | ||
Who hasn’t had a goal that has been overtaken by events? Has anyone had one that wasn’t? | Who hasn’t had a goal that has been overtaken by events? Has anyone had one that wasn’t? | ||
| Line 22: | Line 29: | ||
Why should goals be “[[SMART]]”? It is not for your benefit, but so that the [[All watched over by machines of loving grace|Machines of Loving Grace that watch over us]] can understand. Your contribution to the betterment of the organisation is ineffable, indescribable and unpredictable. Now, readers: usually, I say things like this with an air of irony: not here. It is true your contribution may not amount to anything much — many of us (probably most) are more trouble than we are worth — but the things that we do which ''do'' make a difference are, in the abstract, ''profoundly hard to judge'', especially from the perspective of [[human resources]]. | Why should goals be “[[SMART]]”? It is not for your benefit, but so that the [[All watched over by machines of loving grace|Machines of Loving Grace that watch over us]] can understand. Your contribution to the betterment of the organisation is ineffable, indescribable and unpredictable. Now, readers: usually, I say things like this with an air of irony: not here. It is true your contribution may not amount to anything much — many of us (probably most) are more trouble than we are worth — but the things that we do which ''do'' make a difference are, in the abstract, ''profoundly hard to judge'', especially from the perspective of [[human resources]]. | ||
So [[SMART]] goals — especially the specific, measurable and actionable part — is not about making life easy for ''you'' but making evaluation easy for ''The Man''. Your performance must be, in {{author|James C. Scott}}’s clever phrase, “[[legible]]”. Literally, ''[[machine-readable]]''. What The Man cannot see yields you no credit: this is like a dark inversion of Terry’s maxim: [[what the eye don’t see the chef gets away with]]. All that ''ad hoc'' mentoring you did; that moment of insight, in the heat of the deal, that took ten percent out of the operating costs of the project; those times you patiently covered for an AWOL colleague to make sure the project happened; your immaculate drafting that rendered that complex issue plain for the business — | So [[SMART]] goals — especially the specific, measurable and actionable part — is not about making life easy for ''you'' but making evaluation easy for ''The Man''. Your performance must be, in {{author|James C. Scott}}’s clever phrase, “[[legible]]”. Literally, ''[[machine-readable]]''. What The Man cannot see yields you no credit: this is like a dark inversion of Terry’s maxim: [[what the eye don’t see the chef gets away with|what the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with]]. | ||
All that ''ad hoc'' mentoring you did; that moment of insight, in the heat of the deal, that took ten percent out of the operating costs of the project; those times you patiently covered for an AWOL colleague to make sure the project happened; your immaculate drafting that rendered that complex issue plain for the business — was any of ''that'' a SMART objective? Will it bear on your appraisal? If rendered in terms of SMART goals, no, because ''no-one can anticipate it, and no-one can see it''. | |||
But did you complete your [[netting opinion]] reviews on time and to budget? Why yes, counsellor, you ''did''! | |||
Why should your target be ''measurable'', other than because the institution bearing down on you needs some way of assessing it in a binary way? But (again, following James Scott’s reasoning) these SMART goals then create perverse incentives, for employees know they are measured and rated only what can be read, so deprioritise “illegible” good behaviour, in favour of measurable [[box-ticking]]. | |||
===The utopia of goals=== | |||
The JC has written a bit about the allure and basic incoherence of [[utopianism]]. Utopia makes a few basic but essentially delusional assumptions about the world, such as that not only can it be solved, but that our enlightened, scientific method, it ''is'' being, incrementally, solved. Seen this way, (well-directed) goals are a tool in the enlightenment kit for delivering that final {{strike|entropic|blissful}} state. This is, of course, a form of pound-shop utopianism, suffering from all the usual confirmation biases: (goals didn’t pan out? Can’t have been well enough directed. Can’t have been properly executed). No circumstances can falsify the working assumption that it is only human frailty which keeps us from our nirvana. | |||
===Or systems?=== | ===Or systems?=== | ||
[[Scott Adams]] has written a bit on goals. Among his observations: on the day you set a goal, you are failing it. You continue to fail at it until the point you achieve it, at which point, it is finished: now what? It gives no guide to future action. It is better, thinks Adams, to create behavioural systems which are designed to yield positive effects: rather than a goal of "be selected for the national team," go for "spend an hour each day practicing a sport I enjoy". Here you can succeed from the get go, reap benefits that are tangential to that idealised state (fitness, experiences, meeting new people etc), and you can use what you learn to dynamically adjust your pattern of behaviour to meet changing circumstances. If it should turn out you don't like cricket that much, or grow more interested in pursuing sports psychology - you can adapt your system on the fly. | [[Scott Adams]] has written a bit on goals. Among his observations: on the day you set a goal, you are failing it. You continue to fail at it until the point you achieve it, at which point, it is finished: now what? It gives no guide to future action. It is better, thinks Adams, to create behavioural systems which are designed to yield positive effects: rather than a goal of "be selected for the national team," go for "spend an hour each day practicing a sport I enjoy". Here you can succeed from the get go, reap benefits that are tangential to that idealised state (fitness, experiences, meeting new people etc), and you can use what you learn to dynamically adjust your pattern of behaviour to meet changing circumstances. If it should turn out you don't like cricket that much, or grow more interested in pursuing sports psychology - you can adapt your system on the fly. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 43: | ||
But what would [[HR]] do? | But what would [[HR]] do? | ||
General rule: ''Don’t do what HR would do.'' | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Performance conversation]] | |||
*[http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6114.html Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goals Setting] (Harvard Business School) | *[http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6114.html Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goals Setting] (Harvard Business School) | ||
*{{br|How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big}} — Scott Adams | *{{br|How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big}} — Scott Adams | ||
Latest revision as of 08:27, 1 December 2023
|
The Human Resources military-industrial complex
|
Why performance goals — especially ones that are
Specific
Measurable
Actionable
Realistic and
Time-bound
Aren’t so smart..
They are HR’s idea
This ought to be enough of a reason: any piece of management orthodoxy that makes it easier for the high-modernists of personnel to measure, read and box you — will be little use to you, your line manager, or the business you serve.
The world is a far messier, less convenient place than is dream’t of in any HCM philosophy. “SMART” only works on one axis: whether by some arbitrary point in time, you did an arbitrary thing or not.
A box can be ticked. Personnel happy, but — really, is that all your contribution amounts to?
General rule: don’t tick boxes.
They are a proxy for something else
Goals are inevitably a proxy or a second-order derivative of an idealised state: “getting down to 70kg” rather than “becoming healthy, funny and physically appealing” — which is most likely what you really want. And, as with all Greek tragedies one can attain the proxy without achieving the end state it is intended to achieve — you starve yourself, you may attain 70 kg but have bad breath, a waxen complexion and liver disease.
Working hypothesis: the ironies implicit in mythological fortune telling arise because the “fortunes” that flawed heroes seek are goals and not systems. So, Macbeth indeed becomes King — SMART goal achieved! — but it isn’t the experience he had in mind. Might Macbeth have found self-fulfilment without being king? A happy grandfather, respected by the royal court? Alive?
Goals are set in the past. Work lives in the future
Who hasn’t had a goal that has been overtaken by events? Has anyone had one that wasn’t?
Goals commit you to an outcome which makes sense now, but should circumstances change, might seem less sensible later. But the one thing we know with certainty is that the future is not certain. Circumstances do change. You can’t predict how. Pre-ordained goals are a feature of a finite, complicated world, not the infinite, complex one we actually live in.
Who knew, when they set their goals for 2020, that the world would be gripped by two-year pandemic? That Russia would have isolated itself and its colossal supply of energy from the world economy? That Europe would return to a war footing? That the spectre of inflation would be back to haunt the Western world? That crypto would turn out to be a scam (okay, okay, everyone knew that). As we look forward, how long will current assumptions about the state of the world hold?
They are designed so The Man can read you
Why should goals be “SMART”? It is not for your benefit, but so that the Machines of Loving Grace that watch over us can understand. Your contribution to the betterment of the organisation is ineffable, indescribable and unpredictable. Now, readers: usually, I say things like this with an air of irony: not here. It is true your contribution may not amount to anything much — many of us (probably most) are more trouble than we are worth — but the things that we do which do make a difference are, in the abstract, profoundly hard to judge, especially from the perspective of human resources.
So SMART goals — especially the specific, measurable and actionable part — is not about making life easy for you but making evaluation easy for The Man. Your performance must be, in James C. Scott’s clever phrase, “legible”. Literally, machine-readable. What The Man cannot see yields you no credit: this is like a dark inversion of Terry’s maxim: what the eye don’t see, the chef gets away with.
All that ad hoc mentoring you did; that moment of insight, in the heat of the deal, that took ten percent out of the operating costs of the project; those times you patiently covered for an AWOL colleague to make sure the project happened; your immaculate drafting that rendered that complex issue plain for the business — was any of that a SMART objective? Will it bear on your appraisal? If rendered in terms of SMART goals, no, because no-one can anticipate it, and no-one can see it.
But did you complete your netting opinion reviews on time and to budget? Why yes, counsellor, you did!
Why should your target be measurable, other than because the institution bearing down on you needs some way of assessing it in a binary way? But (again, following James Scott’s reasoning) these SMART goals then create perverse incentives, for employees know they are measured and rated only what can be read, so deprioritise “illegible” good behaviour, in favour of measurable box-ticking.
The utopia of goals
The JC has written a bit about the allure and basic incoherence of utopianism. Utopia makes a few basic but essentially delusional assumptions about the world, such as that not only can it be solved, but that our enlightened, scientific method, it is being, incrementally, solved. Seen this way, (well-directed) goals are a tool in the enlightenment kit for delivering that final entropic blissful state. This is, of course, a form of pound-shop utopianism, suffering from all the usual confirmation biases: (goals didn’t pan out? Can’t have been well enough directed. Can’t have been properly executed). No circumstances can falsify the working assumption that it is only human frailty which keeps us from our nirvana.
Or systems?
Scott Adams has written a bit on goals. Among his observations: on the day you set a goal, you are failing it. You continue to fail at it until the point you achieve it, at which point, it is finished: now what? It gives no guide to future action. It is better, thinks Adams, to create behavioural systems which are designed to yield positive effects: rather than a goal of "be selected for the national team," go for "spend an hour each day practicing a sport I enjoy". Here you can succeed from the get go, reap benefits that are tangential to that idealised state (fitness, experiences, meeting new people etc), and you can use what you learn to dynamically adjust your pattern of behaviour to meet changing circumstances. If it should turn out you don't like cricket that much, or grow more interested in pursuing sports psychology - you can adapt your system on the fly.
But what would HR do?
General rule: Don’t do what HR would do.
See also
- Performance conversation
- Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Over-Prescribing Goals Setting (Harvard Business School)
- How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big — Scott Adams