Goal Setting : Cascading vs Avalanching

Many leaders use goals to create line of sight between an individual’s work and the broader success of the business.

A problem that I see in many organizations is that while goals are passed from one leader to his or her direct reports, they tend to be “avalanched”.

An avalanched goal is one that doesn’t change as it moves through the organization. For example, a regional vice-president might have a goal of increasing profitability by 13%. He gives his director of sales and director of operations that same goal. Those two people in turn pass the goal along to their various managers who then pass it on to their front line employees.

In the end, the final person with the goal is the one who has no one else to which to pass it. That person is also in the least likely position to fulfill the goal due to his or her scope of responsibility and influence.

Avalanched goals aren’t helpful. They reduce clarity and make it difficult for people to know where to focus. After all, if everyone in the organization has the same goal, despite having different jobs, what are they supposed to do? They are also unfair and demotivating. If a person only controls 1/10th of an outcome, how can he or she be held accountable for that entire outcome? More importantly, they can actually reduce accountability. Each person in the chain holds the person below him or her accountable for meeting the one goal while not attending to it themself. The only person who winds up actively working toward it is that poor low-level employee stuck at the bottom of the avalanche.

An alternative to avalanching is to use cascading goals. Cascading goals are also passed down through the organization. At each level the goal is adapted to reflect the unique contribution that supports the higher-level goal.

The idea of cascading goals isn’t new. What’s happened is that leaders have latched on to the first part (passing the goal down through the organization) while abandoning the second part (modifying the goal to reflect a unique contribution). The result is the avalanche.

The key to creating cascading goals is having a clear understanding of how each successive layer in an organization contributes to the one above it.

The chart in the center of the page provides a simple example of how the profitability goal mentioned earlier might be cascaded.

Each individual has a specific goal for which they have full control. Their individual area of focus and contribution are clearly laid out. Most importantly, there is clarity around who specifically is accountable for each outcome.

Of course, it is also important to show each person how his or her goal contributes to the broader goals of the organization. This creates line of sight as well as engagement.

This example showed how to cascade just one goal. Leaders should go through this same process for each of his or her goals.

The people who report to you should not have the same goals as you. They should each make contributions that, when taken together, help you achieve your goal(s). Take time to provide each of your people with a clear, focused, and specific goal.

Posted in Assessment, Leadership | Tagged | Comments Off

“You are my question” – the starting point

Most consultants start with an assumption – “I am your answer.” In fact, I can think of few professions in which the “professional” doesn’t inherently think they are the answer to the client’s dilemma. One time, I even heard an eminent psychologist say to a client who was willing to challenge his diagnosis, “Madam, by definition, I am the expert, you are the nut.”

What if we were to begin every consultation, every conversation, every encounter with the thought, “You are my question”. It doesn’t matter who the “You” is. It could be an individual. It could be a group. It could be the whole organization.

The fundamental issue is how I am approaching the encounter. Do I treat the other as someone or something to be explored, discovered, and understood. Or, do I treat them as something or someone to be informed, advised, and directed.

The conversation that begins with “You are my question” is one filled with inquiry, curiosity, wonder, and possibilities. The conversation that starts with “I am your answer” is filled with certainty, finality, control, and predictability.

A hint: How do you begin your conversations? With a question or a statement?

Posted in Assessment, Communication, Leadership | Comments Off

Caring vs. Curing

The tension between “caring” and “curing” is most obvious in the medical profession. Daily, medical professionals have to make a choice between caring for their patients/clients and curing them. You are thinking, clearly they can do both. And, certainly that is possible, even probable.

But, over time, a real tension always exists between caring for one’s clients and trying to cure them. Both are committed to “healing” or making the client “whole”. Yet, they take quite divergent paths to accomplishing that task.

“Curing” is committed to: Relieving the burden, Taking away the pain, Remedying the situation, Correcting the other.

“Caring” is committed to: Bearing the burden, Sharing the pain, Living in the situation, Accepting the other

Most consulting, if not all, is committed to “curing” the client. It is, in fact, what we get paid for. We argue that we will do both – care for and cure the organization with which we work. However, the dichotomies and conflicts in the different commitments should be self-evident.

I am confident that the approach to which we are ultimately committed in consulting will find its way to the surface. More importantly, it will send a surprisingly implicit message. The consultant/client relationship is either all about “the consultant”, or it is all about “the client”.

Posted in Leadership | Comments Off