Target setting in the workplace has for the longest time been seen as a key function of the manager. The manager considers all the factors of the past, of personnel, and of production then sets the target that his boss feels he should be achieving. It is not often that the target is based in reality or a practical assessment of what is possible. The boss wants to achieve greater production so the manager increases the target by an arbitrary number in the naive hope that his workforce will pull together like splendid fellows and achieve the new target for him because he is wonderful. When the target is not achieved the manager is then quite comfortable blaming the workforce for their failure to achieve it, because he was quite clear when he told them what the new target was. The fault therefore lies with the workforce. Or does it? Let us assume for one minute that the workforce is made up of human beings. What happens when we tell a human being what to do? The first thing, that is not visible to the casual observer, is that the little hairs on the back of their neck stand up. What happens next is a function of the relationship between the teller and the person being told. In a social situation the response will vary from "What did your last slave die of?" to an altogether more violent reaction if for instance ones partner was holding the iron when you told them to do the ironing. In the work situation we are not allowed to make a negative response to our boss, even if we were, we know that it would end up with an argument which, because our boss is the one who pays us, does our performance appraisal and allocates our work, we will always lose. When our boss tells us what to do the little hairs will still stand up but because it is our boss we know that any argument or discussion is pointless. We paint on a false smile saying "Certainly it will be a pleasure" then we go away and work out how we can avoid doing what we have just been told to do. This is a human reaction that we seem to forget about in the work situation. The violence of the reaction depends on the degree of telling that is done but the reaction is always negative. When a target is set for the workforce the effect is of someone telling them how they should be performing. If the workforce achieve the performance they have been set as a target it is as if they have admitted to themselves that their manger has the authority to tell them what to do. Because they are human beings, they find that very difficult to accept. The effort of the workforce is therefore focussed on how to fail to reach the target rather than how to make their manager look good as a result of their efforts. This may sound as if targets are a bad thing but that is not the case. The bad thing is the setting of the targets, not the targets themselves. The catch 22 is how we can set a target, without setting a target. The answer is ... don't try! Instead of setting targets, ask the workforce what they think the target should be. Getting the workforce to set the target normally produces a target way in excess of the level of performance that the boss thought of as his stretch target, and oddly enough, this huge target, set by the workforce, will normally be achieved. It will be achieved because it belongs to the workforce. Because it is theirs, they feel a pride in their ability to achieve it and its achievement becomes their focus. Life however is seldom that simple. Todays workforce have become accustomed to the tricks of a devious management who keep trying to get them to produce more for less. If you ask todays workforce for their opinion they will suspect a trick and be very guarded in their response. They do not trust the person who is asking the question. To get an honest answer there has to be trust. To build that trust the manager has to behave towards his workforce in a different way, a way that will allow trust to build. Until that trust has been built we will continue to miss the target. |
