More than fifty years ago, Peter Drucker called us all to pursue goals, and there seemed to be no better way to deliver results for the company. Each organization had been applying the system with a different degree of effectiveness and success, but its doctrine seemed to us in force in the new economy, and therefore, appropriate to the professional performance of managers and knowledge workers. However and apparently, today this doctrine, the DpO, is being questioned in Spain in favor of others such as management by values (DpV) or the more recent management by missions (DpM) and management by habits (DpH).
I recently attended (October 18, 2006) in Madrid some brilliant conferences in the framework of the Manager Business Forum, and, while many others recommended me, they gave me the book "Management for Habits, a model of transformation", written by two consultants (Sandra Díaz and Marián García) of the company Élogos, and which also appears with the seal of the prestigious Mind Value factory. I celebrated it because, although I was invited to a presentation of the same book last April, there was finally not enough capacity and I had to wait for another opportunity.
The text seems to disqualify DpO, to present DpV as a notable advance, and DpH as a practically ideal system; specifically, the authors say, already on page 20 and adhering to words collected by another author (Miguel Ángel Alcalá): “Management by objectives reduces the worker to a living tool, with differential bonus schemes to induce him to employ every last drop of energy. ”
To this the authors of this book immediately add: "We cannot but reject a form of government that does not see the human being as integral." This is the first thing that is said about the DpO in the book, and it was so striking that I started looking for information about it.
At first reading, it seemed to me that it was presented to the DpO as a piece-work or incentive system, designed for manual workers of bygone days, and that was not the image I had; so I set out to discover in what context those words had been spoken to describe the DoP. I found that this phrase -but without mentioning the direction by objectives- was verbatim written in English (… the reduction of the workman to a living tool, with differential bonus schemes to induce him to expend his last ounce of energy…) Cadbury, apparently in 1914, that is, about 40 years before there was talk of direction-for-goals.
I think Cadbury was referring to Taylor's scientific management and not to the professionalization of management, to which Drucker contributed a long time later.
Bad start, I thought then, to argue the overcoming of the DpO by the so-called management by habits (and this without questioning the need for us to review our behavior habits in companies). I think that in no way should we confuse PDO with Taylorism, nor the times when each doctrine appears. Based on my own ideas and experiences of the DpO, I would reject the authors' declared rejection of its essence, although I do fear that by applying this system, it has been corrupted to some extent and in perhaps not a few cases. In short, I display here a brief plea in favor of Peter Drucker's postulates, in case the reader feels interested.
DpO experiences
Although, years ago, I had already published the text Fifty years of the DpO in the magazine Human Capital, I wanted to return to the DpO after the death of Peter Drucker, and I still believe today that, despite the difficulty of formulating the objectives, it is these that should guide our actions.
If we could not or wanted to achieve more, at least we would have to deploy the actions that, as a means, would lead us to professionally satisfy the legitimate needs and expectations of our clients, external and internal; I believe, yes, that a purpose should guide our tasks, and that, insofar as we can specify and specify, it will be easier to nurture and know our professional effectiveness.
I remember having participated, as a consultant, in the deployment of a youth manager development program at Alcatel Spain in the early 1990s, and that there were four main areas of action: leadership, professionalism, internationality and versatility. Within the area of professionalism, and under the label of Professional Management System (SGP), management by objectives had been included, which was already operating in the Organization. The first difficulty that I seemed to perceive, in the 80s, was certainly the formulation of objectives, and that reminded me of how difficult it had also been for me to formulate learning objectives, when I started my teaching career in the 70s.
Many large and medium-sized companies incorporated management by objectives in the 90s (if they had not done so before) and, perhaps with some modifications or simplifications as a result of each experience, they still consider the system in force today. The expansion of empowerment and lifelong learning, the need for everyone's creativity to benefit from inexcusable innovation, and in general the changes brought about by the era of knowledge, seem to benefit from the authentic spirit of DpO and the professionalism that entails. I think that the doctrine of the PDO, by referring only and briefly to what it can mean for the development of the person, contributes to the assumption of responsibility and the feeling of significance and self-esteem;that makes the individual feel an integral part of the organization and perceive that it needs it.
Certainly difficulties arose and, by force of putting patches to overcome them, perhaps we were, already in the final scenario, adulterating to some extent the spirit of the DpO. Then the preaching of the DvV could be opportune (remember that book by Blanchard, O´Connor and Ballard) and, more recently, the DpH; But this writer believes, and postulates here, that the pursuit of objectives in the company is difficult to question.
The reader must have his own opinion or point of view, but I would say that the DpO is a concept capable of sustaining, of providing a basis, to an entire professional system of managing people (which must always adapt to the surrounding realities); In contrast, DpV or DpH, although they represent valuable and timely messages, are perhaps vulnerable when they try to appear as systems brought to overcome DpO.
Undoubtedly, we must cultivate certain values and practice healthy habits, but these should not be preached -values or habits- at the cost of disqualifying management by objectives, because we must continue to pursue achievements, results, goals, in companies.
Commenting on the messages of the book
Still adhering to a text by Alcalá, the authors remind us of the most frequent effects and errors in which it falls, when putting into practice the DpO: “formulation of objectives that cannot be influenced; absence of action plans; pretending too much, and knowing that half will be fulfilled; implementation without base training; achievement, whatever the cost; excess bureaucracy… ”. In my opinion, these would not be so much errors of the DpO as of its concrete application in each organization. Peter Drucker himself pointed to goal formulation as a key element, among others, of system effectiveness: we should certainly learn to better formulate goals, ensuring that individual goals lead to collective achievement.
It is possible that, certainly, there has been an excess of bureaucracy and liturgy around the PDO, that the objectives have been imprecise or conflicting in some cases, and that, sometimes, the achievement of their objectives by some individuals led to the failure of others.; in short, it may have been lacking in the deployment of objectives and there may have been plenty of individualism, subordination to the community; But I think that these and other defects, if any, must be attributed to the particular orchestration in each organization, despite the fact that there are common and frequent difficulties.
The book by Díaz and García (consultants for Élogos) presents us in effect to the DpO as surpassed by the DpV: “DpV is shown as the opportunity to give meaning to the effort, generate ethical and emotional well-being that builds a healthy company and enduring. This is the core point of the DpV and where it exceeds the DpO ”. And the book also presents us to the DpH as an overcoming of the DpV: “The DpH -according to words attributed to Professor Fernández Aguado, creator of the model- gathers the most relevant aspects of the DpV, but with increased anthropological depth, and it opens up new perspectives both from a theoretical point of view and from the application of practical measures that allow the development of people ”.
The truth, in the opinion of this writer, now an objector, is that the DpO has its own space, as there is to cultivate values, and to conduct itself in solidarity and ethics, effectively.
The DpO does not close the way to other postulates, nor does it claim for itself the entire doctrinal space of the company; it has given way, without conflict and for example, to the competency management system (GpC) promoted by McClelland, and which arrived in Spain in the 1990s without prejudice, and in clear benefit, to the necessary achievement of results.
The competency movement certainly opened our eyes to the skills, strengths, attitudes, values and habits that contributed to our effectiveness or high performance. I see the DpO and the GpC as complementary systems.
So, if we accept the thesis of the book, the DpO would be largely surpassed today by the Directorate for Habits, from which we can read, in the words of Miguel Ángel Alcalá: “The challenges of DpH are two: define what they are habits that suit people, and show the paths to achieve them.
Strictly speaking, the work consists of the person conquering the truth of himself in his actions, and, in parallel, the full good for himself, with his conduct: living reality on the good done in each act, and the realization of the good subordinated to the truth about his own being ”.
I have checked whether I have transcribed it correctly, and thus it is said, in effect, on page 139 of the book edited by Élogos; But I do not know how to interpret anything other than the practice of integrity here: perhaps the reader can extract more messages.
By identifying some major habits, the book points to perspective, fairness, strength, balance, joy, good taste, responsibility, generosity, patience, boldness, good humor, simplicity, knowing being, gratitude… These things could be seen as habits, and also as personal strengths and values, and they are undoubtedly attributes to cultivate. What I am trying to suggest here is that this cultivation should not lead us to prefer the pursuit of business objectives. Both managers and knowledge workers must make an intelligent distribution of attention between the objectives pursued and the means used to achieve them.
In our decision-making and our performance, workers and managers must keep in mind the proclaimed values, and conduct ourselves with virtues or especially convenient habits; But all this pursuing professional goals, reaching already determined and assumed objectives.
As a worker, one may think that he is simply filling out paperwork, or troubleshooting, or selling products or services, or laying bricks, or cooking food, or designing systems; And you may also think, above all, that you are making money to support your family, or purchase a home; But you can also feel a significant contributor to projects that generate social well-being, feel a necessary part of a socially effective and responsible company. The latter is perhaps more enriching, stimulating and rewarding.
Of course we must be cheerful, prudent, punctual, fair, diligent, creative, responsible…; Of course, we must relate what we do to the overall objectives of the organization and the contribution of the company to social welfare; Of course, not everything is valid to achieve the objectives, that the means used must be in tune with corporate values and the most convenient habits, and that we must find reason and foundation for our activity. But it is that the "how" or the "for what" (answers that the book places in the DpH and the DpV) do not make sense without the "what", and the DpO comes to define the "what" in quantitative and qualitative terms: that's what you mean, what to get. If it were also referring to the how or the what for, it would have to be called differently: perhaps “management by objectives,action plans and corresponding reasons ”(DpOPARC).
The reader must have his own opinion but I have wanted to offer him my favorable allegation about the validity of the DpO, in its essence and in its limits: we cannot attribute to the DpO the best or worst of the objectives that each organization formulates, nor the bureaucratic burden that it deploys, nor the possible arbitrariness of the annual evaluations, perhaps raised with excess of liturgy.
conclusion
The deployment of the management system by objectives must be obviously aware of the realities of each moment and each organization, and it is true that the emerging knowledge and innovation economy, with the new profiles of managers and workers, must constitute a reference inexcusable; But let us not stop pursuing objectives and filling our personal and professional lives with purpose. This fills our existence with meaning and sense, and moves us to star in it: the opposite would be letting ourselves go. We have, of course, to live the here and now, to concentrate on the media, on the daily task, to properly distribute our attention between the objectives to be achieved and the corresponding action; it must be so, among other things, to make room for autotelic enjoyment, that is,to professional satisfaction both for the achievement and for the daily realization itself.
I had the opportunity to speak briefly with the authors, and it seemed to me that, in reality, they do not doubt the validity of the DpO, which is so blurred in the book; But the fact is that Élogos proposes a leadership model based on leadership by habits, that is, on the cultivation of selected habits. We already learned about this Élogos product, which José Ignacio Díez, managing partner, described as a star product.
In my opinion, the DpO, as formulated by Drucker, was not intended to be a single thought, neutralizing all others, but to move from performing tasks to achieving results; It has its space and scope for continuous improvement in the application phase, but its essence seemed unquestionable until I have seen it questioned in this book.
I propose to the reader what, in truth, he does not need anyone to propose: that he observe the new surrounding realities in relation to the knowledge and innovation economy, and that he bet on the most suitable model of managerial-worker relations. Perhaps this most suitable model in your organization is one of the many that seems to fit into the much-postulated leader-follower relationship, or that the boss-subordinate model is, or that the manager-collaborator model is, or that it is that of professional-management of the activity, or that is any other; But professionalism is a requirement for everyone, as is the leading role in our performance. It would seem that the self-leadership of all of us seems to prevail after shared collective goals,each achieving their individual goals and without prejudice to teamwork and community spirit. As for behavior, I would not rule out that the behavior of a worker was exemplary, without necessarily being that of his boss.
After achieving individual achievements, we can talk about the self-leadership of Manz and Sims, or Senge's personal mastery, or the effectiveness of Covey, or the intrapersonal intelligence of Gardner and Goleman, or all of this and more, but the new managers and knowledge workers have to star in their professional performance, and I think that the formulation of objectives is catalytic.
But in my last paragraph I want to insist -in favor of the book- on the importance of cultivating values and incorporating good habits; I simply react in this article to what seemed to me an unnecessary disqualification of the DpO, which begins with arguments that I considered the result of a not inconsiderable mistake. Experts can think of a suitable adaptation of the DpO to the realities of the emerging economy, although perhaps they will have to start by making a new division of roles between managers and workers; This consultant, columnist and observer, simply displays his point of view and thanks the reader for getting here.
