Schlagwort-Archive: Criteria

When targets get tangled

Our body is a good image for a company. A body is not a messy heap of cells but a coordinated whole. The various systems (such as the cardiovascular system, respiration, digestion, nerves, skeleton, muscles, and skin) have only one goal – the survival of the indivisible. It does not work without each other. The designed economic division of labor lacks this coherence due to self-interests. It already begins with how biz is divided: according to functions, hierarchical layers, or regions. “Do one thing and don’t let the other” is the mantra of the undecided leaders. When dividing, for instance, into ten functions, three levels, five regions, it creates up to 150 units with their own and common intentions. In addition, an inscrutable net of relationships emerges from professional and personal commitments. In contrast to the body, these fragmented units and overlapping responsibilities lead to self-made chaos. This becomes visible in tangled targets that hinder and neutralize each other and undermine the purpose of the enterprise.

In addition to departments, layers, or regions, the following perspectives increase the formal hullabaloo.

  • Direction
    We cannot assume that the official goals relate to the area described. It would be advantageous to know whether corporate, career, or private intentions are hidden behind them. It becomes difficult if the feigned company aspiration serves personal development or private intentions, such as leisure time.
  • Roles
    The assigned roles influence the perspective of target makers. Bystanders assume that decision-makers have their responsibilities in mind. Or the influencing stakeholders care about their sphere of influence. Or the performers confine themselves to their tasks. But what does it mean when leaders have the mindset of an employee? How do we deal with stakeholders who pretend to be in charge? What are the real concerns of the employees?
  • Territory
    Goals are given to the entire company, divisions, projects, and individual employees. It is the responsibility of the decision-makers to ensure that the targets are consistent. Even in large line structures, it isn’t easy to ensure coherence because of the overlapping measures. It is impossible to untangle the constantly changing interdependencies in an agile format or a matrix structure and maintain a consistent overall picture.
  • Temporality
    Goals are assigned for the present year. Unfortunately, measures do not adhere to the corresponding calendars: tasks cannot be completed in the current year; projects often run across the year’s boundary. When long-term plans come into play, the result is a jumble of old and new costs and outcomes that is difficult to track. This confusion cannot be reliably tracked with an elaborate reporting system (even if this is often suggested). Goals are only partially achieved or not achieved at all in such an environment.
  • Criteria
    Skillfully formulated targets already include metrics when they are prepared that can be used to gauge progress and the degree to which they have been achieved. Most goals are formulated too vaguely, which makes it impossible to evaluate their fulfillment. And sometimes, qualitative goals are pursued, which can only be estimated and subjectively evaluated.

Bottom line: Those responsible are deluding themselves if they think they can achieve consistent goals through elaborate goal-setting that is coordinated over weeks. They oversee the fact that the real alignment is not visible in the target. The roles deviate away from the corporate goals with their interests. Goal setting occurs at different levels, making it difficult to achieve consistency. The mixture of short-, mid- and long-term goals further blurs the overall picture. Setting early on measurable indicators for target achievement helps all participants. However, reconciling metrics increases the effort required to set goals. If we consider the resulting complexity and interdependencies, we understand why tangled targets cannot be realized.

Talked its way out of the advantages

It is a long way before different interests are harmonized and eventually benefit from a partnership. It is important to understand what you are prepared to give up and, above all, what you hope to get out of it. Some memberships are the result of negotiations. Others can be bought by paying a certain fee. After successfully joining, you make the best of it. The EU is such a club, which has grown over the years. However, some members do not seem to want to follow the rules of such a membership. They take advantage without fulfilling their duties. And then there are the English, who believe they can leave and still continue to benefit from the merits of the common market. They talked their way out of the advantages.

Actually, the principles of membership are common property.

  • Admission criteria
    Clubs don’t accept everybody. You have to meet certain conditions to become a member. The definition of these accession criteria is always well defined. The Copenhagen criteria apply to the EU, e.g. institutional stability, the rule of law, a functioning market economy and the adoption of Community law. In other accessions the payment of membership fees is sufficient. As long as the criteria are met, you are entitled to the benefits offered.
  • Membership start
    The membership happens at ones own desire by means of an application and the successful fulfilment of the accession criteria. For the EU it is a complex procedure, the assessment based on a comprehensive questionnaire, the so-called screening. Then negotiations begin, which ultimately end in the accession treaty. Similar steps are also carried out in other associations. The size of these assessments is determined by each individual fellowship – from the receipt of the membership fee to an elaborate procedure, albeit not as extensive as in the case of the EU.
  • Membership benefits
    The main advantages of a membership are the opportunities offered within the association. In the EU these are all the advantages of the internal market, freedom of movement for workers, the abolition of border controls and, of course, the Euro. No matter how one perceives the individual aspects of the EU, the Community seems to be so tempting that countries want to join. The same applies to all memberships. There are interesting offers that have to be balanced against the expenses for the affiliation. If the rating is positive, you become a member and enjoy the advantages as long as you are part of the community.
  • Membership termination
    Each membership may be terminated by either party. So far no one has been forced to leave the EU. On the contrary. The Community has always endeavored to help countries, which have experienced difficulties. With the BREXIT, British policymakers have won the vote of the population to withdraw by presenting the obligations as disadvantages. The procedure promised negotiations about an orderly resignation. Unfortunately, the English have ignored the most important principle of membership: If you leave a club, you are also losing the advantages. This applies to every membership, no matter how difficult the access was.

Bottom line: There is a lot of talk about an orderly or a disorderly exit of England. The calls to order in Parliament no longer help. Probably the only purpose is to bridge the time until 29 March 2019. However, the damage caused by the withdrawal of European businesses will continue to affect the British for many years to come. The hoped-for relief is far exceeded by the follow-up costs. It should be noted that not all of Great Britain will be affected. The Scots will strive for independence and in the end Ireland will likely converge. The English will beam themselves out of the EU into meaninglessness, if they don’t change tack NOW. Following the usual practices, it happens exactly the same as with each cancellation. There are no more fees and one waives the merits. That way they would have talked themselves way out of the advantages.