A guy is walking through the woods. He notices that almost every tree has an arrow shot into it. Every arrow is planted dead-center in a target. He is amazed. He passes over a hundred trees – all of them with perfect bulls eyes. Finally he sees a frail old man crouching down to pick up a quiver of arrows. He approaches the old man and says, “Do you know who shot all of these bulls eyes?” The old man replies, “Sure I do. It was me.” The guy gives him a quizzical look and says, “YOU made all of these shots? Would you show me how to do it? I’ll give you five hundred dollars.” “OK” says the old man. The guy gives the old man $500 and picks up a bow. “You won’t need that” said the old man. “Then how are you going to teach me?” asked the guy. “It’s really quite simple” the old man continued, “You shoot first and draw the circles after.”
Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I first heard that joke yet I tell it at least once a month in business meetings. As leaders we often do the same thing as the archer. We set our targets AFTER we’ve seen what we are going to achieve. And just as with the archer, we tend to always hit those targets.
Sometimes this is subtle. We have a formal goal-setting process at the beginning of a year and set our targets. Then throughout the year we adjust and revise our targets. When we do this, we are redrawing the circles. It is as if accuracy of the target is more important than actual performance. Some argue that changing the target manages expectations. Managing expectations is important, but that’s not the purpose of a target. Targets are measurement tools. They help you make decisions about the effectiveness and efficiency of the work you are doing. Missing a target means that you have to change something about the work you are doing (other than the target). By continually adjusting the target, you mask the real problem and delay taking action.
Setting expectations is done through forecasts. Forecasts should change as new information becomes available (although if they are changing often it might mean that you are not thinking them through and they will eventually become useless). They key is to separate your forecasting process from your goal setting and tracking process. Otherwise you undermine both.
A less subtle example of drawing the circles after shooting occurs when management teams don’t have an efficient process for setting targets and goals. In those cases, the goal setting process takes several months and final goals aren’t agreed upon until the organization is three months (or more) into the year. Not surprisingly, the targets often align very closely with the first three months performance.
Setting and managing against targets is an important management tool. Targets let you gauge performance and determine whether you need to make changes. Hitting a target retroactively might feel good, but it doesn’t help your business move forward.
Hey Chief: Your last two posts made me think of front stage and back stage (remember Goffman?) or even signifier and signified–and postmodern arguments about the end of meaning. You with me dude? We are preoccupied with the appearance of targets; therefore, we “forget” that the target itself is a substitution ( I like your word proxy), a construction meant to signify reaching an agreed-upon set of circumstances. Like dieters who are obsessed with reaching a certain number on the scale, or a certain size. Not me, mind you. So what to do? Do you think the problem might have to do with the limitations of such thinking? Are there other credible models for signifying progress? (Are you laughing yet?)
hmmmmmm…I’d say that I didn’t remember Goffman but that might somehow give the false impression that at one time I might have known who that was. But, I think I see where you are headed with your comment.
I’m not sure if the problem is caused by limitations in thinking (in the sense that I think you are describing them although I might be limited in my thinking about that).
I think the problem is caused by increased pressure to show fast results. Whether it be in business or in one’s personal life (e.g., losing weight).
When we have to get a quick result, we often look for things that are very tangible, highly sensitive to change, and easy to measure. As a result, we often go for the most simple substitutions.
The “other” credible model for signifying progress is actual progress. For example, if I am supposed to have happier customers, progress is whether those customers are happier. It’s not about the number of programs I put in place to make customers happy or the number of customers who fill out my survey. It’s about changing the way they feel about my business.
People shy away from true outcomes because 1) they are harder to achieve. Consider the customer example. It’s much easier to implement three customer experience programs than it is to actually make your customers happier and 2) they increase your accountability. When you are on the hook for a result, you are taking more ownership for the problem. If you don’t deliver, it’s a much bigger deal.
I think that the real answer is that since we ultiamtely have to use proxies (what is customer satisfaction anyway) we should at least use a proxy that is directly tied to the outcome as opposed to a proxy that is tied to something that is tied to the outcome.