When is it time for moving targets? - Chapter 14

What is claim 8 about?

In complex situations, our attempts to make adaptations may fail if we persist in pursuing the goals we started with, if we rely too heavily on identifying and minimizing risks, and if we maintain the ground rules we set at the beginning of an activity. Adapting means revising our goals, becoming resilient to threats we can’t predict, and changing the way we work together.

To adapt, we have to learn, but we also have to unlearn.

Claim 8: The starting point for any project is to get a clear description of the goal.

People definitely want to define clear goals in advance. That way they can set up a schedule and measure if they are making good progress. The more specific the goal, the better. Man management and planning tools are built around the notion that we first define the goals and then proceed to achieve them.

Peter Drucker developed Management by Objectives for managers to help subordinates specify the objectives they want to accomplish in the coming year; then the managers can measure their subordinates’performance using yardsticks they both had accepted. Project managers focus on objectives to set up plans for how they are going to achieve the project goals.

The entire system, from personnel management to strategic vision, depends on describing explicit goals at each level.

Problem: Claim 8 runs into difficulties when we put it into practice. Claim 8 discourages us from getting started until we clearly define the goal, and it leads us to expect to accomplish that initial goal. The notion of pursuing clearly defined goals can work against us in complex situations. It doesn’t work as well in stable settings, because it runs up against goal trade-offs

What are goal trade-offs?

Claim 8 creates the illusion that we have a single goal, but most of the time we’re juggling several goals at the same time. The problem here is that we needed to work both fronts at the same time. Any time we have more than one goal, we have the potential for goal conflicts. That doesn’t mean we just pick the goal we want Instead, we have to figure out how to trade off the goals so that we can achieve enough of each of them. That’s the hard part. No matter how clearly we define our goals, we still have to wrestle with goal trade-offs.

Even when we have clear goals, we can still get befuddled when the goals come into conflict with each other. Goal trade-offs are very difficult for us. Physicians for example have to wrestle with conflicting goals. They want to restore a patient to health and also reduce the patient’s discomfort. Soldiers also struggle with goal trade-offs.

The dilemma of goal trade-offs shows that even clear goals can be ambiguous. And this is the easy case that involves clear goals in a stable situation. In complex situations our goals are likely to be vague and ambiguous.

What are emergent goals?

What happens when we don’t have clear goals? This is the most serious limitation of claim 8. Here we are facing what Rittel and Webber (1973,1984) described as ‘wicked problems’ in which the goals are incomplete and keep changing, as well as occasionally conflicting. Solutions to wicked problems aren’t true or false. Instead, they are judged as good or bad, because there is no way to test a solution to a wicked problem. When we are faced with a wicked problem, when the goals just aren’t clear, there aren’t any objective ways to gauge success.

Most of the problems are wicked. Taking an essay is a wicked problem, midway through the exam. The student may wonder what the teacher wants to know. Different teachers might give varying grades to the same answer, because essay exams don’t have clear criteria and goals.

Claim 8 runs into trouble in complex situations in which the wicked problems prevent us from clarifying the goals at the start. Many of the problems we face are wicked problems in which we may have to re-assess our original understanding of the goals.

The goals will become clearer as we learn more. That’s why I am calling them emergent goals

Bill Duggan, in Strategic Intuition, describes a number of other instances in which leaders changed their goals on the basis of what they learned. During the process of learning, we have to change our goals, that’s very important!

Emergent goals at the project level

Perhaps goals are murky when businesses are trying to establish new industries. If we move down to the operational level, where teams are carrying out projects, we sometimes find clear goals. But often we don’t. When we are working on a project, we want to work on well-defined assignments with clear goals. That way, we know what we must deliver, and our bosses can judge our progress

However, we don’t always have that luxury, but is this always better?

Alexander Laufer (2009) studied organizations and observed that the managers of successful projects repeatedly started engineering designs before they had finished defining their project objectives.

A study of 211 RD projects found that projects that started with well-defined business and technical goals had no greater chance of succeeding than those whose goals were still fluctuating at the start.

However, the business and technical goals for the successful projects did become better defined over the life of the project than the goals for the unsuccessful projects.

Emergent goals at the individual level

Peter Drucker initially developed the concept of Management by Objectives to help supervisors manage their subordinates. After they agreed on the subordinate’s objectives, the supervisor could assess progress toward the objectives in periodic evaluations.

What are the tools for pursuing goals?

Another drawback of management by objectives is that it calls for objectives that can be measured objectively. It is easier to measure progress if you can count accomplishments, so employees discard any important objectives that they can’t quantify, further distorting the evaluation process.

Under well-ordered conditions, we can expect that the goals be clarified at the start. But complex conditions make for wicked problems that often prevent goal clarification at the outset. Program managers suppress these complications in order to create systematic management strategies.

Common management tool: The Gantt Chart. A Gantt chart illustrates the type of tools that reinforce the managers’ rigidity in holding to the initial goals. Gantt charts define tasks, show when each task should be started and when it should be completed, and list milestones.

The limitations of Gantt Charts illustrate a basic difficulty of applying analytical methods. Even though more sophisticated scheduling tools are now available, these methods work well as long as the tasks don’t change, the schedule doesn’t change, the mission doesn’t change and personnel don’t rotate in and out. When changes in tasks, goals, personnel erode that common ground, the shorthand notations on the Gantt Chart and the layers of notes and modifications all become barriers to communication and coordinated planning. Furthermore, Gantt charts depend on accurate estimates of the duration of each task. Another limitation of objective-based tools such as Gantt charts: They contribute to goal fixation.

What is meant by goal fixation?

Sengupta, Abdel-Hamid and Van Wassenhove identified an “initial goal bias”. We can think of it as goal fixation. That is, getting stuck on the original goal. They found that managers failed to revise their targets even when those targets became obsolete.

Why do managers fail to revise their targets?

Very early in their careers, people incorporate into their mental models the notion that it’s important to meet externally set targets. This bias is often reinforced in managerial life. Revising targets is seen as an admission of failure in many companies, and managers quickly realize that their careers will fare better if they stick to and achieve initial goals. Even if that leads to a worse overall outcome.

Revising goals and objectives is difficult enough. Goal fixation makes it almost impossible for us to adapt to changing circumstances or even to use what we learn as we make sense of situations.

What is an unintended consequence?

Claim 8 states that we should define goals and objectives at the start and then simply proceed towards them. Claim 8 implies that we should not start work unless we can get a clear description of the goal. But if we insisted on clear goals, we simply couldn’t get started on most of the important projects in our lives.

Replacement

The replacement for claim 8 is that when facing wicked problems we have to re-define the goals as we try to reach them. Most of the problems people encounter have poorly defined goals. No amount of thinking and analysis will make these goals well defined. In such cases, we are going to have to figure out the goals as we go along.

Goal fixation is a big problem for most people; they won’t accept the unpredictability of events and getting ready to adapt.

Alternative approach: Management by Discovery in contrast to management by objectives. Management by Discovery (MBD) says when we face complex conditions we should expect to revise and replace goals on the basis of what we learn. MBD doesn't mean revising the plan to reach the goal. MBD means revising the goal itself.

The management by objectives approach sets the expectation that we shouldn’t begin executing any plans until we have specified the goals. Management by Discovery encourages leaders to take action rather than sit around waiting for perfect goal clarity. MBD also starts with trying to clearly define goals. The difference is that MBD expects to face wicked problems and complex conditions. Instead of reacting by tighting controls, MBD takes the opposite approach of loosening controls in order to expand the discovery process.

Five important differences between MBD versus Objective-based approaches:

1. Define the objectives at the start: With MBD we still spend time trying to clarify goals at the start, we expect to change those goals on the basis of what we learn.

2. Determine a path to the end state. There are many paths to an end state; if the goals change, so will the path. With MBD we still try to envision a way to reach the end state. That’s what the plan does. However, we are also looking for alternative paths we can use when we revise the end state.

3. Identify the tasks on that path: But if the path changes, so will the tasks. We have to be ready to add, combine, delete and reshuffle the tasks. Rather than use a Gantt Chart, we should keep track of the options so we can activate one option when another seems to get stuck.

4. Prepare a schedule showing when each task begins and ends: But if the goals change, the schedule will change. On the basis of what is learned about the connections between tasks, each sub-team can understand how to provide what they need when they need it.

5. Measure progress in moving toward the goal. But if the goals change, the progress markers will change, so we should prepare ourselves and our clients and supervisors from the start to re-negotiate the goals as well as the schedule and resources.

You don't have to see Management by Discovery and Management by Objectives as conflicting. They are two ways to achieve successful outcomes. Each begins with an attempt to define the goals. The primary difference is that in complex situations with wicked problems, MBD recognizes that the original goals may become obsolete. Therefore, the MBD mindset is to move forward even though the goals haven’t been specified in detail, and to expect to revise the goals. The MBD mindset is to look for opportunities to figure out better goals than the ones specified at the beginning.

When it comes to wicked problems, the standard objectives-based tools, such as Gantt Charts, may not be useful.

One strategy is to compile a “goal field” and use it to track what you have learned. You can share this goal field with your subordinates to help calibrate your discoveries. You can ask them to keep their own goal fields so that you can review their progress.

A goal field represents the primary goals, and how they relate to one another. The goals usually won’t form a neat and simple hierarchy, so it is important to show the interconnections and to highlight areas in which the goals might come into conflict.

Why does claim 8 matter?

It matters because claim 8 prevents people from adapting. MBD isn’t a choice. It is what we have to do in unpredictable circumstances when we are faced with ambiguous goals.

It matters because too many leaders and managers have one reaction to adversity: Increasing the controls.

Many people try to tame turbulence, complexity by redoubling their efforts to specify the goals and details. This works well for managers early in their careers, but when they are assigned to programs with wicked problems, this can be the wrong approach.

Problem: Most management tools and training programs thinks that goals are stable, but also people are highly vulnerable to getting fixated on goals.

In complex situations, our attempts to make adaptations may fail if we persist in pursuing the goals we started with, if we rely too heavily on identifying and minimizing risks, and if we maintain the ground rules we set at the beginning of an activity. Adapting means revising our goals, becoming resilient to threats we can’t predict, and changing the way we work together.

To adapt, we have to learn, but we also have to unlearn.

Claim 8: The starting point for any project is to get a clear description of the goal.