Don’t do a balanced scorecard for an organisation

April 7th, 2010

I sometimes get asked “How do you draw a strategy map on a page for a whole organisation?”  The answer is the same as for the question, “How do you limit a balanced scorecard to 24 measures?”

The answer is you don’t.  You don’t do it for a whole organisation.  You do it for a particular management team and scope of control. You develop a set of strategy maps and balanced scorecards for a whole organisation.

A strategy map draws the strategy as seen from the perspective of a particular management team.  If you are dealing with the Chief Executive and the Executive team, they you are doing it for them.  If you are dealing with a management team for customer services, or the UK operations, or the IT management team, then it is for them, from their perspective.  It describes that team’s perspective: what they have to focus on to create change within their scope of control.  The few things they need to pay most attention to, to implement the strategy and to bring about change?

It is the same for the balanced scorecard that sits behind the strategy map.  The team’s balanced scorecard should not contain all the measures in an organisation.  They should contain the specific ones that the management team need to pay most attention to. Should they want more detail the management team should be able to look at more detailed strategy maps and balanced scorecards for the teams that work beneath them.

Posted in Balanced Scorecard, Strategy Map | No Comments »

Refining and revising measures

April 5th, 2010

Why do we use objectives before measures?  Because it makes it easier to refine and revise measures

In the absence of objectives, people designing performance management systems often compensate for problems with measures by adding more measures in the hope that they are communicating and covering all the aspects.  This unfortunately leads to overload, confusion and unnecessary detail.  This creates measure mania.

In contrast, objectives set direction: this is what we want to achieve.  By defining the objectives and its characteristics first, you have a basis for choosing measures of that objective.  You can then ask, “What should we measure for this objective” and then, “What is the best way to measure this?”

This approach makes measure design far easier and more systematic.  It means that when looking at the measures of an objective you can always check to see how complete a picture they provide of the objective and its characteristics.  We can tell how well they inform progress against the objective.   We can tell how well they cover all the characteristics of the objective.  We can tell if they are true fair measures of an objective, or a surrogate used to get a feel for the situation in the absence of better information.

A significant benefit of this comes when you find that a measure of the objective is not fit for purpose or not functioning well.  When you have an objective, and its characteristics, you have a point of reference against which to choose a better measure.    You can eliminate the less effective measures and bring in new ones.  It also means that when a new measure is introduced, people can see why the new measure is better than the old one because they have the objective as a point of reference.

Posted in Alliance balanced scorecard, Balanced measures, Manage what you can measure, Measure mania, Objectives before measures, Premature measure design, measure choice, measure design | No Comments »

Avoiding premature measure design – use objectives first

April 4th, 2010

Why should a balanced scorecard have objective as well as measures?

Developing objectives before measures prevents premature measure design.  This is the tendency for people to leap straight to measures instead of defining more clearly what they want to measure.  If you decide how to measure, before you are clear what you want to manage, you will limit your thinking to what you think you can measure.  As a result you will end up managing that which you think you can measure, rather that choosing measures for that which you want to manage.  The problem is that people limit what they think they can measure to very tangible things (money, activity, outputs, and physical deliverables).  These quantifiable measures are useful, but they are also a narrow view of the organisation.  This thinking encourages greater numbers of financial and process measures and leads to the imbalance that the balanced scorecard set out to address.
Ultimately you do want to measure progress towards your objective. However, this gets interpreted as all objectives should be measures.  Defining the characteristics of an objective clearly and then, separately, deciding which characteristics you wish to measure and how to measure those characteristics allows you to be clear about the difference between the objective and its measurement.

Posted in Balanced Scorecard, Objectives, how to measure, measure design | No Comments »

Avoiding dysfunctional behaviours due to measures

April 4th, 2010

More holistic – less divisive

One of the underlying causes of the dysfunctional behaviour sometimes experienced in performance management is where individual measures and targets look at only specific parts of a problem.As a result are asked to achieve targets that are locally optimal, but dysfunctional in the big picture and wider system.
By their nature measures are analytical: that is they take a part the organisation and take apart the organisation.  Measures look at individual aspects (perspectives) of the organisation in the same way that a knife would carve the organisation into pieces.  They focus on one aspect or dimension of the organisation or system, for instance money, activity, outputs.  In contrast, an objective with well written characteristics is good at defining the whole system, not just part.   This “analysis” is useful when you want to understand the parts and the detail.  It is less helpful when you want to look at the whole, when you want to look at a more holistic, complete or systemic picture. Attaching targets and incentives to these narrow measures can cause people to try and achieve these narrow measures when in fact they are dealing with only a small part of the system and in effect sub-optimising.
Developing an objective before you start to develop measures means the measures no longer sit in isolation but are part of a whole story.  The measures and the description of the objective provide a more complete picture that is less likely to be misinterpreted.

Posted in Balanced Scorecard, Strategy Map, measure design | No Comments »

The value of multiple metrics in the Balanced Scorecard

April 2nd, 2010

John Kay the economist posted an article about the value Balanced Scorecard in business.

In life, and business, we should judge ourselves by a balanced scorecard. Among the management fads and fashions of the last twenty years, the balanced score card is one that survives, and deserves to survive. The principle is that the performance of a business is judged, not by any single metric – the bottom line – but by a wide range of indicators related to a company’s distinctive capabilities, the source of its competitive advantage, its relationships with its stakeholders.

Sums it up for me really.  I came across this whilst looking for articles on John’s new book, Obliquity, and how important it is to focus on the business rather than just chasing profits and sharejolder value.

He continued (and bear in mind this was 2003 when M&S were going through some problems,

For Marks & Spencer, whose competitive advantage rested on what I have called its architecture – the structure of its relationships with suppliers and employees – and on its brand and reputation, the components of its balanced scorecard would have placed appropriately more emphasis on people, and on the way people outside the company perceived it. We can see how these kinds of assessment could have restrained, perhaps even prevented, the calamities that befell these businesses. They relate the metrics of performance to the competitive strengths of the corporation.

How a well designed balanced scorecard would restrain and perhaps even prevented the calamities that befell this business.  In other words, by having a wider focus you end up with a better performance.  The single focus and objective can actually be destructive.  A broader view, across perspectives, can help an organisation concentrate on its competitive strengths rather than (merely) its financial results.

I was particularly struck by his conclusion 4

We make a mistake when we look for purpose in a business organisation which is distinct from the functions that business organisation discharges. Companies do not exist solely to generate shareholder value, but it cannot be their objective to promote the public good: they have neither legitimacy or competence to pursue that goal. The purpose and function of companies is to produce, in their own distinctive fields of competence, the goods and services we want, as individuals and as a society.

Let me just repeat that last sentance, because it goes to the heart of strategy map design.  The purpose and function of companies is to produce, in their distinctive field of competence, the goods and services that we want as individuals and as a society. What are the central competencies that you have to learn and grow and devlop as an organistion, to deliver the your goods and services for the good of the individuals you serve in our society?

That is teh learning and growth question, and one of strategy positioning that must be reflected in your strategy map

You can read John Kay’s full article which is from a lecture to the Department of trade and industry in 2003.

Posted in Balanced Scorecard, John Kay, Obliquity, Strategy Map, competitive strength, shareholder value | No Comments »

Obliquity: Why customers & competencies are most important on balanced scorecards

April 2nd, 2010
Reading reviews of John Kay’s latest book Obliquity, they bring out how the theme of the book is that route to success is often through the search for something else: Taking the oblique route.  It is a paradox, he says, that to achieve objectives you are better not have to focus on something completely different.  Is the objective of profit maximisation the best way to maximise profits?  Is a focus on wealth the best way to create wealth?

The basic tenet of Obliquity is that the direct approach is not always the best way.  Attempting to maximise shareholder value can be the best way to destroy it.  The best way to create value is to concetrate on creating a great business and serving customers.

I have had this conversation with clients about the structure of the balanced scorecard’s perspectives.  “Doesn’t having the financial perspective at the top, mean that we are focusing on money?  Perhaps profits or shareholder value”  “Isn’t it flawed”, they argue “to have money at the top when the key thing we need to concetrate on is customers…if we do that well our financials will look after themselves.”

And I say, “You are right”.  Just because money is at the top, does not mean that that is your major objective.  Its simple, lets just make the customer perspective larger and more proominent and focus people’s attention on it.  Then, satisfying our customers will ensure that we get the financial outcomes that we are also looking for.  For the financial aoutcomes are the consequence or serving your customers.  Do that well and the money will come.

So do not worry that the financial perspective is at the top of the balanced scoreacrd and startegy map.  Of course you have to keep an eye on the money, but it is getting close to your customers that matters and that is the perspective you should focus on.

You can read more about John’s book and decision making here


Phil Jones

Posted in Balanced Scorecard, Customer focus, Customer perspective, Financial perspective, Obliquity, competencies, shareholder value | No Comments »

Strategy in uncertainty: what tools are useful?

January 30th, 2010

At an Institute of Director’s economic briefing in November, the Chief Economist of the IOD said that we are still facing uncertainty, its just that the uncertainties are changing. I think the uncertainty continues to change, especially with impending elections and economic fog. Therefore I find two tools most useful in this time of uncertainty (and changing uncertainty):

1) Value chain analysis (cf Michael Porter) to understand the landscape around the organisation. Once I understand the landscape, then the strategy (in its various forms should make sense – or at least you can see better the implications of the strategies). (To use a metaphor, it addresses the question – where on our map has this hurricane blown us?)

2) A simple question and listening to the response. The question is, “What uncertainties are your customers facing?”. (Again to use your metaphor, It addresses the question – how big is this hurricane, where is affected, where is a safe port and are we near some rocks?”)

The reason for this is that if you understand what is making people uncertain, then you have a chance of working out when those uncertainties will change and disappear (or soing something about them yourself). That means you can monitor the changing environment and its implications for the landscape and therefore make sensible strategic decisions. (You will know when the hurricane changes direction)

I have been doing talks and presentations on this subject (Managing Strategy in uncertain times) to various clients and groups – it seems to make sense to them, goes down well, and give them practical tools to address the (changing) uncertainties they face.

I call this approach “intelligence led strategic questioning” – you might call it “Talking to your customers about what worries them and matters to them”.

Phil
Managing strategy in uncertain times

Posted in Intelligence led strategy, Strategy in uncertainty, strategic thinking, talking to customers, value chain analysis | No Comments »

Why benefit management fails in the NHS

January 21st, 2010

The NHS IT delivery programme has a dreadful track record. It is not surprising when you look at their methodology and the techniques the NHS and the ISIP programme recommend for benefit mapping, benefit management and benefit realisation. They are fundamentally flawed.

Here are some of the many reasons why they fail:

  1. They ignore the landscape and context, confusing benefits at different levels

  2. They ignore impact and consequence

  3. Being uncluear where change needs to happen

  4. They treat enablers as the same as impact

  5. Projects and enablers are confused

  6. It makes following the timing and tracking deliverables difficult

First lets look at the NHS benefit management material. You can either look at the approach in the NHS ISIP benefits mapping or look at the alternative approach in the ISIP Benefit dependency network masterclass material.

1) Understanding the landscape and context

The first thing you will notice is that although the talk about benefits to particular parties, they are not specific about those parties and how they relate.

Imagine you are in a PCT. You are delivering technology to GPs so they can access a more complete view of patient records for a particular care pathway. It is important to realise that there are dependencies across that pathway that will involve other healthcare professionals such as tests in pathology labs, x-rays, hospital discharge records, and perhaps even records in Social services and district nurses. It is only when you have all of these in place that you will start to give benefits to patients. Until then you need to be clear who is involved and how they interact. Without this complete view of the landscape, the next step is impossible.

What you have is a sequence: PCT, GP, patient. What you need is to be clear about the benefits at each level.

2) Distinguishing between impact and benefit.

The second mistake that the NHS benefit approach makes is not to distinguish the difference between impact and benefit at each level. So for a GP, you can implement the system but other pieces of work will be necessary to ensure that the benefits for the GP and at the GP level, are implemented. So you actually need two levels of “benefit” for each body: “How am I affected/What is changed for me” and (separately) “What is the benefit for me”.

Notice there is ALWAYS a timing difference here. You implement a system and the benefits of that implementation at the point of implementation come later (if at all).

It is the same at the patient level. There are always two “benefits”. The first is the impact, “I can now make my own booking” and the consequence “Which means I can choose when I want and appointment”. These are often assumed to be the same but they are not. The patient may be able to make their own booking but something in the system may stop them getting the appointments they want (or even getting through). If this is the case the “benefit” of being able to make your own booking becomes more of a nuisance than not being able to.

It is “impact” and “consequence” at each level, for each party, that needs to be considered. The models within the ISIP and NHS benefit maps do not make this clear. Again you have to have the NHS landscape clear here as well, to do this.

3) Enablers vs impact.

This is a really important distinction. Again confused by the way the material is presented and the lack of context in any examples.

If I am in a PCT and am introducing a Long Term Conditions system across multiple healthcare providers then I am putting in place some enablers of this technology, perhaps software, training, new hardware or infrastructure, interfaces between systems, protocols, new working practices, that are used across multiple healthcare professional groups (Acute, GPs, Social services, community nurses, polyclinic, etc.) .

These are enablers that work across the various parties involved, BUT ARE NOT directly impacting those involved. For instance the link between the GPs systems and the central Long Term Care system is an enabler. The impact is that GPs can then see the more complete pathway and other Health care professionals can also see what the GP has put on their referral forms more easily (provided you have also rolled it out to all the GPs, given them access and trained them).

It is an enabler. Think underlying capability or common infrastructure.

4) Being clear where change work needs to occur

Now everywhere there is an arrow between these enablers, impacts and benefits and then onto further impacts and benefits, you need action and change.

So why does the ISIP benefit dependency network go:

Enabler -> Projects (and Actions to change) -> Outcome -> Benefit -> Priority objective?

It does not make sense. Projects deliver enablers. Actions turn outcomes into benefits. All operate at different levels.

What we have been drawing is clearly a set of dependencies where actions for change are needed at many levels across the NHS landscape and environment. In fact everywhere an arrow exists, some change intervention is required. If you don’t think about this you are at best leaving things to chance and at worst destroying any chance of the project actually delivering the benefits at any level.

5) Projects and enablers are confused

Lets be clear here. Projects do need enablers (give me some funding, resources, technology and an enthusiastic clinician to make things happen). But the enablers are different at different levels. This whole model seems confused about this.

However it is useful to talk about enablers. It is the Infrastructure or common enablers that are delivered by projects. The project will also deliver impact on the health care professionals or care pathways and help then enable their own benefits.

Another example of strange labels is Priority objectives. The way they draw the sequence of boxes there is “priority objective” at the end. In other words the sequence should ultimately lead to this priority objective. I agree, but that is not how to represent things.

What you will have when you develop these benefit maps across the landscape is perhaps several for the Long Term Care priority objective. One set of projects for Diabetes, another for heart conditions, another for COPD etc etc. What we are doing here is explaining how a priority is delivered by the chains of enablers, impact, immediate benefit across the various levels . By the time you reach the benefits for the patients you may have 4-6 ultimate significant benefits (that result from the impact of the project on their care). Now you don’t want to have to draw a link from each of these to a box called “priority objective”.

The whole benefit map is a description of how the priority objective will be delivered. So it should be a label on the benefit map, rather than a linked ultimate outcome. Think of the wrapper around the benefit map, or simply its title.

6) The implication for phased delivery and timing

So this is a more structured approach that is sensitive to how the impact and benefits work at any level of the health landscape. This is where the real advantage comes in. With this richer picture you can track the stated benefits at any level across the landscape you have drawn.

First have you got the enablers in place? Then have you put in place that which will immediately impact the care professionals? What are you doing about the benefits you promised for them? Have they occurred or are they not using the system because it is a pain, slow or “just another system to log out of and into”. And when will it be delivered?

Having this clear cause and effect model in your benefit map enables you to clearly show what has been delivered and what is holding up progress. Having a muddle that mixed outcomes and benefits at each level makes it impossible to draw, impossible to use and impossible to manage.

I have been using such benefit maps in the NHS for over 5 years now. Whenever i present them I first get them to check the landscape before showing them the benefit model laid over the top. This way they agree the landscape before they start to think about the benefits, consequences and impact of the project. It works.

Shame they did not do this before they wasted $6bn on the programme for change and subsequent NHS IT programmes.

By the way, you will have realised that this approach is basically strategy mapping. Therefore it is really easy to make the step to “How would we measure this” and developing a modern NHS balanced scorecard for the operation of the care pathway or service. Really easy, but to find out how to do this you’ll have to talk to me.

Phil Jones

Posted in ISIP programme, NHS Service improvement, NHS balanced scorecard, NHS benefit management, NHS benefit maps, NHS benefit realisation, Strategy Map, nhs targets | No Comments »

End or Means?

January 5th, 2010

At this time of goal setting and new year resolutions we often face a problem. We set a goal or objective, (stop smoking, make more money, lose weight, change job, etc etc) and within a few days or weeks, the goal has been dropped. Good intentions melting away like snow when the sun rises.

Good intentions have been sacrificed on the altar of expediency and reversion to existing practices and patterns of behaviour (I’ll just nip to the fridge, have another cigarette, etc).

The problem is often that we have put our attention on the end rather than the means. It is far more important to concentrate on the change that is required in behaviour rather than the goal. Its about how we behave on a day to day basis (walking instead of using the car, drinking some water instead of heading for the fridge, eating consciously rather than whilst reading a paper).

This is true for organisational goals as much as individual ones. Think of the organisation’s strategy as a persistent pattern of behaviour. It is this persistency of behaviour that is creating results. Therefore to change strategy you don’t simply change goals – you have to address the behaviour and ensure the new behaviours persistently replace those of the old strategy.

This is one reason why the learning and growth perspective is so important in the balanced scorecard. It is about identifying and then signalling to the organisations that behaviours need to change. Then actively ensuring that the new behaviour is encouraged and the old ones are dropped. I use the expression “permission” at this point. People, individually and in their social groups, have to be given permission to drop existing behaviours – ones that might have served them well for a long time, and be allowed to use, and learn how it feels to use, new ones.

Take flexible working and working from home, for example. The idea has been around for ages. the technology is readily available and has been available for ages. It is not a constraint. No, the constraint is often the reluctance to let go the command and control associated with “trusting” people to work. It is no longer about time served, but tasks achieved. The staff of the Director magazine tried home/flexible working and were surprised how hard it was to let go of the existing practices. In the same edition they interviewed Steve Shirley (Dame Stephanie) who set up FI in the early sixties so that women with children could still have a career in computer programming and yet work from home. As she put it, the issue is as about trust and control. People have to learn new behaviours and norms. The objective is not to have people working from home, but to learn new ways to help people be productive by trustiung them and giving them the chance to use their time to in the most appropriate way.

Sure, think about the end, but concentrate on the means. And signal that new behaviours are acceptable, appropriate and now the expected norm.

Phil Jones

Posted in Balanced Scorecard, Goal setting, Objective setting, Persistent pattern of behaviour, ends and means, flexible working, new behaviours, permission for change | No Comments »

Judgement and Evidence: Audience Q&A

October 19th, 2009

Using Judgement and Evidence in Modern Balanced Scorecards: the use of subjective and qualitative measures.
Audience questions and responses

I presented a BetterManagement webinar on this subject, on 14th October, and it received a lot of interest. You can listen again to the webcast on the better management site (See link at the end)

Here are all the questions that those listening asked at the time, but not all were answered in the time available. I have published them here so you too can get the insight these questions raise.


Atena asked:

Q: If staff are not trusted on qualitative measures, wouldn’t this be the same for quantitative measures?

A: The premise in your question is not that the data is wrong, but that people are giving you false information. There are documented examples in UK hospitals where staff simply reported better information to central government than was actually the case to hide problems and avoid punishments. Of course you will need to sort out this trust questions, before you address judgement. But I would ask you some questions:
a) Is it the data you don’t trust, or the people? And why?
b) Why don’t you trust them? Do you trust them for other things? How do you know you can’t trust them on this? And why this?
c) Is it possible that they are using their judgement? The information you are asking for may not reflect the real situation: perhaps they are using their judgement. I am trying to expand your thinking here – give it some thought.
d) What is it about the way these people have been managed or are being managed that is encouraging them not to tell you the truth or the whole picture?

Fadi asked:

Q: I do a lot of business intelligent software, and the success of these application implementation depends a lot on making the collection of data as automatic and with minimal effort as possible, and that is very hard when collecting judgemental data, how can I deal with that?

A: Absolutely right. Business intelligence is about collecting large volumes of data and analysing it. It provides the evidence. Judgement is about how you are interpreting the data and what you are doing about it. I am sure you know that the balanced scorecard is about decisions and performance management – not just measurement. Let me explain with an example.

First do not be afraid of volume: in the case study each service may have been evaluated on up to 100 items once a year. So on that basis there were 3,000 (100×30) potential items of data, for each of the 14 regions. So first, remember you do not need a judgement for every single piece of evidence. We have an overall assessment and judgement score for all the statutory reports for a region across their 30 services. The assessment and judgement came from the regional director looking across all these and asking, “How well have we done and what do I need to pay attention to across all my services?” A manager of an individual service could do the same for the 100 items within their control. Judgement operates at a higher level and so there is less to capture.

Secondly we are looking at change, over time. That statutory analysis was done once a year, but the Regional director was working through the year to address any issues. So you are looking also at how well the actions that RD has put into place are working and their judgement of whether these are fixing things, before the next assessment. So the judgement could be about, “Is our response to the evidence, effective”

Just on example, but all this is easy to record manually, is relatively low volumes of written assessments and should be being assessed and discussed each month anyway.

Valerie asked:

Q: Is data available to mine (Data Mining)?

A: Typically the data is not available to mine because it is not in computer systems, it is in people minds. However their minds are available to mine. How do you do this? You can use the sort of techniques I explained (eg score out of 10 followed by questions) to understand what people are basing their judgement on.

If you collected a large number of people’s assessments, over a period of time, you would have some information on which you might be able to mine using textual analysis. But I would not recommend this above simply talking to people.

Se also my answer to the BI question from Fadi above.

Barbara asked:

Q: How do you address subjective measures in a culture that primarily values what you can measure quantitatively (financial, output, etc.)?

A: There is nothing wrong with valuing what you can measure quantitively. Remember it is judgement AND evidence. Two thoughts though:

First, sometimes, a strength overdone, can become a weakness. I did work for an organisation with a background from pharmaceuticals that was extremely rigorous in its analysis of information and markets. However they sometimes over-analysed things and missed opportunities because it was over-lengthy and over-rigorous. They didn’t trust their judgement to go with what they had, test it and learn. They wanted it “Right”.

Secondly I would say, go with what you have and exploit it. You say ”they primarily value…” but I suspect they “they also value…” judgement, and are unlikely to dismiss it altogether. Your staff will be making judgements based on the evidence all the time, and they will naturally be thinking the about capabilities, culture, skills, knowledge and behaviours of people that drive performance and outcomes. It may be that management are focusing attention of outcomes, quite rightly and for good reason. The reporting systems are not looking (explicitly) at the culture, skills and behaviours (Leading indicoto4rs or drivers of change). Evidence dominates judgement in discussions and decisions. So, go with what you have and, build on it. Perhaps start by capturing commentaries and assessments of the information they have looked at. This way you start to expose judgement, based on evidence. Remember someone is making a judgement about what is good evidence. It is always there.

Valerie asked:

Q: How long has the process of Judgement analysis been available?

A: Well people have always been using judgement and evidence. So it is not new at all.

It is not new to explicitly look for judgement statements and elicit them to create a conversation, but it is less common in many organisations. Remember in this case study we were pushing against an open door – they trusted their staff to use their judgement, and like any organisation recruited, developed and rewarded good judgement.

It is certainly far less common to find any use of it in the performance management, management information or software solution. In fact let us go back a step. Since 1994 balanced scorecards have been designed with objectives, before measures. Yet so many systems are incapable of expressing an objective and its measures. Yet the approach for measure design has always been, objective first, then characteristics, then, what to measure and how to measure it. But the systems concentrate on the answer – and record just the measures.
So I believe the thinking and approach has always been there. The software providers and designers of performance measurement and management approaches, in general, tend to ignore or dismiss it. Good managers naturally encourage it and develop it.

Paul asked:
Q: Doesn’t the use of subjective measures require the alignment of judgments?

Do you mean before or afterwards? It is absolutely not a pre-requisite. In fact the advantage of the approach is that it exposes differences and helps people share and align their judgement. Think of it as encouraging a conversation where people can express their judgement, learn from other’s views, discover why they think like they do or believe what they do, in a safe environment.

The Regional Directors here (and managers in every workshop on strategy and balanced scorecard development I have ever run, all say that the exposure of the deeper thinking of people, the sharing of ideas and the discussion was the most important part, because we came out aligned and understanding where and why differences occurred.

I have done this in an organisation where the people we brought together were from quite different departments and had never met, yet all tried to support the same outcomes. Obviously we were staring further back there but the conversation still helped understanding and eventual collaboration and progress.

If there was alignment of judgement everywhere you would have an organisation of clones. Just think about the credit crisis – Hardly anyone one questioned the situation with excessive exposure to hedge funds and potentially defaulting mortgages. You had a form of social acceptance of the norm, without question.

You want to encourage debate, and this approach does that.

Emre Asked

Q: Even if there is conversation between people, they may not be in the same opinion about the subjective judgements. In this case the disagreement may result in reactive behaviour of the people who was evaluated negatively. What is the correct approach to ensure smoothness of operations after the evaluation?

This question follows on nicely because it raises the topic of the culture that surrounds the conversation, the context, and what people might believe about the motives of people and consequences.

Isn’t it a shame that people feel they cannot speak openly because they will be criticised! In the presentation I talked about the difference between a context where failure was punished, (which will cause people to not say anything) vs a context where a failure to cooperate and learn, was punished (which is designed to encourage conversation and learning).

I go back to the two thoughts of “Explicitly gibing people permission” and “persistently signalling a difference in the culture”. Remember what you see is a learnt behaviour, and therefore it can be un-learnt and re-learnt. But that requires work, explicit change, repetition, practice and time.

Jean-Pierre asked:

Q: What relationship do you see with installing “culture of performance”?

I see what we are discussing as one of the ways to encourage the development of a culture of performance. But we should be clear what we mean by that phrase. I have a longer definition of what I mean by a culture of performance.

A visible and explicit pattern of behaviour, actions and values…
Working to achieve the organisation’s overall objectives…
That encourages honest evaluation, feedback and appraisal…
And informs decision making…
Built upon collective and individual responsibility…
Responsive to changing circumstances…
That encourages self regulation, trust and learning…
Given this, you can see where I am coming from. This is entirely about creating a culture of performance.
If you missed the webcast you can listen again here via the Bettermanagement website http://www.bettermanagement.com/seminars/seminar.aspx?l=15139
Comments welcome
Phil

Posted in Fourth generation balanced scorecards, Modern balanced scorecard, judgement and evidence, learning organisation, qualitative measures, subjective measures | No Comments »

« Older Entries