While we’re binning appraisal systems, let’s shred the SMART objectives too

Over the years, a compelling case for abandoning the formal performance appraisal system has been established.  Fred Nickols for example argues that it ‘devours staggering amounts of time and energy, depresses and demotivates people, destroys trust and teamwork and, adding insult to injury, it delivers little demonstrable value at great cost’. 

Less has been said on the subject of SMART objectives.   The setting and reviewing objectives is central not just to most appraisal schemes, but also to the wider field of performance management.  For years, managers have been encouraged to make sure objectives are SMART, and yet many fail to do so in one way or another.   While a widespread inability to set SMART objectives is not necessarily a reason for abandoning them altogether, it does raise the question of whether their use is as vital as is often stated.

What was intended as a helpful mnemonic has over time become blurred, with people disagreeing over the numerous versions of what the five letters actually stand for.  The A seems to attract the most variants, including attainable, appropriate, achievable, agreed, assignable, actionable, ambitious, aligned and aspirational.  But even the M, which most people accept stands for measurable, has alternative versions in circulation, including meaningful, motivational and manageable.   Some people favour the longer form SMARTER, adding to the confusion with even more permutations of meaning.  If SMART in itself is open to such wide interpretation, it can hardly be a reliable measure against which to judge objectives.

Another major problem with using SMART is that while it may have some application for something relatively small and self-contained, work often involves a level of complexity that cannot be captured by applying a simple formula.  Where objectives are set as part of a formal appraisal process, there is a temptation to condense them into a single sentence in order to fit the space available in the documentation.  This in effect reduces the objective to little more than a sound bite, which is unlikely to be sufficiently detailed to ensure accountability.

Organisations today face constant change and require people to be increasingly flexible.  Employees need to be much more agile, frequently checking the shifting expectations of a range of interested parties.  The setting and reviewing of simplistic SMART objectives fails to reflect this, particularly when part of an annual ritual of performance appraisal. 

Tim Schuler is a coach, facilitator and business partner. He specialises in bringing out the very best in managers, whether it’s their first management role or something they’ve been doing for a while. More information is available from www.tschuler.co.uk

Workplace distractions

How do you feel about personal use of the internet at work?  Do you suspect staff of wasting huge amounts of time surfing the web or checking their Facebook page? 

A few years ago, a survey by America Online and Salary.com found that personal internet usage was the biggest source of distraction at work (socialising with colleagues came second).  As a way of tackling this problem, many organisations closely monitor employees' internet activity or ban its use during working hours altogether.  After all, many managers feel that watching Fenton the Dog or any other funny video clip on You Tube interrupts real work and should be done at home.  

But does clamping down on such activity actually increase productivity?  Recent research from the Harvard Business School suggests not, and that telling employees to delay their gratification can actually have a negative impact on performance.  In their experiments, the researchers found that those who were told to resist the temptation of watching a funny video made significantly more mistakes on a subsequent task than people who were allowed to watch the video right away.

The researchers suggest that organisations should either eliminate temptation by removing web access entirely or, where this is not possible or practical, allow a certain amount of personal use.  One solution might be to agree to regular short internet breaks, managed in much the same way as are coffee and cigarette breaks.  Although many managers would feel uneasy about giving official sanction to personal internet use at work, it is perhaps worth considering turning a blind eye to all but the most extreme offenders.

Tim Schuler is a coach, facilitator and business partner. He specialises in bringing out the very best in managers, whether it’s their first management role or something they’ve been doing for a while. More information is available from www.tschuler.co.uk

Management clichés: ‘People are our greatest asset’

This particular cliché is often used in the belief that it demonstrates to employees how much they are valued.  The truth behind its sentiment however is often debatable, and people are not usually taken in for long by nice words if they are not matched by appropriate action.

If we look at the definition of an asset, a completely different interpretation of this phrase emerges. In finance, an asset is any item of economic value owned by an individual or corporation, especially one that can be converted into cash.  It would seem therefore that not since the abolition of the slave trade could people literally be considered assets, owned by the organisation, used and then disposed of.  Speaking figuratively, it’s not exactly a positive message, although some staff may consider it an accurate description of the relationship they have with their employers.  

Even when professing that employees are their greatest asset, most managers can identify certain individuals they regard as complete liabilities. This suggests that the phrase does not in fact cover all people; it could also be argued that in most cases it probably doesn’t even mean specific people.  There are few instances where an individual possesses the precise combination of knowledge, skills and expertise that makes them so indispensable that they couldn’t be replaced by someone else.  The phrase might therefore be interpreted as meaning the organisation needs people, but not necessarily you; again, this is hardly likely to increase motivation and engagement.

Like with most clichés, the intended impact of saying people are a company’s most valuable asset has been lost through overuse, and familiarity with the phrase has led if not to contempt at least to indifference.  Managers would do well to think of other ways of saying, or preferably showing, that they value their employees.  Without this, the most capable may well look for somewhere where their talents will be more appreciated, while those that remain may take on another characteristic typical of an asset, namely that their value to the company depreciates over time.

Tim Schuler is a coach, facilitator and business partner. He specialises in bringing out the very best in managers, whether it’s their first management role or something they’ve been doing for a while. More information is available from www.tschuler.co.uk