At its core, strategy is about achieving intended results. Goals, be they individual or organisational, reflect the intended results, which are the desired end states when the strategy proves successful. Essentially, goals embody the rewards we seek once we’ve committed to the necessary effort and investments to secure them.
True goals are statements that signify improvement from the current state and are specific and measurable. They articulate a positive change and advancement. Below are the defining features of result-oriented goals, as described by Stacey Barr:
They describe an impact or outcome that is an enduring quality.
They can be changed (improved) by more than one type of action, and some actions will have more impact on them than others.
They don’t have a start or finish, nor are they a series of steps to follow.
They are qualities that are always present, and they either matter to us right now or they don’t.
They don’t consume resources or time. They are the effect of how we spend resources or time. They aren’t completed.
They are achieved, and being achieved means that the quality they describe has in some way improved.
Examples of result-oriented goals and the qualities they are trying to make better are:
The quality of customer experience we want to make better is its reliability.
Employee skills match the skills needed in their roles.
The quality of employee skills we want to make better is their appropriateness to their role.
Inventory records have no errors or missing data.
The quality of inventory records we want to make better is their accuracy.
Information about our products (or services) is easy to use.
The quality of information we want to make better is its usability.
Consider the following SMART goals and OKRs. Which features of the above result-oriented goals do they meet?
Your guess is as good as mine. None of the above SMART goals or OKRs have the features of a true goal. The SMART goals and results in the OKRs are targets, while the objective in the OKRs is about stuff to be done. So, if goals set the direction and determine where we go, then with these SMART goals and OKRs, can we tell, with certainty, that we have clarity of where we are going?
We can make a SMART goal or OKR result-oriented using the Measurability Tests in PuMP. Three of the Measurability Tests will test and tweak your goals until they are true goals. A true goal is specific and measurable.
A goal will not be result-oriented and, therefore, specific and measurable if it’s written as an action. Performance is about the result, not the activity.
The S.M.A.R.T. goal of closing $25,000 in sales by the end of the quarter is a target for turnover. Turnover is the total amount of sales made over a set period. It is a status measure of the activity of generating sales. Generating sales is an action whose desired outcome is for products or services to be accepted by the customer.
The S.M.A.R.T. goal of decreasing unplanned system downtime by 5% month-on-month over the next quarter is a target for unplanned downtime. Unplanned downtime is the time lost due to unexpected disruption or failure of a machine or process. It is a measure of the activity of acquiring, running and maintaining a machine or running a process. When we run a machine or process under normal operating conditions, we want it to perform without failure for a specific period.
The objective to grow our corporate global business under OKRs is an action. The intended results could be to minimise revenue variations, earn higher returns on investment for shareholders, and for customers to have the “widgets” they need within their financial means wherever they are in the world.
We can rewrite the above examples to become results like these:
Customers accept our services.
Processes perform without failure under normal operating conditions.
Revenue variations are minimal, shareholders earn a higher return on investment, and every one, wherever they are in the world” has the “widgets” they need within their financial means.
A goal won’t be very measurable if it’s written in non-specific language, like the goal “Customers accept our services” from 1 above. The word accept can mean different things. Does it mean our services meet each customer’s specific needs, or do customers love how we serve them (the experience)? We must be able to describe the change we’d observe if the goal was achieved. For this example, de-weaseling might translate the goal into a clear and specific result like the following:
Customers love how we serve them.
A goal won’t be measurable if it’s written as several goals combined to look like one goal, like this:
Revenue variations are minimal, shareholders earn a higher return on investment, and everyone has the “widgets” they need within their financial means.
We need to unbundle this goal into distinctly separate performance results to look like this:
Revenue variations are minimal.
Shareholders earn a higher return on investment.
Everyone has the “widgets” they need within their financial means.
Here is a summary of the outputs of the Measurability Tests:
Remember, measures are evidence of specific results, and so each unique result needs its own measure.
Could you look at your current strategic goals, departmental goals, or team goals and apply the three tests to see how measurable those goals truly are? Try to improve the way those goals are articulated so that you have clear, single-focused results. It is easy to create alignment across the organisation when you have result-oriented goals.