Goal Setting

A simple definition of goal setting is that it is the act of declaring something that you want to achieve and putting some specific parameters around the end result. It includes the who, what, when, where, and why.

This goal setting definition, though, is overly simplistic. Goal setting has a large component of an art form to it. It requires knowing yourself and your team and having a realistic understanding of everyone’s capabilities.

Goals have some fairly basic characteristics.

1. They should have a timeline.
2. They should assign responsibility to a specific person.
3. They should be quantifiable and measurable.
4. They should be linked to a strategy, even if is through a few layers of other goals.

Most leaders agree that goal setting is important. It keeps people and teams focused, gives them direction, and lets them know what the priority is.

Goals are tightly linked to objectives. Like many business-related terms, the definition of goal setting varies depending on who you get it from. One big discrepancy comes when trying to differentiate between the terms “goal setting” and “objectives”.

Goals tend to be more generic and longer term. Objectives tend to have a specific action associated with them and tend to have a shorter timeline. I might have a goal to increase market share by a set percent before a certain day, and an objective to build an NPD process that can roll out one new product per quarter.

Goal setting in Lean takes on an element of faith. It takes some trust in the tools and the Lean system to walk up to a process and set lofty goals even before you really dive into the details.

Watch our Phase 2 Video Series

There are numerous opinions on the definition of goal setting, and their distinction from objectives. You will find that most opinions on the definition of goal setting have a few things in common. You will need to assign dates and set a quantifiable target. You should see someone assigned responsibility for the goal. And most agree that goals should be linked to strategy.

Goals should also be specific. The more detailed and focused they are, the more they become increasingly easy to get behind.

Look at this series of goals:

1. Increase market share.
2. Increase market share in the US.
3. Increase widget market share in the US.
4. Increase widget market share ($) in the US.
5. Increase widget market share ($) in the US by 15%.
6. Increase widget market share ($) in the US by 15% before Aug 17, 20XX.

Notice how the goal becomes progressively more specific and understandable? The clearer a goal is, the more likely it is that a team will be on the same page.

Objectives center on the specific tasks that it takes to accomplish a goal. Those results generally do not stand alone, but rather support the goal. In the above goal, one objective might be to ‘Develop a website where customers can purchase widgets by Jan 1, 20XX.’ Getting the website up and running is not the end. It is a means to the end of reaching the goal of increasing sales.

Management styles vary widely in how people approach goal setting. Consider these things when selecting your management style:

1. How aggressive do you want your goals to be?

If your team hits them every time, they may feel great about it, but you have to question what they are really accomplishing. Are you leaving too much on the table? Conversely, if they never hit their goals, you may create morale problems.

I generally try to have my teams hit about 70% of their goals. I recognize that they will not hit every goal if they are aggressive in setting them. When I grade people, aggressive goals with a 70% hit rate tend to get very good evaluations. A word of caution: make sure your boss is on board with this philosophy when setting your own goals!

2. How closely do you want to monitor your team?

Part of being a leader is that you are responsible for getting other people to work effectively, not necessarily doing the work yourself. Some people respond well to close guidance, and in fact need it. Others are fire and forget. Put them on a path, and they will get the job done.

I recommend tailoring your oversight to the abilities of your team members. There is nothing wrong with treating people differently. They are different. Find what works for each individual. How do you find it? You ask them. Then you negotiate some checkpoints. If they are meeting your expectations, increase the time between checks. If not, you might need more frequent checks.

3. How often should you let your team member know how he is doing?

The answer to this question is linked to number two above. Checking on progress of the project has an implication. Some delays are reasonable. Most projects and goals have some inherent risk to them. For example, landscaping for a big event may require cooperation from the weather.

Part of accomplishing a goal, though, is linked to the performance of the project team. Leaders should be giving feedback throughout the project, so a team member knows how the boss views his performance. The rule of thumb is that there should be no surprises for the team member at the end of the project. At every step of the way, if the team member and the boss compared grades, they should be pretty much the same.

There are some specific Lean-related issues with goal setting. Team goals on continuous improvement projects are usually on a compressed timeline. Goal setting is done in the same basic way as in permanent teams, but here, teams have to achieve them much more rapidly.

The bigger challenge, though, is that the people setting the goals often are not familiar with the skills and tendencies of the people on the team. That makes it much harder to think through what a team can accomplish.

There is also the added challenge of the resistance to change that accompanies Lean. The fast pace of improvement can make people uncomfortable. Understanding this and dealing with it is critical to reaching goals.

SMART GOALS

Goals should be …

• Specific
• Measurable
• Attainable
• Relevant
• Timely

This set of requirements come from “SMART” goal setting.