Coordination of personal life goals and company goals. Target management as a way to align individual and organizational goals
Dudka B.A.
CEO Donbass Consulting League
Vishnevsky A.S. Jr Researcher Institute of Industrial Economics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Published in “Vestnik Donetskogo” national university", series B "Economics and Law" No. 2 for 2012
IN modern world strategic management is widely used by companies aimed at long-term results and survival in a constantly changing economic, political and social environment. Strategic management ensures the consolidation of the company's resources and acts as a key element of its management by objectives (MBO-management by objectives).
The active development of this direction began in the second half of the 20th century, and among its founders we can note I. Ansoff, K. Andrews, R. Ackoff, G. Mintzberg and M. Porter. Since then, four stages of development of the theory of strategic management have been distinguished, among which modern stage, based on the formation of a new paradigm of strategies for the post-industrial economy. The main resource of the post-industrial economy is knowledge, the bearer of which, first of all, is a person, whose motivation and goal-setting remain ambiguous and contradictory. Therefore, the task of expanding opportunities for including employees in strategy creation processes is relevant for strategic management, which led to this study.
The very concept of “strategic management” has many different interpretations and interpretations. For example, A.M. Dolgorukov gives the following definition: strategic management is strategic planning with feedback, i.e., figuratively speaking, it is an activity aimed at achieving an important goal, which is presented in the form of three things: a map of the area (strategy); a route that indicates the direction of movement (strategic plan); instructions for key figures, explaining how to behave in conditions of uncertainty. Another approach is presented in the definition of G.B. Kleiner, where strategic management is an enterprise management system based on strategic planning, supplemented by a mechanism for coordinating current decisions - tactical and operational - with strategic ones, as well as a mechanism for adjusting and monitoring the implementation of the strategy. As can be seen from the definitions, strategic management is a process and can be viewed in two ways. The first is the design of this process, the second is its operational efficiency.
Design issues include the strategy-building mechanism itself, its regulation, the quality of the goals set, etc. The document itself called “strategy” requires constant updating: it was adopted, but new information arrived, then it can already be changed taking into account new information, and the frequency of the effective strategic cycle depends on the rate of change external environment companies.
Operational efficiency in a general sense includes the effectiveness of achieving set goals, which is closely related to the motivation of personnel implementing this strategy. At the same time, company personnel have their own goals, sometimes formalized explicitly, and sometimes not. This allows you to consider and evaluate the possibility of coordinating the personal goals of employees and the goals of the company (hereinafter referred to as corporate goals).
However, the issue of the influence of strategic management on employee motivation remains poorly researched, which determined the formation of the purpose of the article. The purpose of the article is to determine ways to reconcile personal and corporate goals and their practicality for the company and the employee.
A person's motive is an internal process that creates new uniform behavior in relation to forms that already exist in him, on the basis of reflexive-instinctive activity and activity based on patterns, leading to the setting of a new goal. The factors that form the motive are only initiated by changes in the external environment, and the formation of the motive itself occurs along a complex psycho-physiological chain under the influence of exclusively internal aspects, which include taking into account the achievement of the goal; preferences (inclinations, interests, claims); moral control (values, ideals, beliefs, attitudes); psychological defenses and blocks; regulatory and evaluative emotional processes; semantic processes of formalization and rationalization of desires and sensations). These internal processes are not subject to correction with the help of external stimuli, or such correction is significantly complicated and extended over time, since it requires a change in stable psychological structures, such as previous experience, stereotypes, values, attitudes, aspirations, inclinations, ideals, beliefs. Therefore, the only practical way to obtain motivated employee behavior that is aimed at benefiting the company is to align the employee’s personal life goals with corporate goals companies.
Considering that the company and the employee may or may not have strategic goals, it is possible to consider four situations of interaction between the employee and the company in this matter (Table 1), which were conventionally designated “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” ” and correspond to the cases (“The company has strategic goals”; “The employee does not have strategic goals”), (“The company has strategic goals”; “The employee has strategic goals”), (“The company does not have strategic goals”; “ The employee has no strategic goals”), (“The company has no strategic goals”; “The employee has strategic goals”).
Table 1. Matrix of potential for alignment of personal and corporate goals
| Strategic goals of the company | Employee strategic goals | |
|---|---|---|
| No | Eat | |
| Eat | "A"
The company and the employee cannot agree on their goals. The company can use the employee for its own purposes, the employee cannot. |
"IN" The company and the employee can agree on their goals. |
| No | "WITH" The company and the employee cannot agree on their goals. The employee simply carries out duties, and the company carries out operational plans. |
"D" The company and the employee cannot agree on their goals. The employee is in a state of uncertainty regarding the possibility of realizing his goals in the company, because... there is nothing to compare them with. |
Let's consider all four cases separately, from the point of view of the company and from the point of view of the employee, as well as their potential actions, from the point of view of individual usefulness and the logic of scenario behavior.
With option "A", the company uses the employee as a blind instrument. In this case, on the one hand, the company is deprived of the potential for additional motivation, as in case “B”, but, on the other hand, it does not need to spend resources on coordinating divergent goals between the company and the employee. At the same time, the employee can fill the vacuum of his own goals with existing corporate goals.
In case "B", if the goals of the employee and the company coincide, at least partially, a motivating effect is created from the employee’s activities in the interests of the company, which automatically leads to the realization of personal goals. If (partial) coordination of goals has been achieved, employees must be distributed in such a way that their work combines the achievement of both corporate and personal goals. However, from the employee’s perspective, it is possible to agree on goals unilaterally. In fact, a dilemma arises: why disclose your goals if you can keep them secret and agree on an individual (unilateral) basis. In this case, all the motivational benefits from the agreement for the employee remain, but the company cannot use the goal-setting of employees in personnel management. However, if the employee uses this option, the results and behavior will indicate a discrepancy between the stated and actual goals, which will lead to the cessation of constructive cooperation between the employee and the company. The way out of this situation is to change the employee's job.
Option "C". The employee and the company do not experience any discomfort, because Neither the company nor the employee have goals. The efforts of the employee and the company are aimed at achieving operational objectives.
Option "D". From the employee’s perspective, Option “D” is very interesting, because contains threats and significant opportunities. On the one hand, if an employee sees how at this stage the company allows or increases the chances of achieving personal goals, he can use it as beneficially as possible for himself, without feeling guilty or any moral obligations. This is what most employees do, whose goals lie in the instrumental area (as a rule, the company is seen as a source of money). Such a goal competes with the company’s goal and, even if agreed upon, has a negative effect. For example, an employee bills the company for every step he takes. On the other hand, an employee may not understand where the company is heading, which lacks strategic goals, which increases the degree of uncertainty in his future, and contributes to the search for a more purposeful employer.
Potentially, option “B” carries with it greatest number opportunities for the company and the employee, so a deeper study is necessary. According to the classification of A.I. Prigozhin, setting goals for a person (similarly to a company) can be of three types and depends on the factors that generate these goals (see Table 2).
Table 2. Setting personal and corporate goals according to the classification of A.I. Prigogine
And the goals themselves can be divided into resource goals (ensuring life activity, intermediate, analogue of hygienic factors) and terminal goals (self-actualization goals), which have essentially different sources of origin. Similar to the factors indicated by A. Prigogine, resource goals are set under the influence of the external environment and competitive factors, similar to type I and II goals from Table 2, terminal goals - under the influence exclusively internal factors(type III goals from Table 2). This division into two types of goals is legitimate in relation to both the goals of the company and the personal goals of an individual. The source of the emergence of resource and terminal goals lies in the field of hygiene factors and motivators, the two-factor theory of F. Herzberg. This observation made it possible to correlate A. Prigogine’s types of goals, their types according to the nature of their occurrence, with the typological model of employee motivation, according to the concept of prof. Gerchikova V.I. (see Fig. 1).
Picture 1. A scheme for coordinating the goals of the company and the employee, depending on motivational types.
After the analysis, it became possible to conclude that resource goals are formed solely by environmental factors. Resource goals correspond to types I and II of goals (passive goal setting) and are stimulating for lumpen and instrumental motivational types. Resource goals, in most cases, serve to ensure hygiene factors, are competitive, due to limited resources, and are applicable to both the organization and the individual. Coordination of company goals and personal life goals of staff is ineffective in the field of competition for resources, since in this case the goals will be diametrically opposed.
It can be assumed that lumpen and instrumental motivational types manifest themselves exclusively situationally (dictated by situations in the external environment) and can temporarily manifest themselves in personnel of other dominant motivational types during such “environmental pressure,” or permanently in people who do not have terminal life goals. The development of a person and his setting of terminal life goals means a decrease in the significance for him of situations of external environmental pressure. At the same time, lumpen and instrumental motivational types will be transformed into professional, patriotic or economic types, which are attributed to prof. Gerchikov V.I. to achievement motivational types.
In the area of terminal goals, alignment between corporate and personal goals will be effective. Coordination of the terminal goals of the company and the employee leads to:
- creating motivated employee behavior aimed at achieving common goal employee company;
- improving the process of cooperation in the company’s team, since terminal goals are, as a rule, not competitive: in the process of achievement there is no struggle for possession;
- transformation of situational motivational types: from lumpen and instrumental to stable achievement motivational types created by internal factors: professional, patriotic and economic.
The coordinated work of people of stable motivational types generates loyalty to the company, since it is possible to “outbid” such personnel only by re-aligning their life goals with the goals of another company. In this case, it is necessary to achieve all intermediate resource goals that are responsible for its life activity (hygienic factors).
It is necessary to note that, in the case of achieving one’s own goals while simultaneously achieving the company’s goals (consistency), the employee also exchanges his work for additional benefits that he receives when achieving personal goals. In the event of a complete lack of coordination between personal goals and the goals of the company, the employee and the company are forced to resort to assessing the cost of the employee’s labor solely through money. In this case, the employee’s personal goals lie outside the company and his motivational orientation is instrumental in nature, i.e. He views work in the company as a tool for achieving intermediate goals - the exchange of labor for a monetary equivalent, which will subsequently be spent by the employee on achieving true personal goals. From the above, we can conclude that the exchange of a measure of labor in a company for the amount of its monetary equivalent while simultaneously achieving personal strategic goals (for example, the development of professional and personal qualities, traveling on business trips, etc.) will lead to motivated behavior of the employee, for through his use in the process of activity of internal factors that form personal goals. This, in turn, will increase driving forces employee to achieve symbiotic goals (company and personal).
Based on the results of the analysis, taking into account the peculiarities of the strategic management process itself, it is possible to identify limitations in the possibilities of coordinating corporate and personal goals:
- the goals of the employee and the company are constantly adjusted, and sometimes change radically;
- the number of employees can exceed hundreds of thousands, and finding out personal goals, formalizing them and aligning them with company goals can be a very labor-intensive process;
- employees may be reluctant to share their life goals with the company, colleagues, management, etc. Disclosure of true personal goals may have Negative consequences for an employee. His personal goals may directly compete with the goals of immediate management or superior employees;
- for a company, a detailed version of the strategy, which describes ways to achieve strategic goals, is a trade secret;
- the company must focus not only on employees, but also on other stakeholders who may have opposing expectations regarding the company's goals.
Given these limitations, it is worth considering the practical implementation of goal alignment.
Coordination of goals must be carried out on an ongoing basis no less often than updating the strategy itself, taking into account the movement of personnel. At the same time, the connection between the coordination of personal and corporate goals in the context of staff turnover looks ambiguous. On the one hand, if the goals coincide, then the key personnel will be consolidated within the company, on the other hand, the understanding by a valuable and useful employee for the company that his goals cannot be realized within this company will push him to look for another company as a employer. This situation plays a regulatory role, excluding disloyal employees from the company, which should be considered as a benefit for the company.
Aligning personal and corporate goals for a company with several thousand employees grows into a huge project that requires large resources. It is not possible to cover all employees. This means that it is necessary to identify key employees at the first stage. At the same time, non-key employees will move up the ranks over time. career ladder, becoming key, which requires identifying their targets before moving them. Employees hired from outside for key positions will need to be subject to a similar procedure.
The goals to be agreed upon may be diametrically opposed. For example, an employee in position X may want to earn at least Y, while personnel policy company assumes the possibility of payment only in the amount of Z (Z When agreeing on the goals of the employee and the company, all of them must meet SMART criteria, i.e. be specific; measurable; achievable; realistic and time-bound. This approach was proposed by J. Doran more than 30 years ago, it is built simply and logically and has proven itself well, having found wide application. However, as practice shows, even now it is not always used correctly, and therefore goals that are in the process of approval must be subjected to appropriate verification. Let's look at a specific example. As a potential employee, we will choose J. Rockefeller, who, as they say, in his youth was able to very succinctly formulate his personal goals, fully in accordance with the SMART criteria, long before they appeared (Table 3). It is necessary to emphasize that the goal of “earning 100 thousand dollars” should not be considered as exclusively resource-based, because 100 thousand dollars in Rockefeller's time was quite a significant capital. Table 3. Checking for compliance with the SMART criteria of J. Rockefeller's personal goals *
S - specific; M - measurable; A - achievable; R realistic; T - time specific The goal of “gaining capital” is not related to pure consumption and satisfaction of physiological needs, but is a resource that can be used to achieve other goals. At the same time, the process of accumulation and increment of capital is a long-term process, through which a person achieves self-improvement, pleasure and self-realization. We want to emphasize that the goal of “receiving wages” is significantly different from the goal of “creating capital”: the first of the goals is exclusively resource-based, the second can be both resource and terminal. Metinvest Group, which is a key asset of System Capital Management JSC, was chosen as the company to coordinate the goals. An analysis of the group's goals is presented in Table 4. Table 4. Checking Metinvest Group's public strategic goals for compliance with SMART criteria *
S - specific; M - measurable; A - achievable; R - realistic; T - time specific The inconsistency of the Metinvest Group’s goals with the SMART criteria is due to their publicity. These goals are intended for external users and are specified within the company. However, even if these goals are brought to the SMART criteria, they cannot be reconciled with the personal goals of a potential employee of J. Rockefeller discussed above. Achieving the first personal goal is related to the level of the offered (current and potential) salary and the opportunity to create your own business in the future, and the second is more likely to be related to the conditions and nature of the work. Both employee goals are resourceful for the company and correspond to hygiene factors. The company's goals are ambiguous. The goal “maximizing the value of the mining and metallurgical business of the SCM group” is clearly resource-based, while the first two require specification. This confirms the fact that resource and soft goals are not consistent. As a terminal goal, one can imagine the creation of a fundamentally new product or a fundamentally new process. For example, entire countries worked on human exploration into space or landing on the moon, and all their citizens felt ownership in achieving success. Conclusions. The most realistic approach to aligning personal and corporate goals is to enable key employees to align corporate and personal goals by providing guidance to those employees and providing timely access to relevant strategic goals. In this case, the company will have the opportunity to receive feedback, based on sociological monitoring, to obtain a guideline to what extent and what its goals are shared and welcomed by key employees, which will improve the quality of motivation up to a change in motivational types. The most successful terminal goals for agreement are those that meet SMART criteria, are public and can be openly broadcast to company employees. Fifth criterion. Consistency of goals and values. “All projects within the IPL must be in the interests of the IPL, consistent with its goals, values and mission. What is incompatible, contrary to the mission and values of the IPL, or goes against the current needs and objectives of the community, is implemented outside the IPL.” A community, in contrast to a formal organization and a spontaneous get-together, is an association of people for whom, on the one hand, the community is of high significance, on the other hand, each participant feels his uniqueness for the rest, his own value, contribution, belonging and place among others. Participants in a community come together to realize common ideas, values and goals. This requires a certain degree of consistency between the participants, who, unlike the organization and the party, are in a relationship of natural hierarchy (in accordance with experience and contribution to the community) and at the same time have equal value and equal responsibility for their part of the community. The professional community MPL12 is being created with the aim of uniting specialists for whom not only MPL is of high value, as a platform with a special atmosphere and opportunities for professional growth. But they also recognize and realize their high value for the community, are ready to contribute to its development, in accordance with the current needs, goals and values of the community, and are also ready to cooperate, coordinate their efforts, and overcome conflicts. In my opinion, this is an obvious story that does not really need explanation. And yet, questions arise. Can I do my project on the territory of MPL? - not only is it possible, but it is also necessary! See the previous criterion - contribution. Can I do a project on the territory of the MPL without joining the community? - perhaps, just let’s think about how your activities will be coordinated with the community, how useful it is for us, and how they correspond to our goals and objectives. Who determines whether a community's needs are useful or not? — here, too, everything is simple: whoever has more contribution to the life of the community has more influence on elections and decisions. What if I think that your activities should develop differently? - okay, suggest what you are ready to do, as a member of the professional community, to make things different. But I don't want to join the community! I am ready to share my thoughts on what you need to change. - okay, when there is a need for this, we will use your expert opinion... Of course, upon request. ...For me personally, when I act as a guarantor, a very clear criterion has emerged: who I invite to the community myself, and who I invite to find something else for themselves. This criterion is the attitude of the applicant: need, criticism or the advantage of “taking”, when first of all it is considered “why do I need a community, what will I get/not get from the community, what IT SHOULD be so that it suits me” - or support and share when the message comes from a person: “What do I have, how can I be useful to my colleagues, what will I DO so that the professional community suits me in all respects.” I am with both hands for a person to be there and with those where and with whom he is comfortable, with people, as they say, from the same box as him. The key question is: who is expected to provide this comfort? Am I for all of us, in my area of responsibility, or is someone for me? Or maybe we, in principle, have a categorical discrepancy and indigestion from each other - why then force ourselves??? Sometimes it happens that a person simply does not need to rush and remain in the position of a student, client, or child for some time. To get, to receive, to ripen. Because a professional has a workload, responsibility, and criteria. Because a certain weight can only be lifted after appropriate training. Sometimes we need to make sure that we are on our way, when you don’t really know how a person works, and literally haven’t seen him in action. Then it would be nice to see. Including in order to coordinate our expectations from each other. I think a good solution is a probationary period and assisting the presenters, for example. Or start doing what was stated as a contribution, and only then make the final decision on admission and entry into the community... And sometimes a person absolutely needs to do something absolutely his own, according to his own criteria, values, vision. So that his projects become a reality and do not depend on the assessment of professionals with differently formatted thinking. And that's good too. Let all flowers bloom and there will be more diversity in the world! Many of our goals are interconnected. They are part of some organized system of ideas about personal goals, aspirations and fears. Personologists pay close attention to the mental mechanisms that determine the consistency of goal systems and how goal systems, in turn, determine the consistency of personal functioning. Two cognitive mechanisms play a particularly important role in ensuring the consistency of the personal goal system. The interpretation of events and the choice of goals are influenced by a person's implicit theories about himself and the social world. Global, sustainable life aspirations organize many specific tasks, each of which is a step towards a larger goal. Let's consider these mechanisms in turn. The goals that a person sets for himself, as a rule, reflect his deeply rooted ideas about himself and about other people. Although many of these ideas are obvious, some involve abstract, implicit ideas about the self. Dweck and his colleagues (Dweck, 1996; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Grant & Dweck, 1999) analyzed the mechanisms by which implicit representations influence goal orientations. They focused on ideas about the variability of personality attributes, such as intelligence. Some people assume that intelligence is a fixed quality that a person possesses to a greater or lesser extent. Others view intelligence as a quality that can be developed and increased. It has been found that understanding intelligence as a fixed or developable quality influences the meaning that people attach to the tasks and goals they face. If a person believes that abilities are fixed qualities, then tasks will be seen as a way of testing those abilities. If a person believes that personal attributes are changeable and flexible, activity can be considered as an opportunity to acquire new and develop existing skills. Thus, ideas about the fixity/changeability of personal qualities contribute to the formation of goals based on the type of performance/learning. In their studies, Dweck and colleagues assess these perceptions using self-report measures that ask subjects about the variability of personality traits (Dweck, 1996). At the same time, researchers do not assume that these ideas are valid for all spheres of human life, but evaluate ideas contextually - in particular, in relation to such areas of functioning as intelligence or moral stability (Dweck, 1996). As expected, ideas about abilities in these areas determine a person’s choice of certain goals. In areas of achievement, people who believe that intelligence is a fixed quality tend to set goals that allow them to make a favorable impression on others. 10 People who believe that intelligence can be developed set themselves difficult tasks, by solving which they can gain valuable experience 11 * * (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). In interpersonal and social situations, people who believe that certain attributes are fixed qualities tend to set themselves the task of classifying the people around them. This is manifested in their tendency to make inferences about personality characteristics and make predictions about a person's behavior based on assumptions about his personality traits (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997), and to hold stereotypical views of ethnic groups (Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998 ), and also consider punishment rather than rehabilitation of offenders to be more appropriate (Grant & Dweck, 1999). The concept of goals and behavior presented above is another illustration of the bottom-up analysis of personality coherence that we preach in the pages of this book. Coherent motivational tendencies are not explained by classifications of needs or motives, but are interpreted as the result of the interaction of socio-cognitive and affective mechanisms that are elements of a complex system. Intrapersonal consistency and interpersonal differences in motivational functioning are explained by a person's stable beliefs about himself, his goals, interpersonal behavior, and assessments of his own abilities. Mid-level target elements Seemingly independent tasks become interconnected in meaning if they serve a common purpose. A high school student may have goals of getting an A in math, becoming the chairman of some student organization, or establishing good relationships with teachers. Although these goals involve different tasks and require different skills, for this student they are psychologically coherent because he views them as steps toward the ultimate goal of going to college. Thus, when analyzing coherence in goal systems, it is necessary to consider global and sustainable goals that are relevant to a variety of daily activities. These high-level goals are called mid-level goals. Mid-level goals are more contextualized than global motives, and at the same time broader than specific goals. Middle-level goals might, for example, include developing a romantic relationship, overcoming an illness, getting good grades in school, expanding friendships, improving one's appearance, improving one's parenting skills, or saving for retirement (cf. Emmons, 1997). The term “middle level” implies the presence of a hierarchical system of goals. If a specific goal (e.g., paying for lunch) and abstract aspirations (e.g., living a happy life) are viewed as the lowest and highest levels in a hierarchy of aspirations, then the goals analyzed here (e.g., developing a romantic relationship) fall in the middle. Many research programs have been devoted to studying the role of midrange goals in personal functioning. These include studies of “life goals” (Cantor & Kihistrom, 1987; Sanderson & Cantor, 1999), “personal aspirations” (Emmons, 1989, 1996), “current issues” (Klinger, 1975), and “personal projects” (Little, 1989, 1999). Read and Miller (1989), in their analysis of interpersonal goals, also identify intermediate-level goals that promote consistency in personal functioning. Although these research programs and their associated theoretical systems differ in some respects, they also have many similarities. They assume that mid-level goals provide coherent, stable patterns of experience and action. A person's goals determine the content of his thoughts (Klinger, Barta, & Maxeiner, 1980), the situations in which he spends his time (Emmons, Diener, & Larsen, 1986), and the elements of situations to which he pays most close attention (Mueller & Dweck, 1998). Goal systems can also make life more meaningful. People who rate their commitment to goals that are consistent with their personal values also have a greater sense of meaning in their lives (McGregor & Little, 1998). Medium-level goals reflect a person’s individual uniqueness. Therefore, researchers typically assess targets using idiographic methods that allow subjects to express themselves freely (e.g., Emmons, 1989; King, Richards, & Stemmerich, in press; Read & Miller, 1989). However, this idiographicity does not exclude the possibility of some commonality between people. Shared social norms, environmental conditions, or biological constraints may cause members of the same group to have common goals (Helson, Mitchell, & Moane, 1984). For example, students transitioning to college typically have common life goals such as getting good grades and making new friends (Cantor et al., 1991). The structure of the mid-level goal system influences a person's well-being. The main thing here is the conflict between goals. Some goals are complementary (for example, a person may believe that both the goal of getting good grades and the goal of making friendships contribute to a positive college experience) and some are conflicting (for example, a parent's search for a trade-off between parenting and the demands of professional activity). Individuals with self-reported high levels of goal conflict also show more signs of physical distress and are more likely to seek medical help (Emmons & King, 1988). Conflict associated with the expression of emotions can lead to suppression, which can cause chronic mental distress (King & Emmons, 1990). The connection or fit between goals and the social environment is also reflected in well-being. One of the most important points is timeliness. Goals entail greater stress if the timing of their implementation does not coincide with traditional prescriptions of the appropriate time for a given activity (Helson et al., 1984). People who become parents too early or too late may experience similar stress; people who decide to receive secondary education in adulthood. To complete the analysis of goal systems and personal functioning, it is necessary to consider not only goals as such, but also strategies for achieving them. Different people can go to the same goal in different ways. That is, people can choose different strategies, where strategies are understood as cognitive structures through which a person tries to master the environment and achieve set goals (Hettema, 1979, 1993). As a number of authors emphasize (for example, Cantor & Kihistrom, 1987; Hettema, 1979), such a personal construct as strategies has the advantage of directly reflecting the dynamic relationship between the actor and the social environment. Analysis of strategies makes it possible not to introduce an artificial division into personal and situational factors, but to reveal the dynamic relationships between personal resources and environmental requirements. Strategies for achieving goals reflect declarative and procedural knowledge that can be used to solve assigned tasks. This knowledge determines a person's social intelligence (Cantor & Kihistrom, 1987). The work of Nancy Kantor and her colleagues brought significant clarity to the problem of social intelligence and strategies for achieving goals. They identify two strategic patterns called optimism and defensive pessimism (Cantor & Kihistrom, 1987; Cantor & Fleeson, 1994; Norem, 1989; Sanderson & Cantor, 1999). People who choose an optimistic goal achievement strategy have relatively positive expectations about their achievements and experience relatively less anxiety before the assessed activity. Persons with defensive-pessimistic tendencies, on the contrary, are not confident in their success, even if they previously had success in the proposed type of activity, and also experience anxiety before completing the assigned tasks. An interesting thing about defensive pessimists is that their negative thoughts and experiences do not necessarily impair their performance. Perhaps anxiety motivates them to achieve better results. In a longitudinal study of high school-to-college transition students, optimistic/pessimistic strategies were assessed using a self-report measure (Cantor, Norem, Neidenthal, Langston, & Brower, 1987). In addition, students assessed upcoming academic and social challenges and shared their plans for overcoming them. In the field of learning, optimists and pessimists were equally successful. However, their paths to success were different. Students with optimistic strategies received high marks from those who at the beginning of the year believed in their own success and did not have significant discrepancies between the concept of the real self and the concept of the ideal self (Higgins, .1987). Thus, among optimists, positive beliefs were associated with success. For pessimists, the situation was different. Pessimists' performance expectations were not associated with subsequent achievement. Among pessimists, academic achievement was associated with greater, rather than less, discrepancy between the actual self and the ideal self (Cantor et al., 1987). Thus, positive/negative thoughts perform different motivational functions in different groups. The concepts of “optimist” and “pessimist” raise the classic question of cross-situational consistency in personality functioning. Does the person adhere to optimistic/pessimistic strategies in all areas? Or do strategies change when moving from one life task to another? Cantor et al. (1987) identified groups of pessimistic and optimistic students (that is, people who use different learning strategies) and asked them to rate two life goals: getting good grades and making friends. For both tasks, a number of parameters were measured, such as perceived difficulty, controllability, and stress during task performance. Regarding the task of getting good grades, the scores of optimistic students and pessimistic students differed significantly in almost all parameters. But on the friend-seeking task, the same people did not differ on any dimension (Cantor et al., 1987). In other words, there was no evidence of strategy transfer from task to task. People differentiate between different life tasks, and their strategies and ideas may vary from one area of life to another. Although academic and social challenges are different, experience in one area can transfer to the other. Harlow & Cantor (1994) found that some students did make connections between problems from different domains. Their satisfaction with their social life partly depended on the success of their studies. Students who allowed concerns about academics to spill over into the realm of social relationships were less satisfied with their social lives. Life task theory offers an interesting perspective on issues of personality consistency and stability. Life goals such as professional success or the establishment of meaningful interpersonal relationships persist for a long time. Therefore, the main goals of a person are stable personal structures. However, stable goals do not necessarily manifest themselves in stable behaviors. If life circumstances change, behavioral strategies may also need to change. Sanderson & Cantor (1999) cite as an example a situation in which schoolchildren require different behavioral strategies than divorced adults to achieve the goal of building close relationships. Although stable affective and behavioral tendencies are traditional signs of personality continuity in psychology, it is equally important to examine the stability of systems that, under different conditions, may be more stable than observed behavior. At the end of the section on goal systems, let's consider one methodological problem. Most of the studies we described assessed people's goals using a self-report method. Typically, subjects are asked to list activities that are currently meaningful to them. This method has many advantages. Relatively unstructured techniques make it possible to identify individually specific target structures that reflect and organize human life. But all these methods have one drawback. With their help, it is impossible to identify important personal goals that a person is either unwilling or unable to communicate. People sometimes fail to articulate the goals that actually drive many of their actions. Adolescents may engage in a variety of activities, the overall goal of which is to affirm their emerging masculinity or femininity. But they won't tell you their purpose if you ask them. As Westen (1991) points out, it is particularly difficult to identify emotionally and sexually charged ideas and goals using standard self-report techniques. Therefore, it is advisable to develop new strategies for assessing goals beyond those that involve openly asking people to list their own goals. An analysis of a person’s goals and self-image is necessary, but it is not sufficient to explain motivated actions. This is because people often fail to carry out actions that they consider desirable, can, in their own opinion, carry out and have the intention to do. People are simply distracted by other things, and good intentions remain unfulfilled. In this regard, the classification proposed by Heckhausen seems convenient. He distinguishes the “decision to act” from the regulation of actions when “the decision has already been made.” His Rubicon model distinguishes between cognitive activity in deciding whether to act or not (e.g., Caesar's decision whether to cross the Rubicon) and cognitive activity in carrying out actions until a goal is achieved (Heckhausen, 1991). Decision-making processes are responsible for the formation of intentions, and volitional processes are responsible for regulating actions. Refining this classification identifies four stages in the sequence of human behavior (Gollwitzer, 1996; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987). First, a person must choose a goal that he will achieve, then develop a plan to achieve it. As he attempts to implement his plan, he must evaluate his actions and adjust his strategies as necessary. Finally, and this issue will be discussed in detail below, the individual must be able to avoid being distracted by alternative activities that will interfere with goal achievement (Kuhl, 1984). It should be added to the above that, according to Gollwitzer (1996), first, at the stage of goal selection, a thinking mindset, when a person reflects on the desirability and feasibility of various goals, and immediate steps towards the goal are associated with implementation mindset when a person focuses on strategies and plans to achieve a goal. ". It is known that, without any special effort, it can lead organizations to increased efficiency in solving corporate problems, employees to dynamic professional development, and consumers to an inexplicable commitment to the final product. So what is this mysterious phenomenon? To put it very simply, agreed goals are a set of different tasks that different people solve to achieve one (main) goal. When are agreed upon goals especially needed? When there is some important, significant goal that cannot be achieved alone, and different people, groups or entire organizations join forces to realize it. When there is a whole set of primary tasks, without solving which it is impossible to successfully move towards the intended goal, and different specialists or professional communities join forces to solve them together. In both cases, a certain business community is formed, within which the following symbols of goals are adopted: It can be seen that in such a business community all goals (main, subordinate, corporate, individual) turn out to be: A business community in which the consolidated work of various people to solve different problems leads to one common (main, central, general) result will be called a “team”. Example 1: The more clearly the overall goal of a particular business community is defined, the easier it is to understand: Example 1: (You can find other options for professional goals). Take a close look at the examples and you will see the main thing for yourself. The more clearly the professional goal of a particular specialist is defined, the easier it is to understand: So, agreed goals can: It remains to be seen how agreed goals increase the dynamics of professional development of specialists. Imagine that you are personally interested in getting some result in your work, but at the moment your professional knowledge, abilities, skills, etc. insufficient to perform the work required for this purpose efficiently. And this is the result you personally need, and what is called “desperately.” What will you do? Most likely, like many others in such a situation, you will begin to actively obtain the missing resource - look for the necessary information, someone who can give practical advice, teach how to perform the necessary operations, etc. Only those who are indifferent to the content of their work and the quality of the results obtained will not do anything like this. A person’s indifference to his work arises if the real goal of his professional activity does not correspond to the task, the solution of which is “assigned” to the workplace he occupies - is not consistent with it. This does not mean that an inconsistent goal is necessarily “bad.” She is simply “from a different opera.” For example, if Little Red Riding Hood, for whom it is important to take the pies to her grandmother, is put in Ellie’s place in a fairy tale about the wizard of the emerald city, then you can be seriously puzzled by the question of how soon Totoshka will return home... if at all... But is Little Red Riding Hood an evil and treacherous hero? ? No, she just doesn’t care much about what’s happening to Totoshka - her grandmother is sick... Let's do what is customary in many organizations today - change the motivation of Little Red Riding Hood. Let's tell her about the heroic everyday life of the characters around her, about the meaning of morality hidden in a fairy tale unfamiliar to her, or threaten that if she does not cope well with the role of Ellie, then the wise Goodwin will deprive her of both her heart and brains, and she will never again will see his grandmother. But you and I understand perfectly well that no matter how inspired or frightened Little Red Riding Hood fusses, she will never cope with the role of Ellie better than Ellie herself. In the same way, it is unlikely that anyone will cope with the role of Little Red Riding Hood better than Red Riding Hood herself. Unfortunately, in real life there is less certainty than in fairy tales. Today, not every specialist can clearly define his professional goal and, in accordance with it, find his “native” organization or his “native” workplace. Much more often he finds himself “out of place”, experiencing internal dissatisfaction that “comes out of nowhere”, “inexplicable” hostility from colleagues, etc. In the same way, not every organization can clearly define its real corporate goals and objectives, losing the opportunity to find truly valuable employees. Therefore, management often suffers the fate of a director whose actors do “everything but what is needed,” and consumers are dissatisfied with the quality of the final product and the uncertainty of what is happening. As one wise man said, “the truth is so simple that it’s even offensive.” In fact, the secret of the agreed upon goals was never a secret. Although not always consciously, many specialists have achieved professional success thanks to their penchant for everything real, real, natural. Do you know what the biggest “secret” to goal alignment is? Believe it or not, it’s about knocking down the superficial, getting to the real thing and very briefly presenting what you found. Try to clearly define your real professional goal. You will be surprised how many useful things it will tell you. Align your professional and corporate goals and you will be surprised at the pace and quality of your professional development. You can find out what is a professional goal and what is not. Read how to align an individual professional goal with the goals of the organization. Give it a try. You can do it. Good luck! Goals are specific states of individual characteristics of an organization, the achievement of which is desirable for it and towards which its activities are aimed. A clearly defined goal is an important reference point by which the results achieved should be assessed and on which one should focus one’s attention. The goal is always forecasting, anticipation of the future, orientation towards achieving new, not yet known heights of development. The great Italian thinker Niccolo Machiavelli said: “You should aim for more in order to achieve less.” At the same time, the system of goals must take into account the real capabilities of the organization and the person. The criterion “difficult, but achievable” is important here as nowhere else in other parts of the management process. Goals should be mobilizing, but at the same time realistic. They should focus on the final result, but not require employees to constantly work under conditions of lack of time, lack of experience, knowledge or resources. If we set practically unattainable goals, both the organization and the individual can expect deep disappointment. What can be done in an extreme situation will never be the norm in everyday life. The art of goal formulation is the art of management. An incorrectly set goal can cause a lot of harm; it can cause bankruptcy and death of the organization. Goals are classified according to various criteria. Here are just a few of them: a) by degree of coverage: common goals reflect the development concept of the company as a whole; private (specific) goals are developed within the framework of general goals for the main types and areas of activity of the company and its divisions; b) in the direction of action: external goals aimed at achieving certain organizational results in relation to the environment (increasing the company’s image, strengthening its competitive position, increasing sales, increasing social responsibility, etc.); internal goals are related to the internal activities of the company (increasing labor productivity, saving resources, improving the microclimate in the team, etc.); c) by scale of activity: strategic goals are aimed at achieving key results of the company’s activities, and are designed, as a rule, for the long or medium term (for example: expanding the market segment; significantly increasing the level of customer service; reducing the level of business risks; increasing the amount of equity capital, etc.); tactical goals are developed on the basis of strategic goals, detail the key results and main directions of development of the enterprise for the short (medium) term; operational goals– more specific goals of various aspects of the functional activities of the company or its divisions; d) according to the degree of obligation: necessary (mandatory) goals– determine the main activities of the organization and must be achieved (in the opinion of the manager); desired goals– important from the point of view of increasing the efficiency of the organization (their delay or some deviations should not lead to catastrophic consequences); possible goals– their implementation can be postponed and dealt with in “free time”; e) according to the degree of implementation: ultimate goals, which may not be achieved in the planned period of time, but it is necessary and possible to achieve in the future over a longer period; intermediate goals– all goals, the consistent achievement of which ensures the achievement of the final goal; e) according to deadlines: long term goals, which will take more than 5 years to achieve; medium term goals– from 1 to 5 years; short-term
goals– up to 1 year; g) by type of activity: financial, management, innovative production, commercial; h) by structure: economic, expressed in indicators of the financial and economic activities of the company; non-economic, for example, social goals aimed at improving working conditions for personnel, etc. Goals become a strategic management tool when they: firstly, defined and formulated; secondly, they are known to employees; thirdly, accepted for execution. Formulating goals is a rather complex process. The precise formulation of goals determines the fate of the organization, its success or failure. Therefore, certain requirements apply to the formulation of goals. requirements
: achievable and realistic. Unattainable, unrealistic goals do not motivate performers and can discourage them from doing anything to achieve them. Goals that are easily achievable have little motivation. Attempts by a technically weak enterprise to produce products at the level of world quality standards may result in the departure of talented and sensible engineers and managers. The opposite situation is also possible; goals must be clear to the performer and unambiguously formulated. Otherwise, they will be misinterpreted by the performers and a completely different goal will be realized; specificity and measurability. If the goal cannot be measured, then this indicates an incorrectly formulated or even false goal (an example of a non-specific goal is “to increase production efficiency”; but to increase production efficiency by 10% is already clearer and more specific); have deadlines. If the goal is not oriented in time, then this is the same as it being absent; be flexible and have room for adjustments due to unforeseen changes in the external environment and internal capabilities of the enterprise; formulated and formalized. This increases the impact of goals and increases commitment to them. Verbal goal setting leaves no trace and is easily forgotten. A documented and measurable goal allows you to more accurately navigate its use and effectiveness; interconnected. You should strive to ensure that different goals complement each other and “work” for each other. Mutual exclusion of goals must not be allowed. Many organizations effectively use slogans and posters to record goals. In this case, the goal is expressed very briefly, for example, in the IBM company it is “to think.” Labels and posters with this word can be found in every corner of the company; compatibility of goals of groups and the organization as a whole (consistency of goals). This helps avoid conflicts between people and departments. There are 8 key spaces within which an enterprise defines its goals: position in the market (gaining leadership in a certain market segment, increasing market share, strengthening the competitive status of the company, etc.); 2) innovation (organizing the production of new goods, developing new markets, using new technologies or methods of organizing labor, etc.); 3) productivity. A more efficient enterprise is one that produces or sells products at a lower cost; 4) resources (expansion or reduction of the resource base, ensuring its stability, reducing the enterprise’s dependence on one source of raw materials or supplies); 5) profitability (profitability, achieving a certain level of profit); 6) managerial aspects (organization of effective management, optimization of the organizational structure of the company, formation of an appropriate corporate culture, attraction of outstanding managers); 7) personnel (preserving jobs, ensuring an acceptable level of wages, improving working conditions and motivation, increasing the level of qualifications); 8) social responsibility (concern for the environment, company image, etc.). Setting Goals
Translates the company's strategic vision and direction into specific objectives related to the firm's production and performance. Goals represent the commitment of the company's management to achieve certain results at a certain time. They determine exactly how much, what and by what time to do, and direct attention and energy to what needs to be achieved. The famous American professor Stanley Young writes the following about defining goals: “The more precisely the goals of an organization are formulated and defined, the easier it is to choose the means to achieve them. In this case, the goals are also the main criterion for choosing the best of the alternative means of achieving them. If the goals of the organization are not defined or unclear, then the line of behavior of the organization will not be clear. Moreover, if the goals have not been clearly defined, disputes may flare up in the organization, and if the disputants have different goals in mind, then it is very difficult for them to come to a consensus on the means. If the goals of an organization are not clear, its members are likely to substitute their own means for the goals of the organization." The process of setting goals in different organizations has its own characteristics. There are three options for setting goals: centralized (top-down), decentralized (bottom-up), and compromise. The most widespread is the centralized method of setting goals, which involves four stages: 1. Forecasting trends in changes in the organization's environment. Management must foresee the state of the organization's environment and set goals in accordance with this foresight. Goals should be formulated in such a way that, without absoluteizing trends, they reflect them; 2. Setting goals for the organization as a whole. It is important to determine which of the possible characteristics of the organization’s activities should be taken as goals and what system of criteria to use. In addition, when setting goals, it is necessary to take into account the resources available to the organization; 3. Building a hierarchy of goals. In any large organization that has several levels of management, a hierarchy of goals develops, which is a decomposition of higher-level goals into lower-level goals. The specificity of the hierarchical construction of goals in an organization is due to the fact that higher-level goals are always broader in nature and have a longer time horizon for achievement; Goals of a lower level act as a kind of means to achieve goals of a higher level. If the hierarchy of goals is constructed correctly, then each division, achieving its goals, makes the necessary contribution to achieving the goals of the organization as a whole; 4. Setting individual goals. In order for the hierarchy of goals within the organization to become a real tool for achieving goals and objectives, it must be brought to the attention of every employee. In this case, one of the most important conditions for the successful operation of the organization is achieved: the employee is, as it were, included in the process of jointly achieving the ultimate goals of the organization. Setting goals should have the status of law for all members of the organization. However, this does not mean that the goals in the subsequent activities of the enterprise remain unchanged. Goals can be adjusted whenever circumstances require. It is essential procedure for agreeing on goals.
One form of such coordination is an agreement in order to find a common basis that eliminates disagreements between interested parties. In practice, there are two types of agreement processes: horizontal goal agreement and vertical goal agreement. Horizontal goal alignment- this is the achievement of agreements on organizational goals between divisions of a functional, technological or production chain. There are three approaches to solving this problem: the manager can use effective mechanisms of horizontal connections (cross-cutting projects, production programs, councils), where representatives of various departments will be organizationally connected by one goal; a manager can act using the method of “switching attention,” directing resources and his attention to the most important areas of work for the organization. Vertical goal alignment– reaching agreement on the goals of the organization between three levels: its manager or owner; institutions of society (central and local authorities, professional societies, etc.) and employees. In management practice, it is also important to find an effective method for specifying and interrelating goals. An effective way to solve this problem can be considered the construction of a so-called “goal tree”. Goal tree
is a graphical representation of the relationships and subordination of the goals and objectives of one or more systems. In this case, complex and complex goals are divided in accordance with selected criteria into a number of less complex goals, which are also divided into simpler goals (subgoals) and tasks (subtasks). The goal tree is built in stages (Fig. 6.8), from top to bottom, by sequentially moving from a higher level to a lower, adjacent level. The first level is the system level, subsequent levels are the subsystem levels. The goal tree is based on the coordination of goals among themselves. The goal tree allows you to assess the likelihood of achieving both lower and higher goals in accordance with available resources, as well as set the priority of goals. The goal tree must satisfy two main requirements: completeness and consistency of goals. Each goal should reveal the content of only one higher-level goal. There should be no cycles on the goal tree, which means that goals are inconsistent. 1). The goal tree is built from top to bottom, starting with the formulation of the main goal, even in the most general terms; 2). Goals of the same level should not be included in each other, but can only partially overlap. The separation of intersecting goals at lower levels, as a rule, leads to the identification of almost identical smaller goals in their branches; 3). Goals of the same level should be fairly homogeneous in their significance, i.e. play equal roles in achieving goals at higher levels; 4). Top-level goals, divided into smaller goals at lower levels, must be recoded into the language of the corresponding class of subsystems and elements with the transformation of concepts and their symbolic designations; 5). The number of levels of division of the general goal is determined by the required accuracy of problem solving. However, it is possible to fragment management goals only to the extent that they remain within the framework of social and economic categories; 6). The tree of goals along all its branches must be brought to the level that is considered the lowest in its branch. When building a tree of goals, you need to try to avoid one very typical failure - the imperceptible transition of goals to the analysis of their selection criteria. Thus, the tree of goals is intended to connect goals with the means of achieving them (the lowest level of goals actually reveals a set of means to achieve the general goal) and to identify the relationships that exist between subgoals and smaller goals of various branches of the tree at each level. When setting goals, it is necessary to assess their achievability, that is, develop a strategy for achieving these goals. It happens that in the process of building a goal tree and determining an achievement strategy, it turns out that the personal formulation of the goal is incorrect and that the goal lies elsewhere. In this case, it is necessary to reconsider the goal and strategy for achieving it. The nature and content of the goals of enterprises are influenced by the characteristics and nature of the external conditions in which they have to operate. Thus, in modern conditions in Russia, the uncertainty of the economic situation and high risk lead to the fact that survival becomes the main motive of a company’s behavior. The importance of the stage of formulating goals in management can hardly be overestimated, since without knowing where to go, it is difficult to determine the route to follow or develop a clear plan of action (strategy).Implicit theories
Methodological problem: do people know what they are doing?
Distraction and difficulty implementing intentions
Examples of general goals of business communities
...increasing volumes of truck supplies, expanding the dealer network in all regions of Russia...
Example 2:
...providing the Russian market for the purchase and sale of ready-made businesses with modern and effective brokerage services...
Example 3:
...everyday impeccable cleaning of residential and office premises in the city of N...
Example 4:
…reliable and high-quality solutions to clients’ logistics problems…Examples of professional goals of specialists
...training to work in 1C programs; setting up, updating, consulting on the subject matter...
Example 2:
...ensuring high-quality sound at concerts...
Example 3:
...creation, optimization, support and promotion of websites...
Example 4:
...installation of stationary office partitions...
Example 5:
...increasing the customer base of the company - a manufacturer of medical equipment...Agreed goals: what is the secret of effective work
attract the attention of stakeholders (consumers) to a specific business community with the content and quality of the product of its work.Organizational goals
