Saved by sari and
TBM 41/51: Why Goal Cascades are Harmful (and What to Do Instead)
A well-defined goal has the following elements: Intent: What are the specific results you want to see for your efforts? Baseline: What points of reference can you use to compare your progress with where you are today? Progress: How will you measure movement towards or away from your goal?
Abby Covert • How to Make Sense of Any Mess: Information Architecture for Everybody
Conventional goal-setting sucks because it overlooks the actually important part of agreeing on goals collectively, which is to also agree on what you’re willing (and unwilling) to give up to achieve those shared goals. By not paying attention to what tradeoffs stakeholders believe are (or aren’t) acceptable, conventional goal-setting makes conflic... See more
vaughn tan • Unpacking Boris
Alternatively, Dave Snowden recommends a vector theory of change. In this, you forget about long-term goals entirely. You start from where you are and map the system’s current dispositional state, identify a desired direction of travel, but not a final destination . If you have a broad outcome area, or options for different possible outcomes you do... See more
Thomas Aston • Complexity and theories of change: redux
Traditional goal-setting does not focus at all on making explicit and clarifying the acceptable and unacceptable tradeoffs in achieving those shared goals.
vaughn tan • Unpacking Boris
A loss of agility. Even medium-size companies can have six or seven reporting levels. As everyone waits for the waterfall to trickle down from above, and meetings and reviews sprout like weeds, each goal cycle can take weeks or even months to administer. Tightly cascading organizations tend to resist fast and frequent goal setting. Implementation i
... See more