In last week’s edition of Culture Correspondence we attempted to dissect core values, their validity and usefulness. We proposed the following; that if your core values are the ‘how’, you better be sure you’re providing clarity about the ‘what’.
This week we’re turning to goal-setting and applying the same lens; sharing our hot take on the additive components of goal-setting within purpose-driven companies (and suggesting that without purpose, goal-setting is a potential cause of confusion and frustration that only adds to one outcome: a short-term, non-sustainable culture).
Short-Term Planning Creates Short-Term Culture
As I’m sure is the case for all People professionals, I have a few favourites in my HR toolkit that have never let me down; from favourite interview questions, to favourite tools and tactics, to favourite phrases that feel universally applicable and true.
One of my favourite phrases is the title of this article, ‘short-term planning makes for short-term culture’. And, I’ve yet to be proven wrong.
Lots of content exists already when it comes to the detailed forms of goal setting, from SMART to OKRs and everything in between. That’s not what I’m here to do today - instead, I want to take a far more compassionate and human-centric view.
Let’s view goal-setting as a communication mechanism for planning and managing expectations. By doing so, we turn goal-setting into a service, and a wellbeing exercise; an enabler of human potential - rather than a measure of human productivity.
If (in simplified terms) depression is about what’s happened before, and anxiety is about what’s yet to come, why would a company want its people to focus on anything other than the here and now?
We’re so often told to pause, breathe and focus on being present, after all.
Well, it’s simple… The employer <> employee power dynamic means that team members don’t have the control to begin with. Ultimately, everyone knows that as an employee (and as many businesses are proving at the moment) you are potentially disposable, and very much replaceable. The present state at work is not something employees can ever have full agency over.
Being present, and simply existing in the here and now to deliver against current demands and top-down pressure, is one piece of a much more nuanced puzzle when it comes to the neuroscience of how employees internalise meeting expectations at work.
One thing we know to be true, is that uncertainty drives anxiety - and as the linked Psychology Today article describes, while we can all work on building our uncertainty resilience, the fact remains:
“Because uncertainty is not an overt, physical object or situation, we can't literally run away from it like we can from a dog or a social situation. So what our brains tell us to do to get away from uncertainty is to try and eliminate it by mentally analysing the situation we are uncertain about. That's what worry behaviour is”
Worry behaviour…
That’s certainly not something I would want to knowingly indulge in my company.
People Fill Communication Gaps
I do appreciate the commitment of intent and potential leap of faith it might take for founders and leadership teams to put clear markers in the ground about where their company is heading beyond what they can confidently predict or feel is likely to happen.
But… I put it to you that it is your responsibility as an employer to do just that.
I also put it to you that avoidance of this responsibility means you’re knowingly ok with people operating from a place of worry.
And that my friends, is bad leadership.
You can make a solid guess. You can. And you can caveat it as such. You’re not making a promise. You can make it clear that everything is - naturally - subject to change, but it is possible to articulate why you believe the current plan of attack is the right one to unlock whatever lies in that murky middle-longer term.
And articulating this sense of purpose is infinitely better than saying nothing at all.
Another of my favourite phrases is that people fill communication gaps with assumptions; and those assumptions are not going to naturally be positive.
You don’t have the right to expect employees to operate with the degree of faith required to assume that everything they’re doing now does serve a purpose, is connected to a plan and is going to end up equating to meaningful work.
Self-correcting teams
Who else to reference when it comes to the ‘purpose’ debate than the undisputed king of ‘Why’, Simon Sinek.
Simon Sinek's 'Start with Why' theory suggests that organisations prioritising purpose (rather than just profit) are more successful in the long run. These companies are inherently better at business operations because they:
- Attract and retain top talent: Because we are all more likely to be engaged and committed to a company where values align
- Build customer loyalty: Customers are more likely to remain loyal to brands that demonstrate a commitment to making a difference. And…
- Foster innovation: Because a clear purpose encourages employees to think creatively and take risks to achieve the company's mission.
And that’s what you want, right? Self-correcting teams that you can trust to interpret, decide and act without needing close management (because, who likes micro-management?!).
The primary reason I believe in goal-setting is to give the power back, and as an employer you have a choice:
- Create the sort of People debt that short termism generates (a constantly in-flux, reactionary culture where people spend most of their time in some sort of panicked delivery mode, and rarely if ever get to innovate)
Or…
- Do better when it comes to confidence in your internal communication; to manage expectations, demonstrate your own motivation to achieve a future state, and then GET OUT THE WAY.
What I see, too often, is companies ignoring the cognitively more demanding side of this coin, and instead of devoting proper consideration to managing expectations internally, lean heavily on complex goal-setting methodologies to try and do that for them.
Let’s take OKRs as an example:
If you love them it’s because you’ve worked with an appropriate interpretation of the methodology (a ‘light’ version is often fine!) and you’ve designed, tracked and responded to OKRs in a business that knows how to connect their present state to a purposeful journey or roadmap. Those businesses are often able to effectively assess the return on investment goal-setting is generating. Purpose driven businesses are, in my experience, better at productivity management because they have a strong, confident sense of what ‘productive’ looks and feels like. They back themselves.
If you hate OKRs, it’s because you’ve worked with an overcomplicated version that isn’t embedded in any sense of roadmap or connected, purposeful experience. It’s a distraction from the panicked sense of ‘here and now’ and a confusing set of arbitrary measurements that instead of enabling, only add to the pressure.
I’ve had the immense pleasure of partnering with and supporting a number of scaling companies and while it’s not necessarily inherently bad to be focusing on near-term goals, I think it is certainly not optimal to expect teams to operate effectively, without connecting the present to some sort of future state and end goal.
How can you contemplate a career, or your own growth and development when your sole purpose is to respond and react?
If your business is all about short-term delivery, you’re creating a short-term culture and know this - most people don’t want to be part of that sort of culture when they’re in full time employment.
Word From The Street
Ginni’s favourite quote of the week from the HR Community
Enabling, or Labelling?
I believe the language of HR is really important, and that People professionals should be particularly thoughtful and intentional when considering how we categorise and differentiate. Claude Silver posed this question on LinkedIn recently. The comments make for an interesting read. (How do you feel about the language "low performers", or "bottom performers"?)
Recommended
No cookie cutters or silver bullets here, just things Ginni thinks are interesting and/or useful.
If you enjoyed the musings in Ginni’s hot take this week, then be sure not to miss our upcoming webinar (5th April at 3pm GMT) with Kate Higham, Head of Operations at Born Social.
Ginni and Kate will be discussing how to drive team culture through shared values and group initiatives, how to harness employee feedback to achieve ESG goals, Born Social’s own sustainability journey and B Corp certification process and how the role of Operations is integrated into their business.