I would like to try and speak up for targets as the alternative would seem to be much worse?  - If done properly couldn't having clear targets can act to increase the autonomy of front line workers and allow innovation and productivity?

If high level targets are carefully designed and are simple they can act to signal priorities in a way that allows worker autonomy. Outside our bubble, careful target design and incentivisation is the method of choice for most organisations to align their workers to deliver of the organisations goals.

The alternative to targets is a lack of accountability or centralised, command and control.

Targets should be clear, unambigous, achievable and should not conflict with each other. Targets should be used in conjunction with an organisational culture where workers are sufficiently engaged that management can trust staff to get on with delivering without monitoring performance in order to micro manage. Reward and incentivisation arrangements need to be sufficient and well developed enough that achievment of targets is very clearly in the self interest of all workers.

Under these conditions, targets allow everyone to work together on a shared goal but to allow innovation to find the best way to achieve these goals and allow incentivisation and accountability for delivery.

The issue with targets in Government is that we have done the easy bit, setting the targets, but have not done the difficult bit - adjusting the delivery models or putting in place the incentivisation arrangements needed to make the targets work. It really isn't realist to expect target setting to work if we dont put in place the levers and culture that incentivise and allow employees to own the targets and be motivated to achieve them.

Everything I've read and see leads me to believe that in Government a) we do not set targets clearly enough b) we do not have delivery models that mean everybody understands their accountabilities and role in delivery c) staff are not trusted to innovate and have autonomy because of engagement issues and the complete lack of incentivsation of targets. 

Jamie Knights 966 days ago

Youre right Jamie, but the devil is in the detail.  Perhaps the best way is to put it is to say that targets are great as something to aim for, arguably OK as a means of allowing people to select what and who is working best, but of dubious value as a decisive factor in winning a war.  Morale, logistics, strategy, communications, technology etc. are things that combine to win wars.  In contrast, if 'accountability' for hitting targets is passed down mindlessly onto the heads of the shootists with no regard to their aptitude, fitness, skill level then the effect will be counter-productive.  Similarly, it does not help where platoon commanders are so concerned for their accountability for targets being hit that they focus solely on the target and fail to notice a battle slipping away from the on the flanks.  And this, according to some learned reports (my first such recollection is an Audit Commisison report c2003) , is what has tended to happen in the public services. 

Michael ONeill 966 days ago

The problems with targets is that people become focussed on the target rather than the objectives.  So if the targets are poor then the objectives will not be met.

In the hospital example above, I would assume that the objective is to provide people with the appropriate medical care with the appropriate priority and urgency.  Clearly, the culture in existence and the targets do not address the dilemma raised and this leaves the staff to guess what they perceive the management will perceive as the lesser of two evils rather than making assessments on the priority for medical treatment. 

Robert Miles 958 days ago

Targets the downfall of the Civil Service. Staff work to targets they succeed they are increased year on year and then they fail and everyone panics. In fact realistic targets should be set if they are needed.

Targets do not support quality or customer service how do I think I know ? Years ago I worked for the Contributions Agency in Essex where we had a manager before his time and decreed despite targets being given to him he would declare no targets to staff.

The result was everyone far exceeded the targets in both amount of work done and money collected why?

 Because everyone worked as a team and at own pace not stopping if getting too close to target or panicking and making mistakes because could not keep up as they thought.

Staff also felt trusted and supported making them more productive and happy in their work.

Complaints were few and far between and we did not expect someone to fill in a form to make a complaint a phonecall was sufficient.

Oh those were the days getting up in the morning enjoying your job and providing a customer service.

sheena farenden 953 days ago

Lovely to read your post Sheena.  As an ex private sector business manager who had to get £ through the door or perish, I nevertheless agree strongly with your post. There are so many pointers out there that tell us that what you say is true:

* Seven years of plenty, seven years of famine - tells us performance is not linear or even entirely predictable.  Targets will not encourage an organisations people to make hay while the sun shines so that there is some in reserve when it does not.

* Unhappy chickens lay poor eggs - can it ever make sense to promote a situation where (as the stress, depression and sickness absence indicators are all telling us) the place that we are obliged to spend most of our lives is somewhere we hate, fear and don't want to be at.  The work ethic is central to our economic and social success.  It should not be made a miserable experience.

etc. etc.

These are the things we need to focus on. And (as I heard said yet again this morning on the radio) in order to make progress we need to have our organisations led more by people with real leadership qualities (vision, compassion, commitment to staff as the instrument of business delivery etc.) instead of this breed of bright but strangely unintelligent, and empathy-lacking 'financial managers' that too often understand the price of something, but the value of nothing (as another old saying goes).

Michael ONeill 952 days ago

if you want more bang pay more bucks

sqeeze till the pips squeek has left its mark with lies and half truths, we who are left need to learn from the past and make a secure plan for tomorrow

the media should inform on the progress not dictate its goals but then again todays news tomorrows chip paper

then again if you focus on the detail to microscopic levels you never get to enjoy the sun set

lee rushworth 950 days ago

Well pay more bucks for more bang where it is effecting bang.

Until the civil service is reformed which would have to start with senior civil may just be a case of good money after bad.

Well the media should not have to play a role  with lack of internal mechnisims someone whos interests are even slightly aligned with the public could be preferable to none.

edwardfrost 950 days ago