Does management manage results? No, it plans for probabilities
Companies set business objectives. But an objective merely indicates the desired outcome; it does not bring it about. Between the two lie decisions, behaviours and ongoing interactions that no plan can control. Management, however, can create the conditions that make that outcome more likely, by analysing the organisational context to understand what fosters it and what hinders it. Let’s look at a few examples. Launching a new product quickly requires cross-functional collaboration: if we compartmentalise objectives, budgets and information, this collaboration becomes less likely. Resolving a customer’s problem at the first point of contact requires initiative and local decision-making autonomy, but if we centralise decisions far from the customer, the likelihood of providing an immediate solution decreases. Creating a service requires innovation: if we look for someone to blame when a mistake occurs, we do not increase the likelihood that people will try new approaches. The gap between objectives and results is often the result of people correctly interpreting the real-world context. Why collaborate if individual results are rewarded? What is the point of taking the initiative if there is no decision-making autonomy? How can we innovate if doing things differently from how they have always been done is frowned upon?
Every organisational structure creates an invisible playing field that makes some actions seem natural, others costly, and others almost unthinkable. Where dissent is not encouraged or rewarded, for example, silence is likely to prevail. Where those who encounter a problem are empowered to make decisions, speed and accountability are likely to increase. Where mistakes are seen as learning opportunities, the likelihood of innovation increases. This is not determinism: people have discretion and always have room for choice. But signals guide behaviour, and repeated behaviour shapes performance.
Is the idea that management can directly produce results not perhaps a relic of a bygone era, when the chances of achieving what had been planned were much higher? But be careful. Abandoning this illusion does not diminish managerial responsibility. Quite the contrary. It makes it broader and deeper. Management cannot directly generate results, but it can create fields of behavioural probability. It is not enough to set objectives and monitor progress: one must develop the ability to discern what, within the organisational context, increases or decreases the likelihood of achieving them. Is the purpose of the activities clear? How far apart are problems and decisions? What information, tools and skills do those who need to act have at their disposal? What is the cost of disagreeing? How much scope is there for initiative? Are mistakes shared before they become too costly? What happens to those who admit to a mistake? What is actually rewarded? Do the different functions take the initiative to ensure integration between them? Strategy takes shape in the day-to-day responses to these questions, far more so than in statements.
What would change if we adopted this perspective?
Meanwhile, what we observe is changing. Alongside monitoring the final indicators, we must also monitor how factors on the ground either facilitate or hinder our objectives. This is not about creating a new dashboard to monitor people. It is about fostering a systemic perspective amongst managers.
