Air University Review, September-October 1979

THE changing officer evaluation system used by the United States Air Force has been the cause of much discussion, criticism, and frustration. This article is a proposal to apply proven management techniques to any formal evaluation program and increase employee motivation while improving the appraisal process. It is a review of one of the widely used, and also widely misused, concepts--management by objectives (MBO).

Behavior science studies have long emphasized the need for objective feedback in terms of constructive criticism and justified praise. Too frequently, individuals have been counseled about their performance following formal reporting periods, and then only superficially. In order to meet the challenges that come with a management position, a supervisor must be constantly aware of the performance and potential of his people and genuinely concerned about their professional development. Proven techniques and management concepts can assist today's Air Force manager in meeting these challenges, among them MBO.

The management by objectives concept, although a basic technique, has many interpretations. The application of this technique often succeeds or fails because of these interpretations. As a basic review of MBO, George S. Odiorne, director of the Bureau of Industrial Relations at the University of Michigan, provides the following definition:

. . . the system of management by objectives can be described as a process whereby the superior and subordinate managers of an organization jointly identify its common goals, define each individual's major areas of responsibility in terms of the results expected of him, and use these measures as guides for operating the unit and assessing the contribution of each of its members.^l

Management by objectives is not a new technique. It was introduced as a supplementary management tool by Alfred Sloan in the early 1950s; however, Peter Drucker is credited with making it a central management concept in his classic management book, The Practice of Management, in 1954.²

During the late 1960s and early 1970s, MBO seemed to emerge as the dominant tool for organizational management. But many applications met with failure. The concept was challenged, and many cast it aside as a theoretical idea that could not be applied in practical situations. The causes of failure were in the implementation; they were not inherent in the basic procedure.

One of the primary causes of failure was the inability to separate objectives from good intentions. Drucker states, "We can't start talking objectives until we know what they are. The things we desire are not objectives.... When you do not figure out the real objectives, you substitute procedure for thjnking."³ Drucker also adds, "Management by objectives works if you know the objectives. Ninety percent of the time you don't."⁴ Confusion results from replacing objectives with other organizational desires, such as values, policies, programs, and tasks.

Criticism of the MBO process often points to the presumed infallibility of the objectives. Managers tend to forget that objectives are often established without sufficient information and may become invalid due to increased knowledge or changes in external factors. Objectives must be specifically defined to be used as the criteria with which to measure progress. Nevertheless, they must be flexible enough to respond to changing conditions. In his book, Muddling Through, Roger Golde supports this observation:

The very term "objective" acts to reinforce the set of false expectations and feelings of inadequacy. "Objective" implies something independent of the mind--something "real" or "actual," the very opposite of "subjective." We talk as if we are managed and controlled by these concrete things called objectives. Nonsense! We do not serve objectives, it is they that serve us. It is we who are in charge; it is management that creates and controls objectives, not the other way around. When progress toward an objective is checked along the way, unfavorable results are just as likely to indicate a need to modify the objective as to alter the type of actions being taken.⁵

Unfavorable results, whether because of poor objectives or improper action, often result from a lack of understanding by the people involved. In commenting on the need for communication in today's highly educated military organization, Captain James M. Grant warns, "Introducing MBO without first educating people to the concept of participative management is to ensure the failure of the program."⁶

Literature and seminars on delegation, MBO, and participative management repeat over and over again the following statements concerning objectives: (1) Objectives should be specific; (2) objectives should be complete, fully specifying what is desired; (3) objectives represent "ends"; they should be separated and distinguished from "means" for attaining the objectives; and (4) objectives should be stated in terms that permit measurement of progress toward them.⁷

In addition to these mechanics of the MBO process, the manager must be thoroughly aware of another, and perhaps more critical, factor in the success of the measurement process. That factor is the effect on individual behavior and attitudes of such a strong emphasis on results. This emphasis is the main selling point of MBO; however, to certain types of employees, it may seem extremely threatening. Lieutenant Colonel Darryl Freed points out that even in an atmosphere of trust and confidence, employees who are extremely insecure, who have retired on the job, or who have focused their energies in a different direction, may perceive MBO as a threatening technique.⁸

This threat should be countered with education and communication. Once proper objectives have been established and an atmosphere of participation and cooperation has been created, MBO is well on the road to success. There are, however, other roadblocks that may occur during the process. Thomas P. Kleber cites several additional reasons why this technique has failed in the past. Probably one of the most significant causes cited is the lack of effective feedback.⁹ Feedback is the central theme of this article, since it is the bridge that connects task-oriented management by objectives and appraisal by results.

Feedback and communication, the central arteries of any organizational life system, are critical in the MBO process. Management by objectives is based on clarity of communication, and a successful manager dedicates his time to reinforce the multidirectional communication flow. As one of the fundamental steps in the MBO process, Freed cites a mutually arranged system of feedback to both manager and employee on employee progress.¹⁰

Scott Myers used the following illustration to emphasize the need for a system of feedback:

Suppose you were to be in a bowling competition, with a $100 prize to the one with the highest score. To make things interesting, a curtain is halfway down the alley so that the bowlers can't see the pins or the scoreboard. The experiment shows that an adult can bowl for about three frames but then becomes frustrated in not knowing how he is doing. And yet, every day in organization life, people roll the ball and knock down the pins, but do not get any feedback.¹¹

Satisfactory and timely feedback is a shared responsibility. It calls for managerial alertness as well as employee interest. Marion Kellogg adds, "For best results, it should be focused on a specific incident or incidents....The point is to make the giving arid receiving of feedback a useful, interesting experience for all involved rather than a here-we-go-again event."¹²

As an analogy, it is interesting to review the repetitive steps in the adult learning process: (1) the gathering of information, (2) the application of the information, and (3) feedback concerning the success of the application. Translating these steps into the work environment, managers' decisions about employee improvements represent learning goals. According to Kellogg, the manager's tasks in this situation include finding ways to: (1) move the employee to commit himself, (2) give the employee the information he needs in order to make the change or improvement, (3) provide him with opportunities to apply the information, and (4) give him timely and useful feedback for each successive try.¹³

The development of human capabilities usually includes a formal evaluation process; however, the manager is teaching his subordinates as well as grading them. "The management that emphasizes grading and discipline without thought to the growth and development of its personnel may be a decaying management."¹⁴

Unfortunately, the evaluation process is often considered an end rather than a means for development. Managers must recognize that appraisal is a subjective judgment made on incomplete information. This judgment can be sharpened, however, by narrowing the scope of information reviewed. Irrelevant information can only make the evaluation process more difficult and have an adverse effect on the final report. The manager must also become involved in the evaluation process long before the formal performance report is due. Well in advance, he must share with the individual employee the reason for appraisal and the characteristics or objectives on which the evaluation will be based.

Too often, managers get caught in the popularity trap. In order to maintain employee loyalty, they feel they must avoid criticism by limiting verbal communication to favorable comments and save unfavorable appraisals for written, and often confidential, reports. If the boss really wants to be kind, what he tells any employee will be consistent with the written record, and both will be honest, fair, direct, and objective.

Direct verbal feedback must be tempered, however, with understanding of individual personalities and needs. Many organizational problems stem from management's inability to cope with different kinds of people, and from its failure to realize the complexities of employee motivation. Golde points out that many people say they want feedback, when what they really want is "favorable" feedback.¹⁵ Managers must emphasize the value of constructive criticism as well as favorable feedback. Feedback, favorable or otherwise, satisfies a dual purpose: evaluation and motivation. "Because management is receptive to information input and feelings, members of the team are motivated to contribute their knowledge and their suggestions. This communication is further enhanced by management giving feedback to employees on a regular basis."¹⁶

Performance appraisal and the feedback resulting from it should not be considered a chore but an opportunity to expand mutual understanding and increase employee effectiveness. One method of accomplishing these goals is to apply the concepts of MBO.

Appraisal by objectives, the application of MBO techniques to performance appraisal, is not a new concept. This method of personnel evaluation followed closely after Drucker's introduction of MBO. The definition offered by Theos A. Langlie in the Encyclopedia of Management shows the similarity of this approach to the processes previously discussed:

...the preparation by the subordinate appraisee of written statements covering his understanding of the objectives of (a) his superior's job; (b) his own job; (c) the proper criteria of performance from his viewpoint; (d) the situation, including problems to be overcome; and (e) his plan of action to accomplish the objectives. This report is discussed with the supervisor for purposes of communication, analysis, modification or approval, and appraisal.¹⁷

The development, application, and results of this technique and MBO are so similar that most articles on MBO would need only be modified to refer to the individual instead of the task and the discussion would remain valid. The objectives of the individual are a function of the objectives of the larger unit of which he is a part; therefore, personal development should be a major part in any MBO program. But appraisal by objectives can also be applied independent of task-oriented MBO.

Many of the benefits of each technique are the same. Mark Silber and V. Sherman comment on the integration of organization and employee goals:

Organization élan, the spirit of achievement, is based on the integration of organization and employee goals--that is, a congruence between the organization's objectives and the individual interests and talents. Such a congruence engenders a closer identification of the employee with the system. A climate of achievement is also generated by mutual trust and goal setting between the employee and his immediate manager.¹⁸

The climate of achievement, like organizational morale, is not a factor that is easily measured, but the resulting productivity and efficiency are readily identified.

As with MBO, a successful program with the communication necessary to achieve desired results requires commitment and dedication. In order for the manager to communicate his expectations effectively, he must invest the time required to learn the perceptions, work values, and objectives of his employees. Through this knowledge, the manager can achieve desired results in productivity by achieving what Drucker terms "worker-responsibility." "Indeed, one of the major contributions of management by objectives is that it enables us to substitute management by self-control for management bydomination."¹⁹ Communication and feedback take many forms in an organization. Informal feedback is just as critical as the formal evaluation process. Kellogg states, "...the single most important contribution to excellent performance lies in the informal, day-to-day interaction between an employee and his manager."²⁰ Silber and Sherman support the need for communication as follows:

Both the organization and the individual require vehicles for accurate and relevant performance feedback. Toward those ends, an organization should devote time and care to monitoring its performance feedback loops. Otherwise everyone operates in a void-an organizational fog.²¹

It would be repetitive to review many of the determinants of success or causes of failure for the appraisal by objectives technique since they are the same as those discussed during the review of MBO. Langlie provides an excellent discussion of the chain reaction that can occur when a program of appraisal by objectives is implemented without adequate preparation.

If the planning is unrealistic, the implementation will be disappointing, and the appraisal may then be inadequately descriptive of the employee's qualities. Nevertheless, this approach is not only sound for appraisal purposes, it is or should be a standard operating procedure in fulfilling the management functions of planning, leading, and measuring.²²

Does this chain reaction occur in the Air Force community? If so, it is certainly not because of a lack of knowledge concerning the functions and principles of management.

MBO is not foreign to Air Force managers. From initial professional military education through senior service schools, the need for clearly defined objectives and adequate communication is repeatedly emphasized. Lessons learned in the academic environment, however, seem soon forgotten.

The management by objectives appraisal technique is not a panacea for all the problems of the Air Force performance evaluation system. It is, however, a tool to enhance the manager's effectiveness and increase objectivity in the evaluation process.

It is time to look beyond the evaluation paperwork and examine the application of the system and procedures used.

1. John J. Tarrant. Drucker: The Man Who Invented the Corporate Society (Boston: Cahners Books, Inc. 1976), p. 78.

2. Ibid., p. 77.

3. Ibid., p. 82.

4. Ibid., p. 9.57.

5. Roger A. Golde, Muddling Through: The Art of Properly Unbusinesslike Management (New York: AMACOM, 1976), pp. 71-72.

6. AFRP 11.1, TIG Brief, 19 November 1978, p. 4

7. Golde, p. 59.

8. Air Command and Staff College, Course 1B, Lesson 5, Managerial Techniques (Air University: Extension Course Institute, 1974), p. 34

9. Ibid., p. 31

10. Ibid.

11. Mark B Silber and V. Clayton Sherman, Managerial Performance and Promotability: The Making of an Executive (New York: AMACOM, 1974), pp. 147-48.

12. Marion S. Kellogg, What to Do about Performance Appraisal (New York: AMACOM, 1975), p. 35.

13. Ibid., p. 45.

14. Silber and Sherman, p. 100.

15. Golde, p. 47.

16. Silber and Sherman, pp. 84-85.

17. Carl Heyel, editor, "Performance Appraisal (Merit Rating)," Encyclopedia of Management (New York: AMACOM, 1975), p. 693.

18. Silber and Sherman, p. 46.

19. Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), p. 440.

20. Kellogg, p. 34.

21. Silber and Sherman, p. 44.

22. Heyel, pp. 699-700.

Captain James S. Seevers (USAFA; M.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is Chief, Technical Guidance Branch, Air Force Management Engineering Agency, Randolph AFB, Texas. Other assignments have been with Strategic Air Command in intelligence management and as a data systems analyst and wing target intelligence officer in Japan and Korea. Captain Seevers has completed Manpower Management School (Honor Graduate), Squadron Officer School (Distinguished Graduate), and Air Command and Staff College.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor