The end is nigh

The end of the year is creeping up on us. Or rather, it feels like a freight train with horns blaring and no stopping in sight.

And then we start thinking about all the goals we’ve set and what we’ve achieved. Or what we haven’t achieved.

In working with teams and individuals as they set goals, we’ve realised there are different personas in goal pursuits – some do it all upfront, and some wait until the last minute. But we all move forward in some way, shape or form.

Which one do you resonate with?

The perpetual procrastinator

The procrastinator does very little to progress their goals during the year. They are always busy, though, with another task or project or initiative requiring their attention.

Right before the end of the year, they pulled a few all-nighters and delivered.

Their ‘effort expended’ pattern would look like this:

Unfortunately, this approach has a few implications:

1. There’s no time to course correct. A good goal will, more often than not, need experimentation and subsequent course correction somewhere in the pursuit.
2. The value is only realised at the end. Unfinished projects can’t compound, and these projects are unfinished right until the end.
3. It’s unlikely that the goal is an outcome. If you’re reading this email, you probably know we’re strong proponents of outcomes-based goals. Goals that can be met with all-nighters are unlikely to be outcomes.
4. They’re probably operating in a fear-based culture. My question for teams or individuals like this would be, “Why are people pulling all-nighters?” It might be because of the fear of the consequences if they don’t perform. That’s a real “stick” culture and doesn’t promote open discussion and trust.
5. It’s not sustainable for a team. Some individuals might wish to operate this way, but it’s not a sustainable way to manage a team consistently.

Okay, so what’s the alternative?

The frantic front-loader

Standing at the other end of the spectrum of the procrastinator is the front-loader. These individuals or teams get stuff done quickly – too quickly.

Their ‘effort expended’ pattern looks like this:

The pattern for the procrastinator and the front-loader is, in essence, the same. The only change is that the effort was brought forward. The team set themselves a hypothetical deadline three weeks into the quarter and delivered against that deadline.

Again, you’ll be met with a few implications:

1. This time, there is time to course correct, which is great. It gives an early indicator of success or failure.
2. And you’re delivering value sooner.
3. However, the goal is still unlikely to be an outcome. (It might be an outcome, though, and the team just got lucky with the first experiment they tried.)
4. If this pattern becomes an expectation, the culture promoted is anxiety-inducing. This is only the case if the rationale for delivering value faster is because individuals want to be perceived as outperformers.
5. This pattern is also not sustainable for a team. Anxiety is contagious, and as soon as some people start feeling this anxiety – especially leaders – it will spread to the rest of the team.

As you’ll gather, neither approach is ideal. Onto persona number 3…

The consistent contributor

The ‘effort expended’ by the consistent contributor looks like this:

This time, we’re hitting all the right indicators:

1. We test and learn continuously, giving us the opportunity to course correct.
2. We’re delivering value as we go, bit by bit, which further adds to our ability to test that value.
3. This is a litmus test for outcomes, as outcomes need to comply with 1 and 2 above. Outcomes are affected by the context and environment and need to be delivered bit by bit, and not all at once.
4. The culture created encourages distributed leadership – it’s not up to one person to pull an all-nighter, but rather a team to continuously deliver value.
5. It’s more sustainable for a team – delivering on strategy is a marathon, not a sprint.

An example

Here’s a quick example, for a professional services company, to help land the concept.

Let’s assume we’re using Objectives and Key Results (OKRs).

A sales Objective could be: Systematise our sales and marketing approach to enable the scalability of our business.

To measure success (Key Results), we use two outcomes:

1.Increase pipeline cover from 1 month to 3 months by the end of the quarter.

• It’s clear that there’s no way this team can achieve this if they don’t test and learn on the way. They need to understand the best return on effort before the quarter ends and leverage that. A consistent expending of effort is required.

2. Set the baseline for marketing efforts per channel for the full sales funnel.

• The intention is also to improve efforts over time, which would prove that they are systematising the approach. For this, a baseline is required. Start measuring the baseline, and then we can improve on that in the next quarter.

The idea of outcomes-based management is the most significant change that a methodology like OKRs has brought about.

As you reflect on your goals, think about how you expended effort this last year.

If it feels like seasons of sprints, it’s probably wrong.

How will you approach it differently next year?

Happy marathoning,

Paul