Targets

tomtontom

AubreyMac wrote: »

Thanks.


I think targets, although gives a focus, actually encourages poor performance.


With regards to the few 'bad eggs', I think it's the pressure to meet targets that drives them to do bad things. For example, I knew someone worked for a major attraction in London, they had to sell corporate packages as part of their performance targets. Failing to do so will result in lack of bonus/payrise and eventually could come down to dismissal. What he and his colleagues ended up doing was selling them then refunding them just to meet targets.


My colleague's previous role was deleted due to cutbacks, yet she's back in exactly the same role as an agency worker which costs the organisation more money.

I find it really sad that people assume targets make people do bad things - potentially committing fraud. I've worked in these environments and have never considered such a thing. When I did encounter entirely unreasonable targets I put forward a business case of why they did not help the business, the system was changed to a more realistic one.

Maybe that's the difference - I'd look for a way to make things better, not go along with it and commit fraud in the process.

Takeaway_Addict

AubreyMac wrote: »

Thanks.


I think targets, although gives a focus, actually encourages poor performance.


With regards to the few 'bad eggs', I think it's the pressure to meet targets that drives them to do bad things. For example, I knew someone worked for a major attraction in London, they had to sell corporate packages as part of their performance targets. Failing to do so will result in lack of bonus/payrise and eventually could come down to dismissal. What he and his colleagues ended up doing was selling them then refunding them just to meet targets.


My colleague's previous role was deleted due to cutbacks, yet she's back in exactly the same role as an agency worker which costs the organisation more money.

Your friends scam will get found out eventually and then there will be refund targets along side selling targets.

As for the other colleague....how is that relevent to targeting?

If used correctly targets are good, it means slackers are found out and got rid off.

AubreyMac

tomtontom wrote: »

I find it really sad that people assume targets make people do bad things - potentially committing fraud. I've worked in these environments and have never considered such a thing. When I did encounter entirely unreasonable targets I put forward a business case of why they did not help the business, the system was changed to a more realistic one.

Maybe that's the difference - I'd look for a way to make things better, not go along with it and commit fraud in the process.

But not everyone has a voice or clout to change procedures though.


In some jobs, targets seems to just give managers/analysts something to do. Changing procedures/targets could mean their job gets cut.


In another job where I was part of a team that monitors statistics, there was some really bad and unethical practices. One of my colleagues there blew the whistle and was promptly next on the redundancy list.

AubreyMac

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

As for the other colleague....how is that relevent to targeting?

The target was to make x amount of staff cutbacks which the organisation achieved by making her redundant.


She's back as an agency worker (that's not against the rules or targets) which costs the organisation more when you add the commission the agency is paid. So in this instance the target proved to be pointless and not cost effective. But the management had to prove the numbers when it comes to target reviews.

takman

I work in manufacturing and every department will have targets. But they will only have targets that can be influenced by them. But we have a very ethical culture at our workplace and any "cutting corners" to achieve targets is extremely frowned upon.
If there were no targets to hit then there would be no way to plan how much overtime or personnel to place in a certain cell. The business would simply not operate without targets.

bluenoseam

Want to swap for my KPI's - I currently have eight & I work in a shop, the store itself has twelve KPI's we have to hit & I guarantee you within the next 6-12 months we'll be boosting that to 15.

Suppose at least we also have monthly reviews to go over the situation, all this despite informing upper management repeatedly that KPI's were getting well out of hand.

HardCoreProgrammer

>> It is in my working experience that setting numerical targets create unethical practices.

Cannot agree more. People modify their behaviour to meet the targets.

In one of my previous jobs, one year we were given a target that our work throughout the year must have fewer than x bugs.
Guess what? Everybody avoided the "big" development jobs and fought for the little bug fixes. Then we did everything to avoid calling software changes "bug fixes". I pity the managers who probably spent countless evenings going through our changes line by line trying to work out if the enhancements were really bug fixes.

Another year, we had a "competition" to fix as many bugs as possible, with exactly the same predicted results. People raced to put their names on the 1-line fixes. Even those who did not intend to intend to win spent a disproportionate amount of time watching the numbers to make sure that they would not come last. Teamwork was pretty much shot to pieces as the year went on.

The unfortunate thing is that all these targets came from senior management who do not know the work we do, and nobody (including our direct line managers) ever felt brave enough to speak up.

The targets had nothing to do with our work directly. Given that we are professionals and not children who would slack off at any opportunity, why did senior management think it was a good idea, except to justify their salaries and their own existence?

I do not think it is possible to measure quality of work numerically, but manage a team long enough and you should know who are the good workers.

Takeaway_Addict

HardCoreProgrammer wrote: »

>> It is in my working experience that setting numerical targets create unethical practices.

Cannot agree more. People modify their behaviour to meet the targets.

In one of my previous jobs, one year we were given a target that our work throughout the year must have fewer than x bugs.
Guess what? Everybody avoided the "big" development jobs and fought for the little bug fixes. Then we did everything to avoid calling software changes "bug fixes". I pity the managers who probably spent countless evenings going through our changes line by line trying to work out if the enhancements were really bug fixes.

Another year, we had a "competition" to fix as many bugs as possible, with exactly the same predicted results. People raced to put their names on the 1-line fixes. Even those who did not intend to intend to win spent a disproportionate amount of time watching the numbers to make sure that they would not come last. Teamwork was pretty much shot to pieces as the year went on.

The unfortunate thing is that all these targets came from senior management who do not know the work we do, and nobody (including our direct line managers) ever felt brave enough to speak up.

The targets had nothing to do with our work directly. Given that we are professionals and not children who would slack off at any opportunity, why did senior management think it was a good idea, except to justify their salaries and their own existence?

I do not think it is possible to measure quality of work numerically, but manage a team long enough and you should know who are the good workers.

So you know who is bad but without targets how do you prove it and move them on?

Hermia

HardCoreProgrammer wrote: »

>> It is in my working experience that setting numerical targets create unethical practices.

Cannot agree more. People modify their behaviour to meet the targets.

In one of my previous jobs, one year we were given a target that our work throughout the year must have fewer than x bugs.
Guess what? Everybody avoided the "big" development jobs and fought for the little bug fixes.

Years ago I had a call centre-type job and we had a target of how many calls we needed to take a day. The more unscrupulous members of staff would cut off any calls where the customer had a long query and just do the easy calls. That meant someone else ended up with the customer with the long query who now also wanted to rant about our rubbish phone line cutting them off!

makeyourdaddyproud

Hermia wrote: »

Years ago I had a call centre-type job and we had a target of how many calls we needed to take a day. The more unscrupulous members of staff would cut off any calls where the customer had a long query and just do the easy calls. That meant someone else ended up with the customer with the long query who now also wanted to rant about our rubbish phone line cutting them off!

That's just about the way to do it.

Management in most companies only see the bottom line; if your job is at risk because your taking too many long queries then I would just hang up. Who cares? You do, sub-par targets means dole.

Don't beat yourself up about it, do what it takes to keep the job until something more altruistic comes around. Capitalism was chosen long before you were born. Exploit it or perish.