PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R H Schaffer

Publications and source records attributed to R H Schaffer.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Demand better results--and get them.

This HBR classic, first published in 1974, asks and answers one of management's most important questions: Why do so few organizations reach their productivity potential? The answer: because most senior executives fail to establish expectations of performance improvement in ways that get results. They fail because making heavy demands involves taking risks and threatens those who have the demands imposed on them. It's safer to ask for less. To avoid facing the reality of underachievement, managers may rationalize that their subordinates are doing the best they can or that better performance requires more authority or greater resources. They may put their faith in incentive plans that don't need their personal intervention. They may actually set high goals but let subordinates escape accountability for results. To get out of these doldrums, executives have to be willing to invest time and energy; responsibility can be delegated only so far. The key to the recovery strategy is to set a specific, modest, measurable goal pertaining to an important problem in the organization. If this goal is met, management uses the success as a springboard for more ambitious demands, each one carefully supported by plans, controls, and persistence directed from the top. Resistance can be expected from many levels. But as the organization registers genuine achievement, consciousness-raising in the form of recognition transforms expectations into positive factors. The fact is, most people like to work in a results-oriented environment. In a retrospective commentary, the author writes that while companies today are more impressed with the need for performance improvement, the ability to establish high expectations is still the most universally underdeveloped managerial skill.

Administrative Personnel↗

Successful change programs begin with results.

Most corporate improvement programs have a negligible impact on operational and financial performance because management focuses on the activities, not the results. By initiating activities-centered programs, such as seven-step problem solving, statistical process control, and total quality management training, managers falsely assume that one day results will materialize. But because there is no explicit connection between action and outcome, improvements seldom do materialize. The authors argue for an alternative approach: results-driven improvement programs that focus on achieving specific, measurable operational improvements within a few months. While both activity-centered and results-driven programs aim to strengthen fundamental corporate competitiveness, the approaches differ dramatically. Activity-centered programs rely on broad-based policies and are more concerned with time-consuming preparations than with measurable gains. Results-driven programs, on the other hand, rely on an incremental approach to change, building on what works and discarding what doesn't. As a result, successes come quickly, and managers build their skills and gain the support of their employees for future changes. Because results-driven improvements require minimal investment, there is no excuse for postponing action. Indeed, there is always an abundance of underexploited capability and dissipated resources within the organization that management can tap into to get the program off the ground. The authors give a few pointers for how to get started: translate the long-term vision into doable but ambitious short-term goals; periodically review strategy, learning from both successes and failures; and institutionalize the changes that work and get rid of the rest.

Commerce↗