Developing a set of performance metrics for a department requires identifying the role that the department plays in the organization. The metrics will not be the same for every department unless they are performing essentially the same tasks and their expectations are similar. Metrics need to be consistent within a department, but this does not mean identical. All performance expectations will not be the same. But everyone likes to know by what standard they’re being measured. Is there anything more simple and direct than measuring the accomplishment of goals and objectives? Of course that implies that goals and objectives are clearly defined and supported by the organizational infrastructure and that adequate resources are provided.
Any approach to developing performance metrics for any department must take into account the purpose of the department, its position within the organization, and its expectations. The metrics for a group of people doing routine work will be quite different from those involved in creative work; contrast the issues related to processing purchase orders and invoices to research and development in any discipline. The metrics for a sales group will be quite different from those applied to a marketing group. The metrics for a manufacturing group will be different from those applied to a design group. The metrics in academia and government will also be different, but both must focus on measurable results and not on activities.
The higher the department sits in relation to the top of the organization the greater the responsibility in meeting the organization’s objectives. As examples, a manager in purchasing will have less impact on performance than the manager responsible for introducing a major new product; a facilities manager in any governmental agency will have less impact on performance than a manager who makes the final decision on a contractual agreement for implementing some new information system; and a manager of a fashionable outlet store will have less impact on performance than the manager of the organization’s marketing group. Expectations will rise as the group ascends the organization’s pyramid and also as the intellectual requirements of the group increases.
All managers regardless of type of organization face a common problem of managing the people issues; too often they fall at the extreme ends of the continuum that spans the insensitive to the people issues at one end to those who justify every act of nonperformance at the other end. As a group, engineers tend to disregard the importance of building people relationships. However, we can add accountants, lawyers, and managers from all disciplines to this group. No organization lacks its share of rigid managers who focus solely on discipline expertise and forget that it takes more than discipline competence to meet the department’s objectives. Rigid thought processes coupled with lack of concern for the human side of managing prevent compromise and accommodation.
On the other side of this divide we have the people persons and others who too often disregard the organizational performance expectations; they can justify any nonperformance. They prefer to avoid dissent of any kind rather than promote nonpersonal intellectual dissent in resolving people problems. Let’s face it, some people are a problem and the problem child needs to be dealt with. Both of these groups could become more effective: the insensitive to understand the impact of human behavior on performance and the nonperformance justifiers to recognize that meeting organizational goals and objectives comes before implementing unproven and questionable policies, procedures, and practices.