What is meant by the term a ‘hierarchy of goals', and how can that idea help people to build a consistent plan? What else would managers need to do once they have agreed a hierarchy of objectives?
With a “hierarchy of goals” a plan can become more specific, starting with one overall goal which is then broken down into smaller and more specific goals in order to achieve the big one. In also delegates, arranging for certain goals do be worked on by different people, divisions’ etx. By using a hierarchy of goals one is more able to clearly define what needs to be done in order to achieve a bigger, more general goal. More so, one is able to define the order in which these smaller goals need to be worked on.
When a hierarchy of goals is being created it is necessary to create some slack in order to have some flexibility. A plan where every single insignificant goal has to be achieved in a perfect way within a specific time limit has a high probability of failing. Fulfilment of smaller goals has to be evaluated with the big picture in mind. Also important is delegating, putting certain people or certain divisions in charge of certain goals. If a list of goals is introduced and people are supposed to work on them “somehow” it’s likely to cause chaos. Finally, before releasing a set of goals, plan makers have to go over them and see if they are proper ones. If goals are ambiguous, unquantifiable or difficult to handle, they are not likely to create a good outcome. The goals should be clear, precise and above all, motivational.
2. The Vroom and Yetton decision style model
Case 1
When it comes to picking out a colour scheme for the store I believe that involving the floor-staff is simply time consuming and redundant. The manager is fully capable of consulting a decorative specialist if he finds it necessary but most likely he himself will be able to decide on a suitable colour. My advice, so to speak, is for the manager to simply pick a colour and go with it.
When looking to the V&Y decision tree, it seems to agree with the above said, implying that the manager should go with his own mind instead of consulting with others.
Case 2
In this case it’s highly important to make the right decisions from the start. As I see it there are two possible ways to deal with this situation. Firstly (1), the project manager claims to have all the relevant information to handle the planning. If that is the case then he could simply put the plan together himself and then implement it. For this to be the most effective way the manager truly has to have all the relative information but also he has to have the respect and confidence of his subordinates to make a proper plan since they seem just as eager to finish on time as he does. Secondly (2), the manager could see the workers enthusiasm as a possibility for the making of good solutions and ideas. With that in mind the manager could decide to make the planning into a group effort, drawing from the ingenuity and knowledge of his staff. For this to be the most effective way, the manager has to have faith in the ability of his subordinates.
Here you can see how these outcomes can be reached on the decision tree:
= 1
= 2
Case 3
In this case the manager is asking his subordinates to undertake a project under unusual and possibly difficult circumstances. As this consultancy firm is most likely based in the western world, the manager is asking his people to leave their comfort zones to conduct their business in a far-away land. It would be in his, the projects and the firm’s best interest to go with a group effort in order to find suitable candidates for this trip. In this way those who do not want to go are not forced and those with a special interest in the project are not shunned. The manager gets his since his team will consist only of people of interest and dedication whom wanted to be there in the first place; the project benefits since it’s getting the best possible manpower (given that enthusiastic people work harder) and finally the firm is better off since this way of manning the team left no damage to morale.
Here you can see how this decision is reached on the decision tree:
Comparison
With different cases it is normal to reach different conclusions as to how it’s best to solve a particular problem. With the first case the problem was a simple one; there’s no fuss, just take an executive decision and run with it. Any time spent on consulting the staff would have been a waste since their opinions were spread and a solid conclusion would have been hard to come by.
In the other two cases things got a bit more difficult. There you had big decision that demanded accuracy and good thinking. As described in case 2, any decision taken was depended on something else, whether it was the workers faith in their manager or the manager’s faith in his workers. These variables give room for at least two different ways of plan-making.
With the third case, a hint of logic told you that working as a group would create a venue for those interested to volunteer and for others to back off. Rather than making the decision for them (and given that they all have similar attributes) this was the diplomatic way which left no toes trampled.
These cases differ in scale; one being tiny and insignificant while two of them are big and important. What the outcome maybe tells us is that when dealing with bigger, tougher to handle tasks it is less likely that you have all the info and, subsequently, all the answers. When that is the case it is usually a wiser strategy to consult co-workers, subordinates, bosses, specialists etc. In those lighter cases where consulting has no value adding purpose and mostly just wastes time, it may be better to simply grab the torch and run with it.
