An Alternative to Stretch Goals

As we finish up the first month of the new year, it’s not uncommon for leadership teams to ask their employees to document an answer to this question: what are your stretch goals for this year?

Let me preface this posting with the following: I do believe there is value in setting goals. Good leaders not only help others understand and rally around an organization’s overall vision and goals, but they also help their employees feel personally connected to the vision and goals through the employee's specific contributions. And, when used appropriately, stretch goals can be impactful and inspiring.

However, I unfortunately see many leadership teams impose stretch goals poorly, which causes them to act more like managers than leaders. For instance, I have observed multiple managers require stretch goals from all employees in efforts to increase productivity or output. An example of a poorly worded stretch goal may be something like “achieve 130% of target [insert whatever buzz word makes sense for your industry here, such as sales, customers, throughput, new products, etc]” or “do [this action] every day.”

And when a manager sets hypothetical stretch goals like the above, I also often observe little enabling of or support for the employee by the manager to hit that stretch goal. This approach tends to be more transactional (see my article The Power of Transformational Leadership in Agile). So, I contend that when stretch goals are used in a transactional manner (i.e. if you do this, then you get that), it is quite demotivating, especially for those already motivated.

Peshawaria (2018) offers an interesting perspective of employee motivation that he combines with the Pareto principle. He asserts that 20 percent of the employee population is highly motivated such that these are the folks that will reach stretch goals – the other 80 percent won’t. If this is the case, why should we mandate stretch goals for everyone? This begs the question – is there another way for motivation beyond faux stretch goals?

As Pink (2011) describes in his book Drive, those working in cognitive (knowledge worker) roles tend to be motivated by autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Combining Pink (2011) with Peshawaria (2018), I recommend that leaders set reasonable expectations for work along with the manner in which how that work will get done (e.g. using teamwork, collaboration, organizational or systems view versus individual or departmental views, etc.). I also recommend giving the opportunity for all (including me) to select some sort of learning or continuous improvement goal related to their professional growth; the only caveat is that they must earnestly try that new thing at least once in the workplace.

So, I tend to emphasize core expectations (both in work and behaviors) and setting the environment for employees to be successful. I also give the employee the opportunity to select where they want to grow, and, most importantly, ensure there is time enabled in their schedule for them to grow if they want it. I found that those more self-motivated tend to swing for the fences on their own (not via stretch goals); those that are not, may only see a step improvement.

I’m not saying stretch goals should be banned. There are instances where stretch goals tend to make more sense. In the Harvard Business Review, Sitkin et al. (2017) describe stretch goals as being both extremely difficult and have extreme novelty. Sitkin et al. (2017) suggest stretch goals should be used when (1) organizations are thriving but may be complacent with the status quo, and (2) when you can allow sufficient people, time, and money.  If your folks are already under stress, there is poor performance, etc., what good will added stress with a stretch goal provide?

So, if you’re goal is “more output” or you can’t see the possibility of enabling your employees to learn or grow because you're too busy or lack reasonable funding, then stretch goals are not your solution. You need to take a look at improving your processes and effectiveness as an organization (i.e. as integrated set of interconnected departments), not make people work harder or faster and calling it a “stretch goal.”    

References

Peshawaria, R. (2018). Minimum supervision, maximum performance. Leader to Leader, 2018(87), 42–47. doi: 10.1002/ltl.20342

Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books.

Sitkin, S., Miller, C., See, K. (2017). The Stretch Goal Paradox. Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 92–99.