Goal Tree Chronicles – lessons from the logical path

May 2018. I have spent two days facilitating a seminar on strategy deployment with a bunch of motivated young intrapreneurs – middle managers empowered to run their business as if it was theirs. I based my coaching on the Goal Tree, a logic tool of choice among the Logical Thinking Process, totally suiting the purpose.

During these two days I probably learned as much as my audience, even so on very different aspects, and this makes the consultant’s job worth doing it. In this post I share some of my lessons learned.

Been told to deploy the strategy vs. bring your organization to the next level

Usually the Goal of an organization is defined by the founders, the owners or their delegates. Those people know why, what for the organization was created, why money was invested and what the organization is supposed to achieve. The Goal is set and it’s up to the subordinates to carry out the deployment of the necessary tasks to achieve it.

It is conversely unusual that the Goal can be (re)defined by young middle managers. Except in a culture fostering engagement and entrepreneurship, showing confidence, granting support and as much of wellbeing as possible to its talents.

It makes a huge different though if the Goal is set by a remote boss or committee with loose ties with the unit or if the future is defined by the managers running it and having their skin in the game every single day.

In my pleasant and uncommon experience, it was the latter that was done: the managers in charge defined the Goal and ambition for their unit, worked out the details of how to achieve it and “sold” the whole to their bosses. It was a great success and the CEO asked unexpectedly to work out an even bigger ambition.

Twenty minutes to define the Goal and three hours to work out the details

This is another benchmark in my own records working with management teams. The consensual Goal was defined with a compelling phrase in a matter of 20 minutes. This is, according to my experience, a very short time.

It shows how aligned the team of 12 members was, even before starting the work with goal setting and strategy deployment. I remember another case in which I had to struggle many hours to simply get enough acceptance from a management team about their boss’s Goal, despite the fact they worked on a daily basis with him… Their competitors are still safe I think.

The three hours to get to enough details of the underlying Necessary Conditions is consistent with my records, provided you don’t have a naysayer in the team. Now three hours don’t get you in every detail of the tasks to carry out, but give a sufficient picture to communicate and share with more people in the organization.

As my “students” soon realized, further details must be worked out with their subordinates in order to onboard them and let them be part of building their future. Themselves as managers had a clear enough picture of what must be done, how to align their staff to get it done and how to explain the whole scheme to their bosses.

A pure logic tool can leave some space for emotions

Before this seminar I always presented the Goal Tree as a pure logic tool filtering out the emotional side of things. From now on I have to amend my speech. First because applying my lessons by the letter, the first Goal statement my students came up with could only be compelling for the most fanatic accountants. As I gave my surprised feedback that such a Goal would not trigger many dreams of a desirable future, the reply was: “you told us that emotions have no place in the logic tools”.

Alright, I had to explain that the Goal statement was an exception for the sake of being compelling, otherwise nobody would possibly get thrilled by a series of numbers, i.e. the expression of the Goal in measurable units. Except for the already mentioned fanatic accountants.

The next place where emotion is welcome is in the room, in front of the brown paper where the Tree builders build their Goal Tree with sticky notes. The rational analysis of the Necessary Conditions to achieve the desirable scheme can be done with passion as long as it is positively driving the group and does not lead to fights. In the case this post is based on, it was a very positive and collaborative mood.

Third place (moment would be more adequate) where emotion is likely to show, and is in some extend welcome, is when the Goal Tree builders present their work and “sell” their project to their audience. Without emotion, even the most compelling written Goal statement may not move the audience as much as a passionate invitation to the journey to achieve it by the project presenters.

Except for the Goal statement, my initial stance remains valid. Emotion will not find its place in the Goal Tree itself.

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Advertisements

Why you cannot use tentative language in a logic tree

I once happen to see a Current Reality Tree cluttered with “coulds” and “shoulds”. Conditional or tentative language cannot be used with logic trees and here is why.

Cause-and-effect (sufficiency logic)

The Logical Thinking Process logic trees use either sufficiency or necessity logic. Sufficiency or cause-and-effect relationship states that a cause, if it exists, is sufficient by itself for the effect to happen. Using conditionals like should or could violates the sufficiency principle as it suggests that the cause is not always producing the effect.

The Current Reality Tree (CRT), Future Reality Tree (FRT) and Transition Tree (TT) are built on sufficiency logic and therefore cannot hold any entity with shoulds or coulds.

If a should or could is found in such a tree, the scrutinizer must raise a “cause insufficiency reservation“. The statement must then be corrected, for example by adding one or more additional cause(s) combining to the first one with a logical AND connector. If this combination is valid, the sufficiency relationship is restored and should or could is removed as the effect is now guaranteed to happen.

If no additional causes can combine to the first one, the cause-and-effect relationship is probably only assumed or false. Anyway no should or could can be left in a logically sound tree.

Using present tense

The entities – the building blocks of the logic trees holding the statements – must be expressed in present tense.

Using present tense is natural in a Current Reality Tree (CRT) as it is the description of the actual situation, the cause-and-effects relationships that exist right now.

The use of present tense in Future Reality Trees (FRT) is highly recommended even so these future situations and the Desirable Effects do not yet exist. Present tense helps to project oneself and the audience into the future and visualize the situation as it were already improved (Scheinkopf, “Thinking for a change, putting the TOC Thinking Processes to use”, p119). Dettmer also recommends to use positive wording (Dettmer, The Logical Thinking Process, p244).

This applies to entities in a CRT, a FRT and in a Prerequisite Tree (PRT) which are verbalized in full sentences.

What about necessity-based logic?

Can necessity logic based tree use conditional/ tentative language?

The Goal Tree (GT), the Evaporating Cloud (EC) and Prerequisite Tree (PRT) are built on necessity logic. They describe the chains of enabling conditions that are required to achieve a goal or an objective. Without the enabling conditions, the objective cannot be attained. Conversely, with the enabling, necessary conditions fulfilled, the objective will not automatically be achieved; additional action is required.

As the Desired Effect is not guaranteed to happen even so all necessary conditions are fulfilled, the use of conditional / tentative language seems legit. Practitioners would not use it though.

First because we need to demonstrate positivity about a desirable change and help the audience to mentally visualize the future where things happen and produce the desired outcome.

Second because we need to give confidence and demonstrate our own trust in the proposed solution. No audience would be thrilled hearing that this solution “may”, “should” or “could” produce the desired result. No decision maker would give his/her go for a change program or a solution implementation which is not certain to produce the expected result.

The use of conditional / tentative language would only raise concern about the feasibility of the proposed solution and appear as a lack of confidence of its promoters.

Wrapping up

Tentative language is recommended in academic writing, not at all with logic trees.

Using tentative language is recommended in academic writing and scientific research in order to leave room for alternatives, later corrections, etc. unless there is solid evidence backing up a statement. Therefore the use of verbs like “appear, suggest, indicate,…”, modals “may, might, can, could, will, would” and adverbs like “possibly, probably, likely…” are recommended.

But when building or presenting logic trees, absolute certainty is required in order to demonstrate robustness of the analysis and the confidence in the conclusions. If a logic tree is built on the canonical logic rules (we’ll consider the use of present tense as a canonical logic rule), has been scrutinized and cleared of all reservations, it is robust and tentative language is no option.


The author, Chris HOHMANN

The author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Management attention as a constraint – Part 1

A system’s constraint, the limiting factor that is an obstacle to getting more Goal units* from the system, can be pretty difficult to identify (hence the success of my post on the topic: How to identify a constraint?!).

*”Goal units” can be money, profit, services to citizens, number of patients treated, free meals served, or whatever the organization delivers to achieve its Goal.

The Theory of Constraints community discusses the management attention as a constraint for a long time now and Goldratt himself called management attention the ultimate constraint (the one remaining when all others have been elevated). My own experience convinced me that management attention can indeed be a constraint for the whole system, from the beginning.

Misaligned organization

Striving to achieve the organization’s Goal is management’s sacred mission and it is management’s duty to align the efforts of their subordinates to achieve that objective. Lean Management uses the “True North” metaphor and Hoshin Kanri or Policy Deployment to achieve it. The Logical Thinking Process calls it the Goal and have the Goal Tree as a roadmap and benchmark. Both approaches and their tool sets can be combined.

Now too often management does not clearly communicate about the Goal neither ensure their staff’s energy and initiatives are well oriented towards achieving the Goal.

Surprisingly, some senior managers are not clear among themselves what the organization’s Goal is. Bill Dettmer published a paper on such an experience with a crowd of executives and almost as many Goals as people! The paper is downloadable at http://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/WhatisOurGoal-v5_000.pdf

Management’s attention is on something else, but not on the main objective.

When this happens, scarce resources are often wasted for meaningless purposes, on the wrong things. The longer this goes on, the stronger the evidence that management attention isn’t focused, for whatever reasons, on what really matters.

Chances are that middle managers lacking a clear stated and often reminded Goal define their own objectives for the need of guidance.

Self defined objectives

When subordinates define their own objectives because they have no “True North” to align their own and/or their staff’s work, they may define these objectives to fit their own purpose, their own views or to optimize their department’s performance. Doing so, the probability is high that the self defined objectives will be in conflict with another department’s objectives and at the expenses of the overall organization performance.

Myths and false assumptions

Lack of clear communication about the Goal and lax management may let myths and false assumptions flourish. Most often, myths and false assumptions are the result of lack of clarity, misunderstanding or overinterpretation of some “strategic intent” or senior management statements.

Management attention must foremost be on clarity of purpose, second on the alignment of all actions towards achieving the Goal. With constant attention and frequent repetition about the Goal and checking the progress towards it, deviations as well as false assumptions and misunderstandings can be detected and corrected.

Lax management

Many people have been promoted to management positions even so they lacked the necessary soft skills. Some because it was a reward for past dedication and good job, others because they were technically good and the assumption was they would also be good at managing others. The latter often does not happen.

Unfit for their position, uneasy especially when taking command over former colleagues, lacking the charisma and know-how, many hide themselves behind computers screens or in meetings and shun contact with their subordinates. Management attention is purposely not on what matters because of a form of cowardice, or to put it softer, because of uneasiness.

In order to keep social peace, middle management (at least in France) often tries to avoid frontal assault against deviant behaviors, absenteeism, poor performance and sub-standard achievement.

The situation is often paradoxical between the pressure from above to achieve the objectives and at the same time the strong recommendation not to mess up with work force to avoid social unrest, that middle management is torn between conflicting objectives.

This probably led to management positions popularity to sink to an abyssal low. The younger generations don’t want management jobs anymore.

Additionally, the new generations and their ways of teaming up, networking and work around obstacles. They have no interest in traditional management. They don’t want that kind of job and do not pay the same respect to rank like previous generations did. For them and growing part of the workforce, leadership is more important than status.

All this lead many middle managers to compromise and get lax in their management or give it up for good. Management positions are now harder to man as this kind of job lost much consideration.

Therefore, even if those managers know well about the Goal they should work to achieve, their ability or personal lax attitude does not transmit the necessary energy or inputs to their teams.

Next: Management attention as a constraint – Part 2

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Goal Tree Chronicles – Coloring the Goal Tree

The 3-colors system is a well accepted assessment and visual management tool by Goal Tree builders and users. The principle is simple as it uses the traditional Red-Amber-Green color code to indicate the status of each entity in the Tree.

In a Goal Tree, Necessary Conditions are enablers to the above entity. As soon as enablers are not in place or “unstable”, the outcome they should enable cannot be considered as in place, delivering or achieved.

In this post, I detail how to color a Goal Tree.

How to color a Goal Tree?

Start at the bottom, with the very basic Necessary Conditions. Have the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) assess each Necessary Condition for its status. As soon as a basic Necessary Condition, which is a requirement or prerequisite to the above entity to exist, is Amber or Red, the above entity can only be Amber or Red. The color, symbol for the status, propagates upwards like in a line of dominos when the falling one pushes the next.

Goal Tree

Reminder: in “my” 3 color system, green stands for granted, constantly available, steady… Amber means unstable, not totally fulfilled, variable… Red means missing, non-existent, not at nominal value, etc.

Therefore, the assessment can be quite quick. The SMEs should know what’s going on on shopfloor, how process behave and deliver. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) may give additional information.

In a starting project, chances are that many identified basic requirements are not yet fulfilled, so their boxes in the Goal Tree are red. As soon as such an entity turns Amber or Red, no need to assess the above related entities, they are Amber or Red by definition.

Related: Goal Tree: How green is your tree?

The requirements that are Green need to be followed upwards nevertheless to see if their above related entities are Green as well, or if an additional Necessary Condition coming in sideways has a non-Green status. If this is the case, the above entity takes the color of the worst of the underlying Necessary Conditions’ color.

The limits of the 3-color system

It can happen that despite an entity having all its underlying Necessary Conditions set to Green can’t be assessed as Green. Facts and figures just don’t allow it. How come?

Well, remember: underlying Necessary Conditions are enablers, not triggers. Unlikely what happens with sufficiency logic where a cause is literally sufficient to produce the effect, the necessity logic used in the Goal Tree states that if a Necessary Condition is missing, the expected effect can not happen, but conversely, the underlying Necessary Condition existence is only enabling the effect to happen.

Entities in a Goal Tree are also called Intermediate Objectives and in order to achieve an objective, 3 conditions are required: having the necessary means to achieve the objective, knowing how to achieve it and being motivated to achieve it.

Related: What it takes to achieve your objective: Means, Method and Motivation

In case a should-be green Intermediate Objectives isn’t green, you should check the Means, Method and Motivation.


If you liked this post, say it, share it!

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Goal Tree Chronicles – Enablers vs.triggers

In this post I explain the difference between enablers and triggers in logic trees, which basically is explaining how Necessity logic differs from Sufficiency logic. I then explain the basic assumption when building a Goal Tree and why the Goal will not automatically be achieved even if a most of Necessary Conditions are fulfilled.

Necessity vs. sufficiency

Necessity-based logic requires a prerequisite to be fulfilled in order to produce the expected effect. This is why necessity-based logic uses “in order to… [effect] we must … [prerequisite]” wording in the Logical Thinking Process.

Example: in order to have my hair cut, I must go to the hairdresser.

Even so there are alternatives to the hairdresser to have the hair cut, a prerequisite is necessary for the hair being cut.

Sufficiency, as its name suggests, does only require the cause to exist for the effect to automatically exist. The corresponding wording is ”if…[cause] then.. [effect].”

Example: if it rains, then the lawn gets wet. Or if I drop an ice-cube in hot water (the) it melts. In these examples there is little that can be done to prevent the effect to automatically happen when the cause happens.

Enablers vs.triggers

I assume dear readers, you understand the huge difference between Necessity and Sufficiency. While an effect will automatically happen if the cause exists in the case of sufficiency, the existence of the prerequisite (cause) in necessity-based logic is not enough to produce the effect, it only enables it.

For example, many prerequisites are necessary to build a house, like having a ground, having timber, having a permit, and so on. But having all prerequisite will not lead the house to build itself.

In sufficiency logic, the cause is the trigger while with necessity logic, the cause is “only” an enabler.

The Goal Tree is built on necessity-logic

The Goal Tree, one of my favorite logic tools, is built on layers of Necessary Conditions, linked from the Goal on the top to the very first Necessary Conditions at the bottom by necessity-logic. The convenient way to build a Goal Tree and scrutinize it is to check the sound logical relationship between an entity and the underlying Necessary Condition using the “in order to… [effect] we must … [prerequisite]” phrasing.

The logic trees and cloud from the Logical Thinking Process are either necessity-based or sufficiency-based and in the order of their sequential usage they alternate between necessity and sufficiency.

Now because the Goal Tree is built on necessity logic, the entities composing it are absolutely necessary to exist or being granted for to achieve the Goal. By definition, if one Necessary Condition is not fulfilled, the Goal cannot be achieved.

But, as Necessary Conditions are “only” enablers, nothing will happen as long as no real action is taken.

Achieving the Goal

Achieving the Goal requires all Necessary Conditions or enabling prerequisites to be fulfilled, but it is not sufficient.

This can be disturbing for those being exposed first time to the Goal Tree, because there is an implicit assumption that when the enablers are in place, the necessary actions or decisions will be taken, so that from bottom to top, all Necessary Conditions are fulfilled and the Goal eventually achieved.

Promoters, including me, tend to cut corners and advertise about the lower level Necessary Conditions “automatically” turn the upper ones to be fulfilled, and the achievement of intermediate objectives to happen like a row of dominoes propagating the fall of the first one till the very last: the system’s goal.

This is true if people in charge do their part: take the decisions and/or carry out the tasks.

This is why, “surprisingly”, some entities can be Amber or Red (condition not always / not fulfilled) even so their underlying Necessary Conditions are Green (condition always fulfilled).

If you are not yet familiar with my 3-color system, I suggest you read: 3-color system for Goal Trees

Example

Here is such an example. It comes from an operational Goal Tree built to enumerate all Necessary Conditions to pass over simple maintenance tasks from maintenance technicians to line operators. The simple tasks include daily lubrication and check of tightenings in order to prevent wear and possible breakdowns. The aim is to implement the Total Productive Maintenance ‘Autonomous Maintenance‘ pillar.

Once all Necessary Conditions are listed, the Goal Tree is scrutinized for robustness and if ok, it becomes the benchmark to achieve the Goal. The next step is to assess each Necessary Conditions for its status.


We see in the figure above (showing only a tiny part of the Goal Tree) that all underlying Necessary Conditions to “Daily lubrication / tightening is done” are Green, but the expected outcome, the effect is Amber. Since every prerequisite is Green, we expect the effect to be Green as well. Amber means the outcome is not stable, not always guaranteed, not steadily at nominal level.

It means this expected outcome, the task “daily lubrication / tightening is done”  is NOT done EVERY day.

One may argue that we cannot see any mention of the lubrication / tightening being part of operators’ duties. That’s correct. The reason for this is that in logic trees, obvious prerequisites or assumptions are voluntarily omitted for the sake of keeping the logic trees simple and legible. In our case, the work instructions include the daily lubrication and tightening routine. This is a known fact for everyone concerned with this Goal Tree.

In other words, enablers are ok, but the trigger is still missing.

It is now up to management to:

  • make sure operators have a full understanding of the work instructions,
  • make sure these tasks are carried out and
  • clarify what is to be done if operators face a dilemma like catch up late work or go as planned for maintenance routine.

Fortunately those cases are the exception. People truly involved in a project and having a clear understanding of the purpose will contribute. That is, as long as they are not exposed to undesirable effects, from their point of view.


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Reader question: Goal Tree vs. Current Reality Tree

Here is a reader’s question: I have difficulty seeing the difference between the Goal Tree and the  Current Reality Tree (CRT). With these two trees we assess the process. What are the main differences between the two?

The Goal Tree and Current Reality Tree (CRT) have nothing in common. They are not even meant to care about processes but about the system as a whole. Neither the Goal Tree nor the CRT are process maps.

>Lisez-moi en français

A Goal Tree lists all Necessary Conditions to achieve a Goal, which is not yet achieved, so it is about the future.

The CRT describes why the Goal is not yet achieved in the current state. It starts with identified Undesirable Effects (undesirable for the system as a whole) and drills down to the few critical root causes.

A Goal Tree is built from top-to-bottom with necessity logic while the Current Reality Tree (CRT) is built from top-to-bottom using sufficiency logic. This building top-to-bottom is maybe the sole commonality between the two.

To learn more about the differences between necessity and sufficiency logic, check out my post: Goal Tree Chronicles – Enablers vs.triggers

The name Current Reality Tree is somewhat misleading because the CRT is limited to the description of the negative outcomes. It does not describe all the Current Reality. This is saving a lot of unnecessary analysis as well as a warning to not mess with what is currently producing Desired Effects!

What could have caused some confusion to my reader is the fact that a Goal Tree is a benchmark against which to measure the gaps in current reality.

When doing this I use a 3-color code to indicate each Necessary Conditions status. I assess the current condition of the system with the Goal Tree as benchmark. The first autumnal-colored tree should be kept as is as a snapshot of the situation at the beginning. Distinct trees are used later to monitor the progress of ‘greening’ the tree, i.e. closing the gaps to achieve the Goal.

I hope this helps to understand the differences between a Goal Tree and a Current Reality Tree.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

What advice to people wanting to experience the Logical Thinking Process Training Course?

Paris June 28th, 2017. The 6-day Logical Thinking Process Training Course with Bill Dettmer is just over. We asked the participants not in a hurry to rush to an airport or train station if they would share their thoughts about the course in front of a camcorder?

Cédric, Sverre and Leo were so kind. Bill asked them about their favorite takeaways and advices for people willing to take the course.

As a veteran with 5 attendances (being part of the organizing party) I delivered my testimony long ago, however, I reflected on what I would say now.

My favorite part of the course changed over the sessions, which is understandable with all that repeat. Now my favorite part is working hands-on on trees, cross presenting them and have them scrutinized. That’s the closest we can get in a room session while working on somebody’s real-world case.

This brings me to my advice: come prepared (read the pre-course reading material) and have a real-world problem to work on. The best is a problem with which the participant has enough inside knowledge and enough influence – if not power – to make change happen.

What happens during the course?

This last June 2017 session was in my opinion a good one because the cases were mostly about founding a new business, spinning-off from actual one, or trying to reinvigorate an existing fading one.

With entrepreneur spirit and most of the options open, the Goal Tree was piece of cake. Well it seemed to be piece of cake. Once in front of a large empty sheet of brown paper and a demanding mentor in the back, the candidate entrepreneurs had to turn their brilliant idea in a compelling and robust Goal Tree.

The Current Reality Tree (CRT) brought most of them back into their unsatisfactory actual state, but at least with clear understanding of what causes the Undesirable Effects (UDEs). Conflicting objectives or decisions were uncovered and creativity called in to dissolve the conflicts.

Logical Thinking Process / Theory of Constraints’ Thinking Processes aware readers recognize the Evaporating Cloud (EC) to do that.

On the group went, injecting solutions into their current reality in order to turn the UDEs into Desirable Effects (DEs). This was done thanks to the Future Reality Tree (FRT), a kind of logical (and virtual) proof of concept to test the solutions.

Bill instructed the group to look for possible Negative Branches that may grow out of a seemingly brilliant idea and end up in a new and unexpected UDE. When such a branch is spotted, the trainee can be happy to have tested the solution on paper before messing up in real world! Luckily there are ways to trim such unwanted negative branches and it’s part of the training.

The final exercise is to list the possible obstacles to implementation and overcome them with a Prerequisite Tree.

Five trees per attendant gives a lot to review and scrutinize! And just as many learning opportunities!

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Goal Tree Chronicles: can I have more than one goal?

I started publishing on the Internet in 1998 with the available means at that time. My undertaking had several purposes and expected benefits, but it was all intuition and nothing thoroughly planned.

Years after, knowing the Goal Tree and being fan of the Logical Thinking Process, reflecting about my author debut, I wondered if a Goal Tree can have more than one goal.

Choosing the easiest way I asked my mentor and friend Bill Dettmer instead of giving it a personal thought.

His response, wise as usual, was: “Multi-tasking doesn’t work. It dilutes focus and effort (../..) If you have what appear to be multiple goals, what you more likely have are Critical Success Factors to a higher, as-yet-undefined single goal. If you find such a situation, pose the question, “What higher level SINGLE outcome are all these multiples there to achieve?” That inevitably gets people thinking of one goal.”

I found myself a bit stupid. Would I have invested some minutes, I could have come to this obvious conclusion myself.

Yet I got a bonus. Bill continued his explanation with a Tour de France (our famous bicycle race) metaphor: “I liken the goal to the finish line of a race. There are never multiple finish lines.”

Full stop.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Goal Tree: Why must top management define the Critical Success Factors?

Top managers discovering the Goal Tree frequently ask what input they must give and how “deep” they should commit themselves, where is the point of handover to lower ranking managers?

In this article I remind some basics about the Goal Tree as well as the necessity for top management to define the Critical Success Factors.

Some Goal Tree basics

It is the owner’s prerogative to define the Goal of the organization they purposely created. The organization’s top management takes over by delegation and has to lead it toward the achievement of this Goal.

Yet many ways may lead to the Goal but all of them are not desirable and some of them are not consistent with the organization’s values, adrift from the core business or core competences. Therefore, in my opinion top management must define/recall the organization’s’ Goal as well as the few Critical Success Factors, which make the very top of the Goal Tree.

A quick reminder about Critical Success Factors

Critical Success Factors are the few very important objectives that have to be achieved just before achieving the goal.

The Goal Tree is built upon  necessity logic. To read more about necessity logic click here.

Critical Success Factors should be expressed in measurable units in order to serve as the high level objectives and KPIs altogether.

These targets must be set in accordance with the Goal and as long as these targets are not achieved, the Goal cannot be achieved.

Critical Success Factors are therefore top management’s dashboard, the few KPIs to watch in order to see if the organization is getting closer to its Goal or drifting away from it.

Direction, values and culture

Critical Success Factors are also giving direction because for achieving them it is necessary to roll out specific actions and ensure specific Necessary Conditions are sustainably fulfilled.

Setting the Critical Success Factors will constrain the lower structure of the Goal Tree, which is a network of nested Necessary Conditions. Thus giving clear directions on what to work on in order to achieve the Critical Success Factors and ultimately the Goal.

Conversely, not setting the Critical Success Factors would let all options open including those hurting the core values or taking the organization away from its core competences and what makes a corporate culture.

Furthermore, letting lower rankings set the Critical Success Factors would be equivalent to let the tool choose its work.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Why the Goal Tree is more and more relevant

Command and control management style, based on standardized work and centralized decision-making, becomes increasingly irrelevant as more and more business environments become highly variable and the number and pace of decisions to make soar.

What is required is autonomy and accountability as well as alignment on a well understood Goal. The Goal Tree is an elegant solution for understanding what is to be done as well as the underlying rationale, for communicating it and assessing the progress.

This post assumes readers are familiar with the Goal Tree, if not they may get into it through my articles on this subject.

The limits of command and control management

In a hierarchical organization there are mainly two practical limits to command and control management :

  1. The number of people who can be reasonably be supervised,
  2. The speed of decision-making when information has to travel up and down the management structure.

The more standardized and stable the work, the easier it is to supervise a larger number of people with tight control.

As soon as work can barely be standardized to the details and/or is highly variable, supervision has to give up tightness of control.

When reactivity is required, decision-making has to come closer to the interface where decisions are to be made, otherwise the process would respond way too slowly waiting for the information to travel back and forth.

That’s why tight command and control can still be found in mass manufacturing but would not work (at least the same way) for customer service or front office. There, more than just plain execution of tasks in standardized processes are awaited. Employee engagement is necessary to satisfy the customers, especially when some situations require to “walk the extra mile”.

There is a third limit to command and control management which is social acceptance. In developed countries with highly educated employees there is a strong expectation for empowerment and autonomy. People want to find a good balance between their own satisfaction and the effort they put to create value for their organization.

With lesser (mass) manufacturing and more services and knowledge work, which implies lesser standard work in the classic sense and more need for quick and numerous decision-making, command-and-control management is increasingly inappropriate.

Autonomy and accountability

Granting more autonomy is mandatory to cope with both the actual business challenges and social aspirations. Yet autonomy without guidance and a minimum of control may well lead to something totally different from the expected outcome, or even to chaos.

As control in the former way of command-and-control is no more appropriate, the best way is delegate the responsibility to the doers and let them take accountability. Formal control is then lighter, people are empowered but have to take the responsibility as well as the autonomy.

Accountability for results is the essential counterweight to autonomy. But instead of having constant control, someone frequently “looking over the shoulder”, there are periodic milestones checks, short meetings, KPIs and dashboards to monitor the performance and progress towards the objectives.

Sense of purpose

Autonomy, accountability, empowerment are not enough by themselves to engage employees. They have to understand the purpose of their work and endorse it. They have to understand the link between what is to be done and the higher objectives.

Having a lot of freedom of action but not understanding clearly “what for” will not bring satisfaction as it lacks the sense of purpose. In this breaks down for the intermediate objectives to be met and the string of actions: what for?

The Goal Tree for guidance

The Goal Tree is the tool that shows the Goal to be achieved as well as the whole rationale linking the Necessary Conditions (intermediate objectives that must be satisfied) to the achievement of the Goal.

As such it is a roadmap and a great communication tool. It is easy to read and understand, can be left on its own for people to read or can be presented.

The Goal Tree provides guidance. The links between Necessary Conditions and their goals, which are Necessary Conditions to other goals higher in the Tree, are all based on necessity logic. This reads “in order to have A, we must have/need B”. It is easy to understand, to follow and to convince oneself about the logical soundness of the whole.

In the daily autonomous work, when in doubt about an action to take or decision to make, it is convenient to turn to the Goal Tree and check if the action of decision is aligned with the Goal to achieve or is it contributing to achieve some Necessary Condition ? If the answers are positive, go for it, otherwise don’t waste time and resources on something not contributing.

A Goal Tree is scalable

But what is also great with the Goal Tree is that is scalable. A Goal Tree is most probably a Tree made of nested Goal Trees. One Necessary Condition to the global Tree is someone’s or some department’s Goal. Therefore the underlying Necessary Conditions constitute a lower ranking Goal Tree, and so forth.

Goal Tree

Goal Trees are likely to go viral as their “beauty” and easy of use convince more stakeholders to start their own one to get clarity on their purpose and set of actions to undertake.

Ironically, I “infected” half a pharmaceutical plant with Goal Trees simply starting to use it for carefully planning a small local project. As the people to whom it was presented liked the Tree and immediately caught its potential, they started asking me to support them building their own or even gave it a try without telling anyone until it was ready to be presented.

Why the Goal Tree is more and more relevant

The Goal Tree enables the organization to grant more autonomy to the stakeholders while providing guidance and monitoring. It satisfies or supports most of the requirements for being responsive to customers, quick in new developments, clear about the objectives and so on.

It is a very good supporting tool for any business in which command-and-control management style is irrelevant, and those are expanding. I do believe the Goal Tree is more and more relevant.

About the author
View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn