Makes sense & as those less experienced team members gain more experience hopefully you will find that they too will be able to join in the goal setting process.
Ryan
I think with my staff we would need to include some goals that use the top down and some that use the bottom up.
Some of my staff are new and do not fully grasp how to best support the vision of the school.
Others, want to formulate their goals/actions in a way that makes more personal contributions to the school, while still falling under the vision the school wants to move in.
By working in both directions, I think each team member will be more fully committed to their goals and the school will benefit more.
This is a great strategy when you have a mix of employees like this. As you said, a great way to help ensure that each team member is more fully committed.
Ryan
I think that my goal-setting process would have to be top down since this is a new field for most of our staff. Setting up our process as top down will also allow me to supervise their process until our goal has been reached.
I agree with this approach given the lack of experience represented on your team. The important thing is to make sure that you are gaining the team's buy in & then as they do gain more experience shifting the process to a more bottom up approach.
Ryan
Being under the umbrella of a "corporation" I feel that both methods (bottom-up/top-down)are utilized. With our college it starts at the top, but if you don't feed it from the bottom up it falls apart. Input from both ends are needed and then with careful planning/consideration and implementation these two are meshed together.
I think you make a great point for all of us to consider. At times it can seem as if the process is top-down, when in reality the "top" has done a good job of seeking input & thoughts from all levels. In this way it really is a "meshing" of the two forms.
Ryan
Typically in education the faculty is comprised of highly educated individuls who have a high need for autonomy. So from my experience the process would be more "bottom-up" when it comes to goal setting. The difficulty may come in aligning factuly goals with those of the overall organization.
I prefer Bottom-Up. I think most employees respond well to this type of goal setting but I could see where some management teams would not want to use this type of goal setting especially if they have employees that are self-directed and procrastnators.
Jack,
Great point here. When we have those individuals who are motivated, experienced & capable of this type of bottom-up goal setting we need to try it. However, as you pointed out, before engaging in this we need to do all we can that we can make the connection with the goals of the organization. To fail to do this is, in my opinion, worse than forcing the goals from the top-down.
Ryan
I would agree that typically bottom-up is better. In addition to the procrastinators, you may have a group of employees who are simply not used to setting goals & so there may need to be a transition period where they are "trained." Obviously moving toward the goal of bottom-up.
Ryan
Typically the goal setting process is top-down goal setting. The people up above determine the performance metrics (the broad goals) for the team. From there, I will meet with each team player and together we will break down what the individual will need to accomplish. We set their SMART goal and if the individuals meet their goals the team as a unit will over achieve its goal. Build in a little buffer from team to individual goals.
I would use a combination of both. My staff gets some direction from me, somewhat top-down-goal- setting, where they receive specific objectives, but they also are to bring in their ideas for goals, that I would appropiately incorporate into the broader goals I have.
If I have "new" staff, new employees, I would use the top-down, until I know their motivation and their experience, that's when I would allow more individual goal setting.
Great plan & I think this illustrates an important point. There are different levels of goals. Sometimes we have to live with the big, overarching organizational goals, but we have an opportunity (as you illustrate) to engage employees in determining personal goals that tie in with the big goals.
Ryan
I think this is a great plan. I especially like your idea of using top-down with newer employees. Sometimes in our desire to encourage bottom-up, we can actually confuse or frustrate employees if they are not accustomed to this type of goal-setting.
Ryan
From the school's overall percerption, I think Top-Down is what works around here. However, for classroom and student development I believe a compromise of the two works best. Combining top and bottom, in my opinion, serves fuel for, not only discussion, but problem solving and participation.
Also, it is important to link training and coaching given in the future to their goals – employees are typically more willing, ready, and able to learn something new or accept feedback when they can align it with a goal that’s meaningful to them. The goal can’t be too easy to achieve, but it also shouldn’t be unrealistic either. Goals that are easily achieved leave employees bored and unmotivated. Goals that are too difficult to achieve – leave individuals frustrated and also unmotivated.
I agree with you the combination can be very powerful. It provides some direction from above, but allows for the participation from below & definitely stimulates discussion.
Ryan
An important point here regarding training & other aspects of personal development. As leaders we need to help our team members find training & developmental activities that are aligned with their goals. True, there may be training that is required for a job, but too often we send people to training for an "event" rather than making sure it aligns with their needs & goals.
Ryan
I would have to say bottom-up. In the nature of our business, we go by reports. My staff is aware of our goals and they understand the needs of our business.
