I would pick both...that way the manager and employee can discuss the necessary and feasible for them and the company.
I have brand new staff and seasoned staff members on my team, so I would use a different approach and incorporate stategies that would acheive the desired results depending on which team member I was working with. I would use a top-down appraoch with my new staff and a bottom-up with my seasoned staff, this way each team member would get the direction that they need.
I have used both & found them to both be very effective.
Based on the staff I currently work with, I would employ a bottom up goal-setting process. The way the team is currently setup, moral is not the best and the motivation seems to come from within. By allowing them to develop goals toward the overall institution it could help boost moral and give them ownership in the overall vision of the institution.
We are part of a large organization of schools and goals are set in a top-down approach. However, I believe the best approach, and what they are always striving to do better, is more of an integration of the two approaches; although goals may be set at the top, they are trying hard to take into account the opinions and responsibilities of those on the bottom, who will actually be responsible for carrying out tasks. Although goals may continue to come from the top, better communication and more feedback from the bottom will result in much more realistic and attainable goal-setting.
andrea,
this is so true; we do not have to be passive. We can share our thoughts on the goals & help in the overall process.
Ryan Meers, Ph.D.
Based on where I am at, top down goal-setting process has the most benefit for career schools. The SBU president has a vision for the future and it is executed through the subordinates. This organizational goal setting would work best in this setting.
Both “top-down” and “bottom-up” are used within the company, depending on the level of the employee. The President has set a strategic plan which is broken down into different levels of management. Then goals are set with-in each team to achieve the goals set in the strategic plan.
Ryan,
yes, this is a great example of how the president's vision can be used for all of you to set effective goals for your respective areas.
Ryan Meers, Ph.D.
I think a combination of the two would work best for my team. The top down approach works for organizational goals but a bottom up approach can work for specific goals related to individual program specific goals.
Pamela,
this is very true & often the two pronged approach is the most effective.
Ryan Meers, Ph.D.
I agree with this statement. I feel a hybrid model is best and knowing when to use which is important. Individuals are just that, individuals with different backgrounds, work styles etc. I feel being a good leader requires one to be sensative to the various individuals, the various issues at hand and the tasks that need to be accomplished in both directions (top - down and bottom-up. I have always leaned in the direction of managment works for their staff and the clients / students / patients. I have found this leadership philosophy to work very well by letting all know that I am here to serve and support. That said, I also serve the company and my superiors who have tasks that need to be appropriated and managed. So being flexible is so very important in serving all well. Therefore the goal setting also needs to be individualized to the person, persons, or tasks at hand. Knowing which one and when to use is what, in my opinion works well.
Linda,
this is a great synopsis of an effective approach to goal-setting.
Ryan Meers, Ph.D.
The process I used in a prior position was bottom-up goal setting. At least, it was bottom-up if I understand correctly! Each staff member in the department devised his/her own goals, making sure they upheld the company’s mission statement and values, and applied the SMART criteria. I then shared the goals I created with my manager for approval- I believe this would be the negotiation process, as mentioned in the lesson.
My current position seems to employ top-down goal setting. I’ve been given a set of company goals from corporate that I believe my peers at other institutions also received. Using the company goals as a sort of guiding point, each institution in the corporation can create individual goals. Actually, I came into the job with those goals already in place, so I’m not really sure who drafted them. My task will be to determine the steps needed to accomplish said goals, and being a department of one doesn’t really give me an option to delegate tasks! I’ll probably use the SMART criteria in this situation as well.
The top-down process is kind of preferable in the latter situation, as I’m new to the company and it helps to know where to even begin; especially in terms of what the organization’s goals are that I’m working to meet.
In our campus, when we are going into a budget season, it starts bottom up, however ends up being top down. Once my teams goals are set each for the year then I take those goals and break them into individual ones based on tenure, ability, etc, which is top down.
Once the goal for each rep is established then I work with them individually to see what their personal stretch-goal is, what needs to happen weekly (or even daily) for them to achieve it.
Bobbi,
this is a great approach as it allows for input but also proper direction.
Ryan Meers, Ph.D.
As a program director, almost 100% of our goals are top-down. Very few goals are bottom-top. If they are not from corporate office then they are dictated by accrediting bodies.
Ruth Ann,
and I think it's valuable when I can take these goals & make sure they are owned & embraced by my team.
Ryan Meers, Ph.D.
I am at a college where I must utilize a top down system. It allows me to make sure the mission of the school is carried out and the program. I encourage the staff to make their own goals also, but I don't seem to have control over those.
Zillery,
the top down method can be effective when we make sure to understand & then articulate the why to those we lead.
Ryan Meers, Ph.D.
