WMBA 6201 Week 2 Goals That Settle Themselves Example

Five Goals Nobody Can Argue About in December: Rewriting a Dealership Service Department's Goals So Each Has a Countable Result, a System That Holds the Count and a Named Owner

Student Name

Walden University

WMBA 6201: Individual and Organizational Performance Management

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Five Goals Nobody Can Argue About in December: Rewriting a Dealership Service Department's Goals So Each Has a Countable Result, a System That Holds the Count and a Named Owner

Why Last Year's Goals Failed

Last December, the service manager at Cascade Ridge Auto, the composite dealership service department used in this course, sat down with each service advisor to review the year's goals. Every review turned into an argument. One goal read "improve customer satisfaction." An advisor whose scores rose from 86 to 88 out of 100 said she had improved; the manager pointed out that the manufacturer's regional average had risen more. Another goal read "reduce comebacks." Nobody had agreed on what counted as a comeback, and the department's records could support three different answers.

Locke and Latham (2002), pulling together thirty-five years of studies, showed that precise, demanding goals outperform loose exhortations to try hard, provided people are committed and receive feedback on progress. Last year's goals were vague, so they produced neither better performance nor agreement about what had happened. This paper rewrites the department's five goals for the coming half-year so that each can be settled from records.

The Test for Each Goal

A goal is settled if two people, reading the same records on the deadline, would reach the same conclusion. That requires four elements: a result that can be counted, a system that holds the count, a deadline and a named owner who reports on it.

The Rewritten Goals

Table 1

Five Goals Before and After Rewriting

Baselines are from the department's records for the past six months; the dealership is composite.

Why Each Rewrite Works

The comeback goal now defines a comeback precisely: a repair order on the same vehicle within 30 days or 1,000 miles that the shop foreman codes as a repeat repair. The definition excludes unrelated visits, such as a tire puncture a week after an oil change, which last year's records sometimes counted. The foreman's coding is a judgment, so the goal names him as owner and asks him to review coded cases with the service manager monthly.

The satisfaction goal now uses a target that moves with the region. Last year's argument arose because "improve" had no reference point; a top-quartile target against the manufacturer's own regional data cannot be disputed.

The inspection goal measures something advisors control directly. Last year's "do thorough inspections" could not be checked. The new goal uses the digital inspection tool's records, which show whether an inspection was completed and photographed.

The appointment goal measures the customer's experience at a fixed time each week, so the count cannot be chosen after the fact.

The development goal counts certifications completed, an outcome with a record, rather than training hours attended.

What the Goals Leave Out on Purpose

None of the five goals is a sales target. Advisors already earn commission on sales, and Kerr (1975) showed how paying for one result while wanting another backfires. Adding a sales goal to commission would push advisors further toward the behavior the Week 1 post found the department already overrewards. The goals instead target what the pay plan neglects: repairs that hold, customers who return satisfied and inspections that find real problems.

How Progress Will Be Reviewed

Each owner will report the current count monthly in a one-page summary, so nobody learns in December that a goal was missed in March. DeNisi and Murphy (2017) traced how appraisal research moved over a hundred years from annual ratings toward continuous management of performance, and monthly counts are the simplest form of that process.

Agreeing the Goals With the Advisors

Goals imposed in a memo invite the same December arguments the department is trying to avoid. The service manager will meet each advisor in January to review the five goals, explain how each count is produced and agree on the comeback definition in particular, since advisors will want to know how the foreman decides what counts as a repeat repair. Advisors can propose a change to a goal's target if they can point to a record that supports it. The agreed goals will be written into each advisor's file with the meeting date, so that in December both parties are reading the same document. Locke and Latham's research suggests that commitment to a goal strengthens its effect, and agreement in January is the cheapest way to build it.

What Happens Mid-Year

If a goal becomes impossible for reasons outside the department's control, for example a manufacturer recall that floods the drive with warranty work and pushes appointment availability past three days, the service manager may adjust that goal in writing, with the reason and the date. Adjustments are logged so that December's review compares results with the goals as they stood, not as they were first written.

The Remaining Risk

A goal that can be counted can also be gamed. Advisors could photograph a tire tread on every inspection to meet the inspection goal without inspecting carefully. The foreman could code fewer repeat repairs. The service manager will spot-check ten inspections and ten coded repairs a month, and Week 8 will return to the question of how measures invite distortion.

References

DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085

Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.2307/255378

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705