Agreed. I prefer the bottom up over all, but sometimes it is just a must for the manager to utilize top down.
I have used both. I prefer bottom up for myself but in work I have often used top down. Just depends on what you are dealing with and what will be most effective for the team.
As a college branch campus many of the directives or plans come from the main campus and as the branch Dean it is my responsibility to make it known to campus leaders what needs to be accomplished. Therefore I feel goal-setting from top down would be most effective to achieve campus goals.
I am new to goal setting for others but it appears our company does both. We have organizational goals set from the top but our personal growth is always set from the bottom. I imagine it is my job to blend them together.
My goal setting process would be from the top down. The Board of Trustees released our company's mission and new strategic goals for the next 5 years.
Also, we have just hired a new Chancellor and I have just hired 4 new staff within the last 5 months. Having top down goal setting is more realistic until everyone has the opportunity to learn more about the organization and more about the new Chancellor's mission for the college. I think that having bottom up goal setting would be stressful and unrealistic at this time.
I would have to agree with MR. Nutter. I have used both over the years.
Very interesting take. The inverse can also be successful. High performing groups can respond to top-down challenges, but tend to have higher expectations of their own performance. Having input to their goals can lead to amazing outcomes. Teams that are struggling need to focus on realistic goals, yes, but need the encouragement and validation from a manager that success is possible. Thanks, Patrick.
I have used both and here is why. Top down is important when your team is on a roll. When goals are being met they expect you to raise them. Failure to do so tells them that you think their hard work was an accident and that you don't believe in their ability to do it again. It has been my experience that after hitting an aggressive goal the team will try to pull back a little to give themself a little breathing room. A team leader cannot afford that to happen. If you give them that luxury they will usually produce at a lower level.
However, if the team does not make a goal they are usually upset about it and more motivated to make the next one happen. This is the best time to consult with them about what kind of goal they think will be realistic. More often than not they will set their goal higher than you would have. This will produce higher results for the team. Nobody likes to lose twice in a row!
Our goal-setting process for the team would be top down. Each year, top management establishes company goals. From there, middle management sets goals for their divisions and departments. Finally, individuals in the departments set their goals that align with the department goals.
When an individual or team meets their goal, it is recognized by the department. Then, it is announced to the division depending on its impact. Finally, it is posted on the Intranet or announced by top management for the company recognition depending on its magnitude.
This is an interesting question. Having been tutored (early in my career) in the MBO process of goal setting, I’ve witnessed the lack of support upper management gives the process when lower level managers and front line employees endeavor to employ MBO and the resulting objectives conflict with what upper management is trying to accomplish. So I would have to say that Top Down is better only because it is what will be accepted. This is not to say MBO (Quality Circles and the like)don't have a place, it is just that the corporate environment in the U.S. has not embraced it as much as it could have.
