When it comes to managing projects or people, although perhaps there is no difference between the two, the term, ‘objectives,’ is often used.
The thinking behind objectives is that it is necessary to create ways to measure progress toward broad-based goals, which often allow for substantial intepretation. Intepretation, though, can be dangerous, in business. Isn’t this why managers seek to control the variables in any equation?
Without measurable objectives, our staff may end up achieving any number of goals, none of which, however, may be the ‘right’ one. Perhaps, though, there is a way to reframe such discussions about objectives.
Is an objective a truth, or is it relative to the the understanding or persepctive of the individual (manager) who has conceived it? The very word, objective, implies something truthful. What if we hit all our objectives along the way toward a goal? What if we achieve our goal only to discover that what we envisioned as success does not work?
Whereas it may be easier to dictate the objectives to others, such a rationale reinforces the limited ways of thinking that plague not just business, but thinking in general.
When managers hatch their proverbial plans, there is an underlying assumption that the goals and objectives therein defined are somehow true. More than that, these goals and objectives are viewed as (the) truth.
Is there such a thing as truth? Perhaps a better question is whether there can be more than one truth at one time.
One possible answer to this question could be found in the perspectivist view of science, which Alrøe H. F. & Noe E. (2014) indicate implies there are many scientific truths about any complex problem. The question for them is not how to select the correct one, but how to appreciate and use what Longino says is “the nonunifiable plurality of partial knowledges” (2006).
The next time you enter a meeting — virtual or in-person — pay close attention if the conversation veers toward the predictable ‘goals and objectives.’
