ED 123 464

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATEGRANTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 007 210

McConkie, Mark L.Management by Objectives: A CorrectionsPerspective.Georgia Univ., Athens. Southeastern CorrectionalManagement Training Council.National Inst. of Law Enforcement and CriminalJustice (Dept. of Justice /LEAA) , Washington, D.C.Jul 7574-ED-04-000954p.Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C. 20402 (Stock Number027-000-00352-4, $1.10)

MF-$0.83 HC-$3.50 Plus Postage.Administrator Guides; Correctional Education;*Correctional Rehabilitation; CorrectiveInstitutions; *Guidelines; *Management by Objectives;*Management Development; Management Systems; Manuals;*Program Development; Program Effectiveness; ProgramEvaluation; Program Planning

The handbook was designed as a guide to helpcorrectional personnel obtain better results in their work byapplying the principles of Management by Objectives (MBO) . Itdescribes methods of development and processes of implementation ofMBO in the correctional setting. The first chapter defines managementby objectives and illustrates that it can be applied in correctionsand can contribute to increased administrative efficiency. The secondchapter focuses on setting measurable objectives and enumerates someof the recurring roadblocks to successful MBO implementation. Chapter3 explains 16 guidelines for writing objectives while procedures forevaluating and revising the objectives are discussed in chapter 4.Chapter 5 deals with objective setting in areas considered.difficultto manage by objectives (public relations, educational programs,financial areas, and personnel departments) . Implementation andassessment of an MBO program are described in chapters 6 and 7. Thefinal chapter briefly discusses some frequent pitfalls encountered inMBO application. Appended are: checklists for applicability of MBO tonon- profit organizations and for writing objectives in MBO, a diagramshowing how to set objectives, and bibliographic references onovercoming resistance to change. A 14-item bibliography of MBOreferences concludes the handbook. (Author/MS)

Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes everyeffort to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal reproducibility are often encountered and this affects thequality of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS).EDRS is not responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made fromthe original.

MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES:A CORRECTIONS ,PERSPECTIVE

byMark L. McConkie

This writing was supported by Grant No. 74-ED-04-0009, awarded by the LawEnforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Dtpartment of Justice, to the South-eastern Correctional Management Training Council, an adjunct of the CorrectionsDivision, Institute of Government, University of Georgia. The points of viewor opinions stated in this document are tho-46 of 'the author, and do not necessarilyrepresent the official positions or policies of either the Institute of Governmentat the University of Georgia or of the U.S, Department of Justice.

July 1975

U S DEPARTMCNT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

1 5 DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-011:E0 EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMIrt PERSON OP ORGANIZATION ORIGIN

IG IT POINTS OF VIEW CR OPINIONS5 ,E0 DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE5,s 'OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFI.0 , CATION POSITION OR POLICY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICELaw Enforcement Assistance Administration

r:\z National Institute ofLaw Enforcement and Criminal Justice

1.40

9

LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCEADMINISTRATION

Richard W. Velde, AdministratorCharles R. Work, Deputy Administrator

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW ENFORCEMENTAND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Gerald M. Caplan, Director

GOT A MOMENT?

We'd like to know what you think of thisPrescriptivePackage.

The last page of this publication is aquestionnaire.

Will you take a few moments to complete it?The postage is prepaid.

Your answers will help us provide you withmore useful Prescriptive Packages.

For sate by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 Prise $1.10

Stook Number 021-000-001162-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pale

FOREWORD

PREFACE vi

CHAPTER

1. MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES IN THE CORRECTIONAL

SETTING 1

MBO Defined 1

Overcoming Initial Problems 2

Seeing eye to eye with the public 2

A need for increased managerial effectiveness 3

The applicability of MBO to corrections 3

II. OBJECTIVES: WHY? AND WHITHER? 6

Setting Objectives 6

Recurring Roadblocks 8

III. FORMULATING MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES 9

Guidelines for Writing Objectives in Corrections 9

IV. THE CAREFUL MOLDING OF OBJECTIVES 15

Key Questions for Evaluating Objectives 15

Sample Objectives 15

V. OBJECTIVE SETTING IN "UNMANAGEABLE" AREAS 25

Public Relations 25

Education Programs 25 .

Financial Objectives 26

Personnel Objectives 26

VI. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MANAGEMENT BYOBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS 28Prerequisites for Successful MBO Implementation 28

Some General Reminders 28

4

Page

Public Service Implementation Guidelines 30Top management 30Managerial relations 30General strategy considerations 31

Implementing MBO in Corrections 31If Your Ross Doesn't Want MBO 32In Conclusion 34

VII. MBO ASSESSMENT 35The Need for Assessment _____ 35Coaching Not Judging 35Intermediate Milestones 36Oral Evaluations 36Management Conferences 36Achievement Indicators to Watch 37Year End Evaluation 37

VIII, A FINAL WORD OF CAUTION 38Mutual Goal Setting 38The Human Point 38

APPENDICES

A. CHECKLIST FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF MBO TONON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 40

B. A CHECKLIST FOR WRITING OBJECTIVES IN MBO 41

C. "HOW DO WE SET OBJECTIVES": A SUGGESTION FORSHORT-TERM GOALS 42

D. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ON OVERCOMINGRESISTANCE TO CHANGE 44

BIBLIOGRAPHY 44

FIGURES

1. Majority Priority Classifications

2. Guidelines for Writing Objectives: A Summary 14

3. Objective Setting at HEW with Secretary Richardson 21

4. Management by Objectives Goal SettingGuirieline Chart 22.23

5iv

FOREWORD

In recent years pressures on correctional administrators to show thattheir programs are "effective" or "working" have increased. Management byObjectives: A Corrections Perspective examines goal setting in the cot,rections field. It suggests ways of assessing whether managers are ac-complishing what they want.

This report is one of the very few, if not the only, management byobjectives "how-to" manuals which deals with corrections. It draws uponcorrectional examples, applies its principles to correctional situations,was edited and criticized by correctional managers, and bears the mark of"correctional thinking." It is, in short, "Correctional MBO."

The report addresses two basic questions: What is management byobjectives? How, in step-by-step fashion, can it be implemented in cot,rections? In dealing with these concerns, the book effectively blends theresources of the academic world with those of correctional managers.

As correctional managers struggle to make goals and objectives work-able and effective, Management by Objectives: A Corrections Perspectivecan provide useful guidance.

GERALD M. CAPLANDirector, National Institute of LawEnforcement and Criminal Justice

v

PREFACE

This has been written to provide correctional managers with specificguidelines which will enable them to make decisions, set goals and objec-tives, and assess the effectiveness of correctional programs. The conceptsof management by objectives, first utilized in the private sector, are hereingiven the specific design of correctional management, and, as experience isbeginning to show, have the power to add great depth and vision to cor-rectional a/ministration.

This volume reflects the workings of the entire staff of the South-eastern Correctional Management Training Council, and is but one ofseveral resource documents designed for correctional managers by theCouncil, which is funded by Region IV of the Law Enforcement AssistanceAdministration. I am grateful for the assistance of Project Director, JoannB. Morton, whose comments, criticisms, and correctional insights havegiven the foundation and perspective upon which such a managementapproach as MBO must, in corrections, depend.' In addition, the yearsof managerial experience of Donald D. Brewer, Administrator of the Cor-rections Division of the Institute of Government at the University of Geor-gia, are mirrored throughout this volume, and his contribution is appreci-atively noted.

I would also like to thank the editor of this volume, Ann Blum, whosereviews and revisions of the manuscripts are gratefully acknowledged.

MARK L. IVIcComuE

7

vi

Chapter I. MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES INTHE CORRECTIONAL SETTING

This handbook is designed as a guide tohelp correctional personnel to obtain betterresults in their work by applying the prin-ciples of Management by Objectives (MBO).It describes the methods of development andthe processes of implementation of MBO inthe correctional setting. This first chapterdefines management by objectives and illu-strates that, although MBO has not yet beenextensively applied in corrections, it can beapplied and contribute to increased adminis-trative efficiency.

MBO DEFINED

Management by objectives (MBO) is asystemic approach to managerial problemsolving and decision making. It is a processwhich directs managerialand subordinategoal setting; its purpose is to identify andmeet organizational objectives. Frequentlymanagers find themselves surrounded by

administrative and managerial problems towhich they, through habit or some other faultof knowledge or technical ability, repeatedlyapply the same solution. The danger is not,however, in applying the same techniquestwicerather it lies in applying those techni-ques to circumstances where they are not ap-plicable. MBO is designed to overcome thiskind of thinking and behavior. Its focus is onsolving problems and obtaining resultsnoton the activities which lead to those results.

MBO is then "management by output" insteadof "management by activity" (Kleber, 1972,p. 71). Its basic concern is setting measurablegoals and providing avenues for achievingthem.

MBO operates on the assumption thatpeople work best when they understand whatthey are doing, why they are doing it, wherethey are headed, and what the final resultwill be (Federal Aviation Agency, 1974, p.4). Its theoretical underpinnings are found inDouglas McGregor's celebrated theory "Y,"which proposes the integration of the in-

dividual and the organization and suggeststhat "man will exercise self-direction andself-control in the service of objectives towhich he is committed" (McGregor, 1962).

Because MBO provides both manager andsubordinate with well-defined purpose anddirection, it encourages self-management andincreases motivation and satisfaction. It putsthe total job of a manager into perspective,breaking it down into its basic functions andactivities and providing him with an evalua-tion tool which pointedly (and sometimespainfully) reveals whether or not his manag-ing efforts are accomplishing what they areintended to achieve.

The underlying philosophy embracing themanagement by objectives approach is thatthe manager, or supervisor, is the key personin any organizational structureand this is asit should be. It is the manager who is ulti-

1

8

mately held responsible and who bears thegreatest burdens of pointing the directionsthe organization will follow and ensuring thatit does indeed go in the designated directions.This means that as correctional administratorsand managers set appropriate objectives, theyclarify not only individual responsibilities,but give direction to their programs as awhole.

This does not mean that managers setgoals and dictate to subordinates, or thatall organizational wisdom flows from the topdown. What it does mean is that managersmust manage: they cannot delegate their re-sponsibility to another nor sit idly and hopethat, laissez-faire, something will happen.They must motivate, encourage, direct, andassist. It is the function of MBO to guidemanagers in setting the kinds of goals andobjectives which most measurably or demon-strably bring results and increase the effec-tiveness of correctional programs.

OVERCOMING INITIAL PROBLEMS

Seeing eye to eye with the public

MBO has been slow in coming to correc-tions. The isolated, recorded instances whereMBO techniques have been applied to cor-rections are few and far from. sophisticated.In examining the Los Angeles County Proba-tion Department in one of the few descrip-tions of a corrections agency attempting toimplement MBO), Terwilliger and Adams_suggested that one reason why correctionsagencies have been slow in adopting MBOmay be the "persistent conflict and confu-sion" in society about the proper treatmentof offenders against the law (Terwilliger andAdams, 1969, p. 228). Because of theseconflicts and confusions, it has been diffi-cult to set goals or establish objectives. When

2

9

the public's perception of correctional goalsdiffers from the goals perceived by correc-tions peronnel, divergent expectations leadto frustration and, ultimately, to poor cor-rectional programs, activities, and results.

Consider the complaint that correctionsofficials do not always see their aims as thepublic perceives them. Because correctionspersonnel serve the public, they must not onlyknow what society wants but, when settinggoals and objectives, they must specify theirgoals and objectives in terms of what societywants and understands. Foi this reason it isimportant for officials to emphasize the bene-fits to society which can result from soundcorrectional programs and practices.

Dealing with the public is not only anawesome challenge, but also a vitally im-portant component of successful MBO usagein public agencies. Difficulties may easilyarise if corrections managers are not awareof their public responsibilities and responsiveto public concern. It is imperative, then, forcorrectional personnel to make conscious,deliberate attempts to inform the public interms that enhance the public's understandingand ability to see in measurable termsthe progress that corrections programs experi-ence. It is perfectly legitimate and desirableto work closely with news media, other gov-ernmental agencies, and civic, church, orother groups in order to help the public knowwhat is going on.

As the public understands the benefitto society which correctional programs bring,public support and approval inevitably fol-low. It is a delicate balance, however, whichcorrectional personnel must maintain. Theyare the trained and presumptively disciplinedspecialists; they are the ones most immedi-ately associated with corrections problems andpotential solutions; and they are the onesmost immediately held responsible for the

outcome of correctional programs. At thesame time, it is a somewhat undecided andperhaps ill-informed public to whom theyare ultimately responsible, that they are com-missioned to protect, and from whom theymust win approval. It becomes increasinglyobvious, then, that correctional personnelmust make an effort to keep the public in-formed so that they can see eye to eye.

This is not always easy. Just as correctionspersonnel are not all united on the purposeof corrections (incarceration, re-integration,rehabilitation, or what is now being calledhabilitation), neither is the public. Large por-tions of the public do not understand suchterms as "recidivism," "halfway houses,""work- release programs" or other words andphrases from correctional jargon. Consequent-ly, the public needs to be educated about cor-rections programs.

When attempting to help the public under-stand corrections and its MBO usage, remem-ber that there are some things the public willreadily understand, such as decreases andincreases in expenditures or fewer numbersof ex-offenders returning to criminal activi-ties. It is important to accent those featureswhich are both central to MBO and readilyunderstood by the public.

Because of the differences of perceptionbetween the public and correctional manage-ment, corrections agencies, in serving thepublic, should remember that they must begineducation at the level the public understandsand to which it is emotionally attached. Fromthat starting point, the agency should workwith the public and bring the public as nearlyas possible to the level of understanding atwhich the agency operates. As the publicunderstands corrections activities, it becomessupportive, and programs are increasinglyproductive.

10

A need for increased managerialeffectiveness

A second, and perhaps more tragic, im-pediment to the implementation of MBO inthe past may lie in the lack of managerialsophistication of correctional personnel (Ter-williger and Adams, 1969, p. 2). Althoughthe importance of setting objectives has beenincreasingly eplphasized in recent years, theobjectives set have rarely directed achieve.ment to specific, identifiable, and measur-able goals and results.

While this is not a problem peculiar tocorrections, it is one of which correctionalpersonnel need to be aware. One of the simp-lest and most direct remedies to this problemis the adoption and implementation of anMBO programnot that MBO is a substitutefor effective management, but rather that itgives the manager the needed tools withwhich to solve managerial problems. Manage-ment and staff development seminars, work-shops, and conferences are useful; in-servicetraining programs, instructive; and team -building exercises, important. However, whenthese activities and programs are held inconcert with an overall managerial philo-sophyone that embraces every level ofagency activitythen the entire agency canbegin to function as an harmonious whole.That is why MBO is emphasized; when pro-perly utilized, it has a positive impact onevery level of management activity.

The applicability of MBO to corrections

A third retardant to MBO implementationhas been the prevailing notion that MBO wasdesigned for profit-oriented, commercial en-terprises, and therefore was not applicable toservice-oriented, non-profit, and. governmentalorganizations. Increased acceptance and usageof MBO in non-profit motivated organizations

are, however, proving that MBO is applicablewhen properly designed.

It would be illogical to assume that be-cause MBO has not yet been extensively used,that it will not, cannot, or should not beused. Indeed, as corrections managers learnfrom the mistakes of their predecessors, thereis no reason to suggest that MBO will notincrease organizational effectiveness and goalaccomplishment.

Admittedly, the applicability of MBOasystem born and developed under the profitmotive of commercial enterpriseto the non-profit activities of government has createdsome honest concern. It is more difficult toset goals in a public service setting. Goalsetting is easier when we can see if we haveimproved profits or increased sales or in-creased stock values. Measuring services,however, is not so simple: how do youmeasure the value of education release pro-grams, of a halfway house, of vocationaltraining, or of scores of other correctionalprograms? Difficult though the measurementof services may be, there are hundreds of non-profit, volunteer, and government organiza-tions which are successfully employing MBO*techniques, all of which demonstrate that it

does work in non-profit situations.In applying MBO to corrections, it is im-

portant to note that many correctional activi-

Dale McConkey, a leading MBO proponent, ob-serves that the applicability of MBO to non-profitoriented organizations is seen in its wide usage byschools, hospitals, numerous volunteer organiza-tions, municipal organizations, nursing homes,churches, child-care centers, and police depart-ments. It has also been profitable in governmentlaboratories such as the Fort Madison, Wisconsin,Forest Products Laboratory, and in the U.S. NavySystems Supply Command in Sapporo, Japan, aswell as by the Canadian Post Office. For furtherdetails on these programs, see Dale D. McConkey."Applying MBO to non-profit organizations,"S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, Jan. 1973,pp. 10-20.

ties are identical to profit-oriented businessactivities. These include purchasing, personnelmanagement, finance functions, public rela-tions, and program administration.

"A manager is a manager," says Mc-Conkey, "regardless of the product or servicewith which he deals" (McConkey, 1973, p.10). Consequently, managers in non-profitorganizations should not be "immune fromstrict accountability to those whom they serveand from whom they depend for their fundsand support" (McConkey, 1973, p. 10). Theremoval of a profit motive does not removeresponsibility for behaviors which are con-trolled and determined by legislative allot-ment or public sanction. MBO helps imposestandards of accountability.

In a very real sense, there is a "profit"motive in corrections, although it is not de-fined or always measured in terms of dol-larsnor indeed should it be. Businessmenachieve profit by realizing a higher returnon existing assets or by obtaining the samereturn on lesser assets. The same is true ofcorrections programs where efforts are made,for example, to reduce recidivism by 7%within the framework of the same manpowerunits employed, or to increase the numberof high school diplomas granted at the endof a selected instruction period. In short,

correctional programs seek a better returnon investments, even though those investmentsare made in terms other than money.

That corrections has many elements incommon with business enterprises can beseen from the effort to get a higher returnon such resources as the following:

lower overhead costs.more effective crime prevention throughimproved rehabilitation techniques.greater results from paid and non-paidworkers.

4

11

lowering the administrative costs ofoperating the organization.reducing wasted effort and/or wastesin the utilization of any assets.blending together of the efforts of allpersonnel to achieve an overall effec-tiveness which is greater than the sum ofindividual efforts (McConkey, 1973, p.10).To summarize, note that there is no ap-

parent reason why MBO could not, or should

not, be applied to corrections. It has beensuccessfully used in a substantial number ofservice-oriented public enterprises, and hasan untapped potential for assisting correc-tional managers in their struggle for man-agerial and agency efficiency increases.

5

12

REFI ,ENCES

Federal Aviation Agency. Management byobjectives. Handout prepared by F.A.A.and given by Jay Meisel to participantsof SCMTC Conference on MBO, Athens,Georgia, January 13-15 1974, 4.

Kleber, T.P. "The six hardest areas to manageby objectives." Personnel Journal, August1972, .571-575.

McConkey, D. "Applying MBO to non-profitorganizations." S.A.M. Advanced Man-agement Journal, January 1973, 10-20.

McGregor, D. The huma- side of enterprise.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Terwilliger, C., and Adams, S. "Probationdepartment and management by objec-tives." Crime and Delinquency, 1969, 15(2), 227-237.

Chapter II. OBJECTIVES: WHY? AND WHITHER?

This chapter:

focuses on the importance of settingmeasurable objectives,offers reminders as to where managersshould direct their principal labors,confronts some entangling definitionalproblems, and

glances at some of the RECURRINGROADBLOCKS to successful MBO im-plementation in corrections.

Many MBO students distinguish betweengoals and objectives by calling goals the long-term achievements, while viewing objectivesas short-term targets. In this book the twoterms are used interchangeably since the samecriteria exist for the establishment of long-term and short-term pUrposes, no matterwhat they are called. Such definitional prob-lems are thereby avoided, as they are not ofgreat consequence in the outcome or imple-mentation of MBO. The important thing, afterall, is to understand how the principlesoperate, rather than to worry about what theyshould be called.

SETTING OBJECTIVES

Setting objectives is the heart of the man-agement by objectives process. The importanceof properly setting goals, or objectives, can-not be overemphasized. "We shape our build-ings ;" said Winston Churchill, "the:reafterthey shape us." So it is with objectives. Onceset, they tend to direct behavior and activities

6

1.3

in a given direction; if inappropriately set,they can lead an agency astray.

To set objectives, managers must firstknow where they are going. The process ofcoming to understand the purpose of anagency and where it is ping is not an easyone. It can be a long and a painful processfor individuals; for government agencies itis usually a little easier, since legislaturesgenerally provide enabling legislation which,in part at least, defines their purpose.

This all seems obvious. Nonetheless, it isherein noted because "managers typicallyfocus on activities rather than on an organi-zation's mission" (Federal Aviation Agency,1974, p. 2). Activities are designed to assistin accomplishing something greater. If man-agerial focus is on different activitiesir-respective of how productive, important, or at-tractive they may seem at the momentthenthe agency will slide off course, landing in amire of low achievement. The central focusof managers must be on achieving the intended result, goal, objective, or fulfillingthe purpose for which the organization wascreated in the first place.

There are as many methods for determin-ing objectives as there are different managers.The method which an individual managerselects is a matter of personal choice. In anMBO system, regardless of the technique used,the end result "should be a list of measur-able objectives that will describe what themanager and his organization expect to ac-complish (and what they can be evaluated

MAJORITY PRIORITY CLASSIFICATIONS

Adapted from George L. Morrisey, Management by objectives and results. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1970, p. 49.

against)" (Morrisey, 1970, p. 42). A hier-archy of objectives may then be created, allinterrelated to some degree, and all designedto help meet a small number of "central pur-poses" for which the agency is responsible.From this hierarchy, the objectives stand tohelp guide and direct the activities. (Acti-vities, remember, do not direct goals.)

7

14

There is no need to try to defend objec-tives in the eyes of all who read them. Objec-tives are set to help those who need to knownot others. Design objectives for the use andunderstanding of thoSe who will be involvedin using and implementing them.

This is sometimes difficult to do in cor-rections because the public and the legislature

often fall into this "need to know" category,and they may not always understand agencyobjectives. While, as was suggested earlier,correctional managers need to acquaint thepublic with correctional activities, ideals, andgoals, objectives designed for l'iy1B0 should notbe used for this publicity purpose. Otheravenues for disseminating public informationshould be devised. Educating the public is afunction of management, but not a functionof the agency objectives.

Objectives must reflect the total job expec-tation of the agency, be specific and accurate,and above all, simple. Simplicity is the firstkey, as the simpler the objective is, the morelikely it is to be used.

It is not hard to identify more objectivesthan it is possible to meet. There are alwaysmore important contributions to be made thanthere is time available. Therefore, set priori-ties so that the more important objectives arenot neglected while pursuing the less im-portant ones. Effective management consistsin isolating and pursuing the most importantand central objectives.

Three simple groupings, which illustratehow priorities might be set, include:

A MUST-DO category, consisi.ing ofthose objectives which, if left uncum-pleted, would cause the death of theorganization. These objectives are centralto organizational survival; they must beaccomplished if the manager, or the orga-nization, is to justify existence.The OUGHT-TO-DO grouping, contain-ing those objectives which are necessaryfor improved performance. These are vitalto the growth and health of the organiza-tion or agency. An agency can existbutnot progresswithout meeting them.The NICE-TO-DO class, composed ofthose objectives which are desirable forimproved performance, but which couldbe postponed or eliminated if necessary.These objectives provide opportunity fornew or untried ideas, or for moving to

8

and fro to accommodate political needswithin and without the organization. Ex-pressed graphically (see Fig. 1), eachconcentric circle represents one of thethree areas of priorities. For a managerto properly set his priorities, he shouldenvision himself on a journey which startsat the center point of the circles andleads him to the edge, traversing fromthe MUST-DO's, to the OUGHT-TO-DO's, .and resting finally at the NICE-TO-DOstage.

RECURRING ROADBLOCKS

Typical of many of the initial experienceswith MBO and objective setting is that ofthe Los Angeles County Probation Depart-ment. In evaluating its pre-MBO objectives,it discovered:

that frequently the definitions were toovague to have real meaning;that many of the then current probationdepartment activities were unrelated tothe department objectives; andmanagers were not well trained in de-signing and using objectives, which wereneither operationalized nor understood bythem and therefore were not "uniformlyinterpreted, and consistently applied with-in the department" (Terwilliger andAdams, 1.969, p. 229).

REFERENCES

Federal Aviation Agency. Management by ob-jectives. Handout prepared by F.A.A. andgiven by Jay Meisel to participants ofSCMTC Conference on MBO, Athens,Georgia, Jan. 13-15 1974, 2.

Morrisey, G.L. Management by objectivesand results. Reading, Mass.: P.ddison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970.

Terwilliger, C., and Adams, S. "Probationdepartment management by objectives."Crime and Delinquency, 1969, 15 (2),

:".5 227-237.

Chapter III. FORMULATINGMEASURABLE OBJECTIVES

When goals and objectives are properlyestablished, the problems noted in the pre-vious chapter fade. This chapter lists guide-lines to assist correctional managers in setting goals correctly.

GUIDELINES FOR WRITINGOBJECTIVES IN CORRECTIONS

In setting objectives, the following guide-lines are suggested:*

1. Objectives should be expressedas public benefits wherever possible.

2. Written objectives should startwith the word "to" followed by an ac-tion verb.Achievement comes as a result of action;the commitment to action is basic.

3. Objectives should specify a singlekey result to be accomplished.Measurement can best be achieved when thoseinvolved can clearly see what has, and whathas not, been accomplished. For example,in the objective "to develop and implement ahigh school equivalency degree program inthe four state institutions by January 1,1976," the single key would be "implement."

*These guidelines are a summation of the work ofGeorge Morrisey, and are found in Chapter 5 ofhis book, ikfanagernent by objectives and results,Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com-pany, 1970.

9

1.6

Although there are several parts to this ob-jective, the key result would be the imple-mentation of the program. The developingof the program, finding potential employersand teachers, and gaining school and com-munity support are all activities designed tohelp implement the program; but they areonly activities, and not goals.

4. Objectives shoe ld specify a targetdate for accomplishment.

A measurable objective must include a com-pletion date, which may be the end of a forecast period (month, quarter, fiscal year, etc.).A specific calendar date allows the managerto clearly determine if the objective wasachieved.

5. Objectives should specify maxi-mum cost factors (dollars, man-hours,materials, etc.).

Cost is an important tool of measurement.Some objectives are difficult to define interms of cost, particularly in corrections, butnevertheless, all objectives should be lookedat from a cost point of view. On occasion it

will be sufficient to state (or imply) that theobjective be accomplished "within the existingbudget." This is true not only for businessenterprises, but also for the public serviceagencies of government which have limitedfunds and must report to the public or thelegislature on how those funds were utilized.

Just as budgets are used to control, they canalso be used to measure and evaluate.

6. Objectives should be realistic, at-tainable, and challenging.Objectives are motivators. Managers shouldstrike a balance in setting objectives. Thosewhich are too remote to be reached will in-duce discouragement and defeatism; thosewhich are too easily met will encourage idle-ness.

7. Objectives should be as specificand quantitative (and hence measurableand verifiable) as is possible.This is one of the most challenging aspectsof goal setting, particularly for service-oriented and non-profit organizations. Fre-quen4, we hear managers complain thatputting quantitative measures on services isnot possible. In an absolute sense they maybe correct, but more often than not they aresimply seeking an excuse for not reallytrying to quantify their goals, because specific,quantifiable goals place measurable accoun-tability and responsibility on the manager'sshoulders. The object, however, is not to focuson what cannot be done, but on what can bedone.

Specifically, as applied to corrections, anobjective "to eliminate recidivism in the stateof Alabama by January 1, 1976" may bespecific ("eliminate recidivism") and quanti-fiable (you can count the number of peoplewho are returned to prison, for example), butsuch an objective, as noted in number 5 above,is neither realistic nor attainable. Neverthe-less, though recidivism may not be completelyeliminated, we can at least do better than wedid last year! Therefore, in specific and quan-tifiable terms, the objective can be improvedby seeking "to reduce the 1975 recidivismrate in the state of Alabama by 10% before

10

17

January 1, 1977." The objective is nowquantifiable, or measurable, and realistic.Quantifiability was established by introduc-ing some measure or standard of comparisonand stating it in numbers.*

In corrections, objectives should be setwith the awareness that people on the out-side of the system (the public, legislators,the news media) as well as those within thesystem need to see that you have done whatyou said you would. This is one of the reasonsit is so important to measure results in spe.cif is terms. We are no, measuring moneyspent or time involved, but rather the end,result.

Goals define the aim, or end result; theydo not describe how to get things done. Noth-ing is said in a goal or objective about betterequipment, in-service training, or increasedmanpower needsthough these, perhaps,should be considered in defining and makingthe goal. The goal, or objective, then, is

simply a specific and quantifiable statementwhich defines the result desired.

Inasmuch as the problem of putting ser-vices and "non-money" items into quanti-fiable language is a sticky one, the followinglist of dimensions for measurement, preparedby Paul Mali (Mali, 1972, pp. 114-115),is included. It illustrates that quantifiablemeasurement can be made in terms of:

volume of amountsunite of productiontime unitsfrequency ratesratios

index numberspercentages or proportionsaverages

'Often definitions are needed, as with the word"recidivism," which has a number of differentmeanings, and is frequently applied differently.

number aggregatesdegrees

phases

percentiles, quartiles, and centilesmean deviationscorrelationsnumber of occurrencesmoney spent

8. Objectives should specify only the"what" and "when"; they should avoidventuring into the "why" and "how."Again, an objective is a statement of "the re-sults to be achieved." Determining "why"an organization exists must occur well be-fore the actual writing of objectives. Althoughit is important that those affected by an ob-jective understand why it is written, the wayto irform them is not in the objective itself.

Similarly, the means of accomplishing theobjectiveidentifying how it is to be carriedoutwill not normally be a part of the writ-ten objective. However, occasions will arisewhen it is critical that the objective be car-ried out by a particular method. In thesecases, include the "how" in the objective.

Take the example "to increase capabilityof each parole officer by a minimum ofone critical skill through an on-the-job train-ing program by (date) within the existingbudget." In this objective the on-the-job train-ing program deliberately describes "how" theobjective is to be met. The manager specifi-cally states that he will use on-the-job train-ing, in preference, for example, to sendingparole officers to a formal training program.

9. Objectives should relate directly tothe accountable manager's role and mis-sions and to higher level roles, missions,and objectives.This very obvious guideline is one of themost critical for testing the validity of oo-

jectives. It is too easy for managers andothers to get side-tracked into pursuing ob-jectives which are not central to the purposeof management. It is here that the medievalcaution of not letting the things which mattermost be at the mercy of those which matterleast must be applied. While managers fre-quently are required to pursue non-centralobjectives (political reasons, temporary set-backs, sudden pressures from upper manage.ment), they should be aware in so doing ofthe impact such peripheral activities will haveupon the primary concerns and objectivesof the organization. Obtaining the resultsdesired is not always a matter of doing every-thing that at first appears desirable.

10. Objectives should be readily un-derstandable to those who will be con-tributing to their attainment.This is a fundamental reminder that under-standing is the basis of communication.

When we begin to use precise wording(even adopting the language and idiom of theemployees, where necessary), then we beginto achieve the specificity required for validobjectives. Objectives must be meaningful tothose who are to implement them.

11. Objectives should be consistentwith the resources available or antici-pated.More common sense! A perfect objectivecould have no value if, for example, therewere neither sufficient funds nor manpoweravailable to make it operative. Goal settingmay require some cost-benefit analysis, and itcertainly requires advance planning and fa-miliarity with resources.

12. Objectives should avoid or min-imize dual accountability for achieve-ment when joint effort is required.

11

1.8

Successful objectives are piloted to com-

pletion by placing final responsibility andaccountability in one individual or manager.Occasionally, the efforts of more than oneindividual or organization are needed to com-plete an objective; nevertheless, somewhereaccountability should be focused in one in-dividual. It is often possible to subdivideobjectives for each related manager, but onemanager should always be given primary re-sponsibility' and the others placed in suppor-tive roles. This is one of the first and mostbasic principles of good management as wellas of effective objective Setting.

13. Objectives should be consistentwith basic organizational policies andpractices.If the potential objective conflicts with or-ganization policies or practices, some changesin the objective may be requiredalthough,conversely, the need for changes in organiza-tion policies may be indicated. If the con-flict is crucial, the objective may have to beset aside. It is not possible for correctionalunits to control all the impacting variables(ethical considerations or community rela-tions, for example), but it is vital that theybe able to respond to them.

14. Ob jectives should be willinglyagreed to by both superior and sub-ordinate without undue pressure orcoercion.Goal setting is not a matter of the managerdictating objectives to subordinates; nor wouldit be expected that a senior manager wouldapprove simply because a junior managerset an objective by saying: "This is whatI'm going to do." The content of the objectivecan and should be the result of discussion andnegotiation between the two (or more) partiesinvolved. One of the significant lessons of re-search on human behavior is that groups ofpeople tend to make better decisions than

12

19

individuals and that managers and their sub-ordinates working together make better de-cisions (and objectives) than either do alone.Cooperative goal setting controls overzealoussubordinates or unrealistic managers.

Some critics argue that MBO often causesemployees to avoid responsibility. They con-tend that when employees see that somethinghas not been doneor is not being donethey respond: "That isn't in my goals." Hence,by implication, "I was not responsible."Much of the fault here lies with vague, all-encompassing (and therefore poor) goals,and in the failure to jointly identify whereresponsibility lies. MBO is a guideline tech-nique. It was never intended to define to thelast degree every responsibility from loadingstaplers to filling the pool cars with gasoline.

15. Objectives should be written witha copy kept and periodically referredto by both superior and subordinate.When objectives are written, there is no dif-ficulty in later remembering what the man-ager and subordinates agreed to. Writtenobjectives are a constant reminder of whatyou have agreed upon, where you are, andwhere you are going. However, a written ob-jective is of no value if it is stored in a fileor desk drawer. Managers should meet on aregular basisweekly, monthly, quarterly, orwhenever it is systematically appropriateto conduct an "oral evaluation" with the sub-ordinate, to discuss the written objectives, andto determine what progress is being made andwhat management can do to help.

16. Ob jectives should be communi-cated not only in writing, but also inface-to-face discussions between the ac-countable manager and those subordi-nates who will be contributing to its at-tainmer,;.This guideline is, in many ways, a restate.

ment of the previous one. A face-to-face oralevaluation provides the opportunity to ensureclear understanding and to smooth out working differences. At this point the managersshould provide advice, direction, motivation,and encouragement.

The aforementioned guidelines are not anunbreakable course, or a fool-proof pattern.Circumstances will require that individualmanagers mold these guidelines to their pe-culiar situation. Nevertheless, when, changesare made they should be made with the recog-nition that every step away from these guide-lines endangers the success of managementby objectives. These guidelines present a

stable guide to achieving results: their ob-jective is results; they are designed to helpmeasure results; they are, in short, results-oriented.

13

REFERENCES

Mali, P. Managing by objectives. New York:J. Wiley and Sons, 1972, 114-115.

C.2,. 0

Figure 2 GUIDELINES FOR WRITING OBJECTIVES: A SUMMARY*

Objectives Should:

1. Be expressed as public benefits wherever possible.

2. Start with the word "to" followed by an action verb.

3. Specify a single key result to be accomplished.

4. Specify a target date for accomplishment.

5. Specify maximum cost factors.

6. Be realistic and attainable, yet challenging.

7. Be as specific and quantitative (and hence measurableand verifiable) as possible.

8. Specify only the "what" and "when"; they should avoidventuring into the "why" and "how".

9. Relate directly to the accountable manager's role andmissions and to higher level roles, missions, and objectives.

10. Be readily understandable to those who will be contri-buting to their attainment.

11. Be consistent with the resources available or anticipated.

12. Avoid or minimize dual accountability for achievementwhen joint effort is required.

13. Be consistent with basic organizational policies and prac-tices.

14. Be willingly agreed to by both superior and subordinatewithout undue pressure or coercion.

15. Be recorded in writing, with a copy kept and periodicallyreferred to by both superior and subordinate.

16. Be communicated not only in writing, but also in face-to-face discussions between the accountable manager andthose subordinates who will be contributing to its attain-ment.

*Appendix B contains a similar guideline summary, prepared by Paul Mali.To properly set objectives, it would be profitable to turn to Mali's con-tribution.

14

2 1

Chapter IV. THE CAREFULMOLDING OF OBJECTIVES

After having delineated the course thatshould be follOwed in setting objectives(Chapter 3), it is important to ensure thatthey are properly set. To this end, this chap-ter :

includes a series of key questions withwhich managers can readily evaluate theirown objectives; andexamines and revises some poor ob-jectives. The accompanying commentaryshould help to show how to change poorlyexpressed objectives into good ones.

KEY QUESTIONS FOR EVALUATINGOBJECTIVES

George Morrisey (Morrisey, 1970, p. 63)has suggested that the adequacy of objectivescan be readily determined by asking thefollowing questions about them:

1. Is the objective statement constructedproperly? To (action verb) (singlekey result) by (target date) at (cost).

2. Is it measurable and verifiable?3. Does it relate directly to the manager's

roles and missions and to higher-level roles, missions, and objectives?

4. Can it be readily understood by thosewho must implement it?

5. Is the 9bjective a realistic and attain-able one that still represents a sig-nificant challenge to the manager andhis organization?

6. Will the result, when achieved, justify

15

22

the expenditure of time and resourcesrequired to achieve it?

7. Is the objective consistent with basiccompany and organizational policiesand practices?

8. Can the accountability for final re-sults be clearly established?

SAMPLE OBJECTIVES

A series of sample objectivesall ofwhich have been written by correctional agen-cies and departments in the United Statesfollow. All of them have been remolded sothat they conform to MBO process thinking.The comments should help to clarify why thechanges were made.

Original Goal: "The major goal of the Di-vision of Rehabilitative Services is the treat-ment and training of inmates to enable themto take their place in society as law-abidingcitizens upon release."

Comments:The objective is too broad to permitaccurate measurement of accomplishment:it lacks specificity and quantifiability.There is no implied or understood defi-nition of "treatment and training" or"law abiding citizens," so it is difficultto evaluate or to fix accountability.Cost factors are not mentioned.

The target date for completion isnebulous.

Revised Goal: "Within the existing budget,to reduce by 20% the number of releaseeswho are returned to confinement during theprison year ending December 31, 1976."

The "treatment and training" of inmates areactivities designed to help accomplish thegoalbut they do not constitute the ultimategoal. The end resultto make law abidingcitizens out of those incarceratedis to bemeasured by how well they are able to copewith the challenges of life outside of prisonand so conduct themselves as to avoid recon-finement. We can reasonably assume that ifthey are not in prison, they are conformingto the standards of the law. Counting the num-ber of former prisoners who are returned toconfinement during the specified period ofgoal activity will reveal, in measurable form,how well the objective has been met, and seta standard of comparison.

Original Goal: "Provide the inmates withrehabilitative training in equipment, busi-ness procedures, operations, and products."

Comments:This agency goal focuses on the activi-ties which, in part, make possible the endresult: obtaining employment.--It does not specify a target date forcompletion.No single key accomplishment is fo-

cused on.--It does not lend itself to measurementor quantifiability.

This goal is very much like the first goal, and,properly reconstructed, could be presented inyet a second fashion. Consider the followingremolding:

Revised Goal: "To train, with marketable

16

23

skills, 95% of those who will be releasedfrom prison during the fiscal year 1976,"To justify such a revision, some stubborndefinitional problems must first be overcome.To begin with, goals and objectives shouldalways be set with an understanding of"where we are, where we have been, andwhere we are going." This, of course, requiressome degree of pre-goal formulation assess-ment, and a consequent understanding by allinvolved as to the meaning of the term "mar-ketable skills." By defining "marketableskills" as skills which are bought, or used,by the labor market, it is implicit that thethings inmates are taught will be needed bythe labor market upon their release. Hence, ifinmates are taught nothing more than to makelicense plates, and upon release are unableto find employment making license plates,that particular skill is an unmarketable one,and one that should not be relied upon tosustain life outside of the prison.

A second danger is that, with this typeof revision, if terms are not properly defined,it may be thought that the only ninasure of thesuccessfully rehabilitated offender is whetheror not he/she is able to retain employmenton the outside. Such is obviously not the case.Nonetheless, for a training division, which iscommissioned to teach the technical and busi-ness skills needed as a part of the complexof activities which form rehabilitation efforts,it is justifiable to think in terms of measuringhow well people apply what they have beentaught. The chaplain, of course, would needto identify a different objective. The point isthat the goal must be specifically designed formeasurement by the unit involved.

Suppose, however, that the original goalto "provide inmates with rehabilitative train-ing in equipment, business procedures, opera-tions, and products" is that of a vocationaltraining section within the system, and not

of the entire system. Some inadequacies stillmust be overcome if successful achievementis to be measured. Notice that this goal:

lacks a single focus of accomplishment,lacks a completion target date,needs to be quantifiable, anddescribes activities rather than the endresult sought.A vocational training section would do

well then to set goals in the same fashionas the system as a wholethe only differ-ences would be in considering the number ofpeople involved, and perhaps, in the range,or scope, of the goals set: department goalsmay not be as far reaching or all-encompass-ing as those of the entire system. A depart-ment would be concerned with providingtraining so that lasting employment could besecured by "95%" of those in their equip-ment training or business courses, or perhapsof the total number of prisoners taking alltraining courses.

Original Goal: "The goal of this departmentis to protect society by safekeeping offenderscommitted to its institutional custody. Goodreligious, health, educational, vocational, ac-ademic, counseling and recreational programsare provided to develop the individual intoa beneficial subject who can successfullyfunction as a useful tax-paying citizen uponhis return to the community."

Comments: This goal is troubled by:

conflicting (and therefore confusing)philosophical approaches to corrections,

a focus on activities rather than on endresults,the absence of standards of quantifi-

ability,failure to include target completiondate, andthe failure to mention cost factors.

17

24

How is this goal to be measured? Whoknows when it has been fulfilled? Certainlynot the public, and probably not the correc-tions personnel involved.

The first clause in this goal deals withprotecting society "by safekeeping offenderscommitted to its institutional custody," or inother words, it assumes that the purpose ofcorrections is to protect society by keepingundesirables off the streets through imprison-ing them. The second part of the original goaldeals with an entirely different philosophyof corrections, that of rehabilitating personscommitted to institutional care. Hence it

speaks of the different rehabilitative pro-grams to be utilized: "good religious, health,educational, vocational, counseling, and

recreational programs. . . ."

This goal raises the philosophical que5tionof whether the function of corrections is to"protect society" by locking up and removingcriminal elements from society, or to "protectsociety" by correcting or rehabilitating anti-social behaviors and preparing people to re-turn to useful social functions, in this case,through "good" programs. If it is the former,then success can be measured simply bynoting how many offenders committed to cor-rectional custody have remained confined dur-ing the course of their sentencesi.e., the

percentage who have not escaped. If the goalof corrections is the latter, then goal accomp-lishment can be measured by the percentageof offenders who have sufficiently recoveredfrom their social ills to be able to return tosociety at large as responsible, productive,and law-abiding citizens.

This serious weakness of steering the at-tention of corrections personnel in two di-

vergent philosophical directions creates prob-

lems, When goals are set, inclusion of morethan one philosophical approach in the samegoal is self-destructive--no agency can suc-

cessfully walk in two opposing directions atthe game time. It -is confusing, frustrating,and discouraging to personnel who find it im-possible to identify with certainty what is ex-pected of them.

The revised goal, as included in this workfor instruction purposes, has discarded theone approach and reconstructed the goal interms of the perspective that the purpose ofcorrections is to detain offenders, or to pro-tect society by confining violators of the law.It is not the purpose of this book to enter intoa philosophical discussion of the purpose ofcorrections, and the above revision is not in-tended to be an endorsement of any particularviewpoint; the revised goal is given only toillustrate how goals should be set, and whennecessary, restructured.

The good religious, vocational, education.al, academic, and health training programsare only activities which lead to the accomp-lishment of the overall goal. The departmentcould establish goals which deal specificallywith the percentage of inmates receiving re-ligious, vocational, educational, and academictraining. By combining these two functions,the original goal makes it impossible toisolate the responsibility for goal accom-plishment. A revised goal, then, might looksomething like this:

Revised Goal: "To reduce by 10% thenumber of inmates returned to confinementwithin the next 12 months."

This appears to be a legitimate departmentgoal. The objective is to so change the think-ing and behavior patterns of inmates thatonce on the outside they will not only wantto remain free from confinement, but thatthey will also have the skills necessary toenable them to stay out of prison.

The process of education, of vocationaltreatment, religious instruction, and academic

18

25

training are only sub-parts of this goal. Sinceit will become important that they be properlyattended to, these activities should also bequantified into a measurable format thatpermits evaluation. The quality of trainingprograms will be improved by rememberingthat the purpose of the training is to provideskills of sufficient standards to meet the de-mands of the outside world. In other words,by bearing in mind the overall goal, the sub-goals which attend the various activities willhave a more precise direction and accomp-lishment. Training will be improved, whichin turn will improve the quality, and prob-ably the percentage, of inmates returned tosociety.

Original Goal: "The purpose of the SuicidePrevention Program is to give support, hu-man concern, and warmth to those who havelow self-esteem and feelings of hopelessness.The strength of this treatment program ispersonal human concern and care involvedin building a basic trust."

Comments: Once again, this goal, like someof the previous illustrations:

focuses on activities rather than results.makes no mention of completion targetdates,

escapes quantifiable means of measure-ment,

lacks a single key accomplishment, andventures into the "how-to" rather thanconcentrating on the "what" and "when."

This lack of adherence to the principlesof effective goal setting creates some signifi-cant problems. Initially, the focus on activitiesrather than on results ties the hands of bothmanagement and employees: it leads to aloss of perception and direction,

Shouldn't the purpose of a suicide pre-vention program be to prevent suicide? Since

it would be unrealistic to suggest that suicidebe completely eradicated, a more feasiblegoal would be the reduction of suicide by acertain number or percentage within a chosentime frame.

True enough, it is important that a SuicidePrevention Program extend human concernand warmth to those of low self-esteem andfeelings of hopelessness; but those are onlythe building blocks upon which suicide pre-vention is carried outthey are not the endresult or ultimate goal sought. Because a sui-cide prevention program is preventative,many of its efforts must necessarily be de-voted to the program, or activities, of isola-ting those potential suicides within its juris-diction and then using the programs to helppotential suicides from occurring. With theseperspectives, consider the following revisedgoal:

Revised Goal: "To so effectively carry out.Suicide Prevention activities that the numberof suicides in the stale is reduced by 7%over the previous year."

This revised goal assumes that the termina-tion date is the end of the year. It mentionsactivities, but only insofar as they are theavenues through which the goal is to he ac-complished. It would have been better tohave said that the goal was "to reduce thenumber of suicides by 7% over the previousyear." However, the former revision is hereinincluded because it illustrates that on oc-casion, the method of accomplishing the goalcan, with propriety, be included in the goalstatement. There is no significant differencebetween the two revisions.

Original Goal: "The goal of the vocationaland academic education in the correctionalsetting is to provide the of fender with op-portunities to make up for frequent educa-

aorta:, occupational, and social skill defi-

ciencies requisite to maintaining gainfulemployment cad fulfilling social responsi-bilities upon release. In the institutionalsetting, education and training are viewednot as separate entities but as integral pertsof the total treatment process."

Comments: This goal suffers under thestress of:

definitional problems,or standards of quantifiability,

absence of a single key accomplish-ment,

an undefined time frame within whichto complete the goal, anda delineation of activities rather thanend results.Again, definitional problems impede goal

achievement. Unless such terms as "vocationaland academic education," "skill deficien-cies," and "gainful employment" are clearlyunderstood, it is unlikely that an agency willmove toward achieving those objectives. In-deed, we must place some measure of quan-tifiable evaluation upon the conditions of thegoal, but MBOand this is extremely impor-tantis not just a matter of counting mem-bers, increasing percentages, or doing moreof what was done in the past. These thingsmust occur, it is true, but in addition, MBOseeks to highlight the primary goal of theagency and see that it is accomplished. Incorrections we speak a great deal about "of-fender rehabilitation" and the importance ofrehabilitating more people and reintegratingthem into society. Nevertheless, in so doing,let us remember that we are not just countingbodies or numbers, but rather specific kindsof bodies and numbersthose which havebeen defined as a legitimate part of the coregoal.

19

Z0

That is to say, our goal is to actuallyrehabilitate offenders and not just count thenumber of offenders treated. In other words,as we deal with vocational, academic, orany educational program and use terms like"skill deficiencies" or "gainful employment,"we must so clearly specify what these termsmean that we can then place quantifiablemeasures on them. The desired end is to avoidambiguity in goal statements. Terms shouldnot be defined within the written goal orobjectives. However both management andsubordinates must have a clear understandingof the meaning of all terminology utilized inorder to accomplish the stated goal.

David Beach and Walter Mahler addressthemselves to this concern by saying:

First of all, it is never easy to define objectives. Generalized objectives, such as 'lowerproduction costs,' or 'make more profit,' meanno more than 'let's get together sometime,'which people say only when they have littleintention of meeting again. To be meaningful,an objective must be specific, or quantitative,and also time - bound. You must project some-thing like 'reduce production costs of ModelA 7 percent by December 31,' or 'Average a28 percent share of the national market forproduct B during 1973.' These are measuredobjectives. You can know if you attain them(Beach and Mahler, 1972, pp. 232-233).

Therefore, we conclude, in the abovegoal, that the danger point arises in havinggeneralized vague objectives without a singlekey accomplishment at which efforts can bedirected. Nor does this goal specify a timeframe or a standard whereby managementknows when the goal has actually been

achieved. Because this goal is too expansive,it begins to cover the activities rather thanthe end objective. Consider the following re-structuring:

Revised Goal: "To reduce the number ofex-offenders returning to confinement by

15% over the number who returned duringthe previous year."

A particular sub-unit within the rehabilita-tion system, perhaps an instructional unit ora training division, might even consider thefollowing revision:

A Second Revision for a Training Di-vision: "To ensure that the number of ex-of f enders gainfully employed one year fromnow is increased by 4% over the presentnumber."

In a similar fashion, others may also re-shape the overall goals of the organization sothat the particular goals of their sub-units con-form to the overall picture. Once again, alldefinitional problems (e.g. "gainfully employed ") must be resolved prior to actualgoal setting if the goal is to have any strength.

George Morrisey illustrates how objectivescan be reconstructed by evaluating an objec-tive which was once submitted to him. Con-sider Morrisey's analysis:

Morrisey's Original Objective: "Improvethe communication and working relationsamong key employees in my unit so thatbetter quality work will be produced."

Morrisey's comments: "Too vague. Con-centrate on the results you wantimprovedquality. What is your measure of quality ef-fectiveness? 'Communications, etc.' are 'how-to's' and, if they represent the means to theend, they need to be defined more specificallyin your program step" (Morrisey, 1970, pp.65-66). ,

A more complete perspective on what isintended here can be seen in Figure 3 (p. 21),which contains a "typical dialogue" betweenformer Secretary of the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, Elliot Richardson,and one of the agency heads under his juris-diction.

2.7

Figure 3 OBJECTIVE SETTING AT HEW WITH SECRETARY RICHARDSON

Here is a typical dialogue between former Secretary Elliot Richardson of HEWand an agency head as they formulated an objective.

Agency head: One of our agency's most importantinitiatives this year will be to focus our efforts in thearea of alcoholism and to treat an additional 10,000alcoholics. Given last year's funding of 41 alcoholismtreatment centers and the direction of other resourcesat the state and local level, we feel that this is anachievable objective.Secretary: Are these 41 centers operating indepen-dently or are they linked to other service organiza-tions in their communities? In other words, are wetreating the whole problem of alcoholism, includingits employment, mental health and welfare aspects,or are we just treating the symptoms of alcoholism?Agency head: A program requirement for gettingfunds is that the services involved must be linked inan integrated fashion with these other resources.Secretary: I am not interested in just looking at thenumber of alcoholics that are treated. Our goalought to be the actual rehabilitation of these patients.Do you have data to enable you to restate the ob-jective in terms of that goal?Agency head: As a matter of fact, Mr. Secretary, wehave developed a management information andevaluation system in which each grantee will be pro-viding quarterly data on the number of alcoholicstreated, as well as on the number of alcoholics whoare actually rehabilitated.Secretary: How do you define "rehabilitated?"Agency head: If they are gainfully employed oneyear after treatment, we regard them as being re-habilitated.Secretary: Please revise this objective, then, to enableus to track progress on how effective these programsreally are in treating the disease of alcoholism andin rehabilitating alcoholics.

Taken from Rodney H. Brady, "MBO goes to work in the public sector," Harvard Business Re-view, March-April 1973, p. 73.

21

23

Figure 4 MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES GOAL SETTING GUIDELINECHART*

Jackson County Correctional Inst. Goals set by Finn B. Paulsen - Dir.-Voc. Trng. in conjunction with(division, dept., agency, unit name) (manager or supervisor's name)

Glen Rudd-Trainer for the Fiscal vear-AuR. 31, 1976-Sept. 1, 1977, ending Sept. 1. 1977,(subordinate's name) (time period in which goal is to be accomplished) (termination date of goal period)

Area of ManagerManagerial Accountable for

No. Responsibility Goal AchievementBasic ProblemArea Defined

Goal, Objective, or Methods ofEnd Result (the single Communicatingkey accomplishment) Goals to Employees

1 VocationalTraining

Finn B.Paulsen

Too manyinmatesleaving with-out adequateor marketableskill training

1 To increase by 5%the number ofinmates returnedto society withmarketable skillson or before theend of the fiscalyear.

1. Goal settingsession ofmanager andtrainer.

2. Staff meet-ing discus-sion.

3. AgencyNewsletter

4. InterofficeMemos

243

22

Interim EvaluationConferences of Target Interim Measures Maximum Does this goalManager and Completion of Goal Cost Standards of relate to overallSubordineie Date Accomplishments Factor Quantifiability agency goals?

1. Dec. 6, 1976 1. Comparing Within Percentage Yes2. March 15, 1977 percentage existing of qualified3. June 7, 1977 of graduates budget inmates4. Sept. 1,

1977(inmatesreleased) withpercentageat same timelast year.

released(and additionallyas required)

2. Supervisorprogressreports

3. Class examsd9. performanceexams

*This guideline is designed to help managers in actual goal setting sessions with subordinates. Byfollowing this guide, managers will find it easier to set realistic and measurable goals. Notice thatthe focus of attention is centered in the "what" of goal setting, not in the "how to." The particularexample used here spells out the broad agency goal, but the chart's utility further extends to, andshould be used, in sub-unit objective setting. Similar usage can be made of this chart for goal settingin all areas of correctional management. Additional goals can be charted in the remaining horizontalrows, so that any number of desired goals or objectives can be traced.

23

30

It was noted earlier that the importantlearning experience was how to set goals andobjectives rather than how to make seriousdistinctions between "goals" and "objectives."Overall department goals in the correctionalfield are frequently closely related, and per-haps infrequently almost identical. However,there are substantial differences in the short-term or department or agency sub-unit ob-jectives, and it is here that much of the needfor MBO application is seen. Nevertheless,once the fundamental principles are learned,it does not matter whether a division is operat-ing a work release program or a halfwayhouse, teaching mechanical skills or appliedaccounting; the same overriding principleswill be invoked. Those principles are applieduniformly, and Figure 4 (p. 22) is a graphicillustration of the course the manager andsubordinate should pursue in answering thedemands of management by objectives. Ifthe questions posed by the diagram are an-swered in the goal setting process, then thelikelihood of setting operational objectives isgreatly increased. Appendix C contains a con-ceptual depiction of some of the same ideas,and was prepared by George Morrisey to helpidentify the routes available to goal setting.

It is also important to note that MBO willhave applicability in every department and

31

24

division within departments, irrespective offunction. In some areas it will be more chal-lenging to implement and evaluate. Personneldepartments, accountants, auditors, and edu-cators (training divisions) typically strugglemore intensely with goal setting than doothers. Nevertheless, few meaningful objec-tives are beyond effective measurement.

The significance of this chapter is that itprovides a standard of measure against whichgoals can be evaluated. It takes a great dealof time and energy to properly set goals, butit takes moremuch moreto muddlethrough managerial decisions without thehoning process of evaluating the objectivesset.

Chapter 5 will look at some of the goalsand objectives which have been set by per-sons in some of these difficult areas as evidence that it is possible to set such objectives.

REFERENCES

Beach, D. N., and Mahler, W. R. "Manage-ment by objectives." In A. J. Marrow, Thefailure of success. New York: The Ameri-can Management Association, 1972.

Morrisey, G. L. Management by objectivesand results. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970.

Chapter V. OBJECTIVE SETTINGIN "UNMANAGEABLE" AREAS

This chapter, dealing with objective set-ting in what are frequently considered to bedifficult areas to manage by objectives, il-

lustrates goals and objectives set in:

public relations,educational programs,financial areas, andpersonnel departments.

The illustrations show that in reality it is pos-sible, though challenging, to set objectives inthese areas.

PUBLIC RELATIONS

Public relations programs have been hardto manage by objectives because they are dif-

ficult to evaluate. How do you measureagency morale or community feeling aboutthe department's efforts?

Thomas Kleber suggests that one way is toevaluate the output indicators of public re-lations programs. For example, one of theactivities of PR may be "writing and distri-bution of various publications for a num-ber of various publics (e.g., active and re-tired employees, area and community of-ficials. . . ). The objective is to providecertain information about the organization tospecial interest groups" (Kleber, 1972, p.572).

The objectives listed below are -written inMBO form and indicate how goals may beset in the area of public relations:

25

3'J

To increase, within the next six months,the public awareness of depoimental pro-grams by obtaining six two-minute spotson television explaining the need for in-creased involvement in community basedprograms.To apprise, by December 1, 1976, allmember agencies of the SCMTC of alltraining courses to be offered in 1977.To improve during this working yearour informational capacity by increasingdistribution of citizens handbooks by10%, brochures by 10%, and the monthlynewsletter by 15% over the previous year.To inform the public, through the crea-tion of 10 public education programs witha capacity to instruct 500 people withinthe next year, of how they can protectthemselves against crime.To create four central citizen complaintand service bureaus in Tampa and Miamiby the end of April, 1975.Because the public relations function is

but one of many of the department's func-tions, the goalsor what others have so oftencalled objectives because of their short-termnature deal specifically, and almost en-tirely, with public relations programs. Forthis reason it is increasingly tempting toquantify activities rather than end results.

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

As in managing public relations, the prin-cipal challenge in managing education ca-

training programs is that of evaluating theirresults. Once again, emphasis on output indi-cators (such as student attendance, budgets,parent and teacher conferences, library use)directs attention to managing by objectives.One consultam team, when confronted withevaluating the merit of an executive trainingcourse, rebelled at the thought of measuringsuccess in terms of the number of studentsgraduating from the course. Quite unex-pectedly, however, they discovered a relation.ship between the number of graduates andthe quality of the program.

Note the following MBO objectivesframed for education programs:

To increase the training skill level byincreasing in-service training by 6% overthe previous fiscal year.To make available to management per-sonnel 25 selected management texts byNovember 15, 1975.To increase by four the number ofagency personnel attending professionalexecutive training seminars or workshopsduring the coming year.To reduce by 5%, on or before Decem-ber 31, 1975, the number of inmates notactively pursuing a marketable skill.To enroll an additional 15 juveniles inlocal night school programs before theclose of the coming academic year.

FINANCIAL OBJECTIVES

Perhaps the best approach to managingcontrollers, accountants, and auditors involvesadopting the perspective that their servicescan be assigned a dollar valuemakingmeasurement and evaluation relatively sim-ple. Kleber observes that "recognizing ser-vices as the controller department's outputis an essential first step to devising statisticalindicators (e.g., number of reports prepared, 3

26

error rates, timeliness of studies, etc.)around which the day to day management ofthe department by objectives can be orga-nized" (Kleber, 1972, p. 573). Consider thefollowing financial objectives:

Complete training of three replace-ments for key positions in the accountingsection by next June.Reduce the dollar value of cost of re-turned material credits from an averageof $20,000 per month in the precedingyear to $15,000 per month in the comingyear.

Complete study and construct index ofexpense trends for all 'artments for thepast five years and project anticipated expense of future at annual intervals. Set10% reduction targets from this projectedexpense.

Collect from six operating managerslong distance telephone call analyses andrecommendations for controls of number,type, and cost of all calls.Complete write-up and acceptance ofcompany cost-reduction manual and dis-tribute to all members of managementwithin two months (Mali, 1972, pp. 119-120).

PERSONNEL OBJECTIVES

Personnel departments nominally strug-gle with goal setting, largely because they arestaff support units offering services to nearlyevery arm of the entire agency. Troublesomethough the personnel objective setting task is,the following examples, taken from PaulMali's work (Mali, 1972, p. 123) illustratethat such objectives can indeed be set:

Complete for distribution at the end ofthe month a 20-page, 10-topic industrial-relations policy manual for newly hiredemployees.

Reduce the absenteeism record for nextyear from 8 to 5%.

Complete training by December, 1976,of 600 supervisors in 2-day seminars onmanaging by objectives.Reduce frequency of grievances by theend of the year from an annual averageof 35 to 20.Increase outside correspondence an-swered from 25 to 75% within 24 hours.hours.Decrease termination rate of clericalemployees from 25 to 15%.Employ at least one trained psycholo-gist or rehabilitation counselor in each ofthe Federal Institutions within our juris-diction by January 1, 1975.Increase by 10% the number of prison.ers involved in education or rehabilitationprograms by January 1, 1975.Continued experience with MBO reveals,

although the task is frequently taxing, thatvery few if any areas of public managementescape some solid measures of quantifiability.The preceding examples illustrate that goalsand objectives can be properly set in thoseareas which management has traditionallyconsidered difficult to manage by these

means.

3 4

27

REFERENCES

Kleber, T. P. "The six hardest areas to man-age by objectives." Personnel Journal,August 1972.

Mali, P. Managing by objectives. New York:J. Wiley and Sons, 1972.

Chapter VI. THE IMPLEMENTATIONOF MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES

IN CORRECTIONS

In this chapter we shall:

consider some of the prerequisitessuccessful MBO implementation;offer some general reminders (or "cau-tions" if you will) dealing with MBOimplementation and use;discuss briefly some of the obstaclesthat frequently confront MBO users;provide some guidelines for the imple-mentation of MBO in the public sector(corrections in particular) ; andillustrate how MBO can be used evenin circumstances where top management(or upper management) does not incor-porate MBO in its program planning.

4. Substituting maximum participationto from all personnel for the sometimes

autocratic and despotic ideas of a few.5. A complete tailoring or adapting of

the MBO system to the individualproblems or conditions which exist inthe individual entity to which it isapplied.

6. The removal, or diminishing, by legis-lative or executive action of many ofthe impediments which act as limitations on the ability of MBO to achievethe full potential of which it is cap-ablelimitations such as emphasizingeffort rather than results, provisionswhich protect the ineffective person-nel, practice's which stifle individualinitiative and permit flexible decisionmaking, and systems which fail toprovide recognition and rewards.

7. A constant re-examination of the sys-tem after installation to improve itand render it responsive to the chang-ing conditions in the environment inwhich it is being practiced.

PREREQUISITES FOR SUCCESSFUL MBOIMPLEMENTATION

Dale McConkey (McConkey, 1973, p. 20)provides a checklist which outlines the pre-requisites for the implementation of a suc-cessful MBO program. It includes the fol-lowing:

1. The selection of highly competentmanagers, administrators, and pro-fessionals in all key positions.

2. In-depth training in the completeMBO system before any attempt ismade to apply it.

3. Allowing the three to four years re-quired to make a successful installa-tion.

28

3J

SOME GENERAL REMINDERS

As managers begin to implement MBO,they need to remember that MBO is not afixed set of. rules, gimmicks, or techniquesused to so:Ne problems, but a reasoning pro-cess which encompasses the entire organiza-tion. It is not a separate program which

parasitically rides on the back of other exist-ing programs. When the manager begins touse MBO as a hitchhiker working in tandemwith other existing programs, he begins todrain MBO of its strength and focus. To besuccessful, managers and subordinates mustview MBO as a way of managing and not as aspecific technique tacked on to other prob-lems. The recognition that MBO is clearly themost effective when it is the guiding forcethroughout the entire organization, and notjust a part of the organization, has recentlyset the wheels of change in motion in manylarge organizations, public and private (in-cluding the Federal Aviation Agency and theDepartment of Health, Education and Wel-fare), which are changing their entire pro-gram structures to conform to MBO standards.

In discussing the process of MBO imple-mentation in the organizational setting, it

seems appropriate to recount some of the im-pediments to implementation which earlyMBO users encountered. As indicated earlier,when the Los Angeles County Probation De-partment began to implement MBO, it had toovercome the difficulties imposed by proba-tion personnel who did not have a sound un-derstanding of the probation function. Thetask force assigned to the study of the prob-lem

. . . found a serious lack of knowledge andunderstanding of the probation function evenamong people who should be familiar with it.Many tended to perceive probation narrowly,reflecting their limited contacts or relation-ships with the department. Almost all had criti-cisms and suggestions related to their specialareas of interest (Terwilliger and Adams, 1969,p. 229).

Little thought seems to have been given tomany facets of MBO activitymutual goalsetting, tying goals to overall organizationmission and role, or making goals which re-late directly to the accountable manager's

AI/

29

36

roles. This kind of parochial thinking en-dangers MBO implementation on an organi-zation-wide basis.

Reflecting upon another problem, RodneyBrady reports that "the primary constraintto the success of MBO at HEW has been anattitude on the part of some managers thatthe regular attentico required of them by sucha system is either (a) not consistent with theirroles or (b) not as effective; a way to manageas some other approach" (Brady, 1973, p.71).

Perhaps the most challenging problemswhich managers and organizations confrontare those which require persuading subordi-nates and organization members to acceptchange. People tend to resist change for amultitude of reasons: change requires theexpenditure of psychic and emotional energy;it has the potential of thrusting people intothe "unknown future" and thus threateningsecurity; it treads up= long established andcomfortable traditions and customs; it sug-gests that perhaps the past was "wrong" orthat former energies were ill-directed; or itmay interfere with present loyalties and com-mitment. In short, because people genericallyresist change, managers must recognize thatthe implementation of MBO will be difficultand slow. Beach and Mahler (Beach andMahler, 1972) suggest that it may take sev-eral years before any real or substantial bene-fits are seen in an MBO program. Not only

is preparatory time needed because of thenatural tendency of people to resist change,but in the case of MBO implementation, ad-ditional preparations must be made becausechanges which tie people to specific andmeasurable goals are even more threateningthan changes which do not.

It is not possible to provide an in-depthanalysis of what managers must do to over-come resistance to change in this book. Never.

theless, it is important that change be ac-ceptable. An important part of this processis that of including as many subordinates inthe process of planning for change as it ispossible to include. Not only are they entitledto know why the changes are taking place, butif they are a part of the decision makingmechanism which determines to introduceMBO into the system, the probability of theirenergetic support is greatly enhanced. Formanagers interested in this particular prob-lem of overcoming resistance to change, ashort but far-reaching bibliography dealingwith the subject is included in Appendix D.

PUBLIC SERVICEIMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

Setting objectives in the public sectorin corrections in particularis a differentprocess than it is in the private sector. In cor-rections, objectives must usually be stated interms of interim results, rather than on "re-turn on investments" as is done in the businessworld. Through the usage of milestone charts,"which document accomplishments to beachieved by established dates, progresstoward achieving almost any objective canbe measured" (Brady, 1973, p. 71).

The following recommendations from theexperience of the Department of Health, Edu-cation and Welfare are appropriate for estab-lishing MBO systems in corrections (Brady,1973, pp. 72-73) .

Top Management:MBO must be tailored to the chief execu-tive's style of managing. One leader might.take a decisive role in the operation of thesystem, while another leader might wellhave a different style of operating. Re-sistance to modifying the system to fit thestyle can destroy the MBO process.The chief executive officer must communi-

3037

cate clearly to other organizational com-ponents what he feels the general goalsand priorities of the organization ought tobe. Without such guidance, the subordi-nates' development of initial objectivesfor submission to the boss tends to bewasteful and counter-productive.The chief executive's attitude affects thespirit in which the system functions, andit will determine whether MBO en-courages the defining and solving of prob-lems or the hiding of problems. If MBOis perceived by a chief executive as aproblem-solving and goal-reaching device,(rather than as an opportunity to point anaccusing finger at one of his subordi-nates), the subordinates themselves arelikely to take this view.

Managerial Relationships:The establishment of objectives must be acooperative venture between subordinateand superior . . . Unless both parties feelthat the objective is important, challeng-ing, and achievable, even cooperative ac-tivity will become only a meaninglessexercise.Managers must be persuaded that the pri-mary function of MBO is to enable themto manage more effectively, not to use themanagement conference to reach the earof the chief executive on random issuesof particular momentary interest to themanager.To be effective, the MBO system mustoperate on a line manager-to-subordinatebasis, not on a staff-to-staff basis. Al-though staff assistance is essential to keepthe system functioning, staff must serve asa facilitator of the system and not itsoperator. To operate otherwise invites con-fusion in lines of authority and causes abreakdown in accountability.Unless the superior and subordinate haveregular face-to-face reviews of interimprogress, the importance of the systembegins to be questioned, there is danger ofmisunderstanding, and much of the moti-vational value of the system is lost. Prior

to such interim review meetings, it is es-sential that the superior's staff preparehim to ask the right questions and to avoidbeing "snowed" by the subordinates.

General Strategy Considerations:It is important to receive a detailed planfor accomplishing an objective at the sametime the objective itself is submitted forapproval. Otherwise, proposed objectivestoo often will not be well thought out inadvance, and the possibility for eventualsuccess will, ultimately be decreased.A middle ground must be found betweenholdingipersonnel too rigidly to their ob-jectives and allowing them to alter theobjectives at will. HEW's method has beento (a) have the Secretary himself approveall proposed changes and (b) ensure thatsuch changes are evaluated in eachagency's annual performance report.If an organization is consistently accom-plishing 100% of its objectives there isprobably reason for concern rather thancelebration. Objectives are not really ef-fective unless an organization must"stretch" to reach them. During the lastfiscal year, for example, approximatelyone-fourth of HEW's objectives were onlypartially achieved and another one-eighthfell far short of expectation. This is prob-ably not an unhealthy balance.It is a mistake to try to make MBO so sys-tematic and rigid that it precludes dis-cussion of important matters not containedin formalized objectives. In fact, MBOshould be expected to trigger ad hoc dis-cussions of matters that are not includedin stated objectives but are nonethelessvital to the success of the organization.MBO is perhaps better perceived as amuscle than as merely a tool. The more itis used, the stronger and more necessaryit becomes. However, if MBO is merelya management system on paper and is notallowed to be exercised as an integral partof running an organization, it will atro-phy and become useless.

Ultimately, the purpose of setting goals

lies in the follow-up and implementationof those goals. That is where progress isachieved. Since the implementation processincludes the allocation of resources, it be-comes important, in the early planning stages,to consider alternative ways of reading theobjectives. This is the point where managersshould train themselves to think in specificterms rather than in generalities. For ex-ample, it is not sufficient to merely think of"rehabilitating offenders." This should bebroken down, so that the manager knows whatthe elements involved in "rehabilitation" in-clude. In other words, managers should iden-tify and diagnose specific rehabilitation prob-lems, isolate their causes, and develop cor-rective programs aimed directly at thesecauses. Although managers will be forced tothink of some of the activities which willlead to goal accomplishment, this does notgive license to confusing goals and activities.

It further appears that one of the frequentimpediments to the successful implementationof MBO has been the failure of managementto instruct subordinates in the art of goalsetting. "Managers must be trained to helptheir subordinates set realistic goals. Theyshould know how to conduct progress reviewand lead problem solving discussions" (Beachand Mahler, 1972, p. 237). It is lamentablethat few organizations make allowance forthis kind of training, on both formal and in-formal levels.

IMPLEMENTING MBO IN CORRECTIONS

Of all the lists, guidelines, and step-by-step guides designed to help managers, inchecklist fashion, determine what they mustdo in order to implement management by ob-jectives without overlooking something, per-haps the most immediately applicable to cor-

31

33

rections is that provided by Terwilliger andAdams (Terwilliger and Adams, 1969, pp.236-237). It is as follows:

1. "Tentative" adoption of objectives bythe department.

2. Review and approval, as required, bythe Board of Supervisors, the chiefadministrative officer, judges, andothers.

3. Adoption by the department of "man-agement by objectives" as its standardmanagerial philoso ?hy and practice.

4. Definition of various organizationalresponsibilities for implementation;assignment of responsibilities to keystaff members and organizationalunits.

5. Training management personnel inmanagement by objectives.

6. Dissemination of information to staffon objectives and related planning.

7. Development of plans of implementa-tion specific to various organizationalunits, including decisions on prioritiesamong units.

8. Specification and description of long-and short-range goals derived fromand supportive of primary objectivesor purposes. Achievement of goals de-fined for a lower level should con-tribute to the achievement of goals de-fined for the higher levels.

9. Statement of goals and sub-goals interms that provide specific guides toaction, are amenable to measurement,and are meaningful to lower-levelpersonnel.

10. Continued orientation of staff to ob-jectives and goals, with opportunityto participate in development, modifi-cation, and refinement of organiza-tional goals for themselves and theirwork units.

11. Assistance to individual employeesand their supervisors in the setting ofpersonal goals related to organiza-tional goals. 3

32

12. Development of plans of action toachieve both organization and per-sonal goals.

13. Analysis and allocation of resourcesrequired to carry out planned action,with reference to specific goals andsub-goals.

14. Identification of anticipated problemsthat might be attributed to changingconditions, inadequate planning, or in-adequate resources.

15. Specification of employee tasks, per-formance standards, and measurementcriteria related to goal achievement.

16. Delineation of training requirementsbased on Item 15, with attention tointerface of organizational and per-sonal goals and needs.

17. Development of management controland information systems essential tomonitoring performance.

18. Management control through actualperformance measurement and evalua-tion.

19. Research for the development of op-timal means of achieving goals.

20. Scrutiny of activities, programs, andservices to assure that they are instru-mental to achievement of approvedorganizational goals. Elimination ofactivities that do not satisfy this cri-terion.

21. Educating and informing the public,key interest groups, and related agen-cies on objectives, goals, and progresstoward achievement.

22. (Re-)iteration of objectives, goals,and plans for achieving themthroughout the department, redefiningand recombining organizational andpersonal goals until an optimal levelof achievement for each is realized.

IF YOUR Boss DOESN'T WANT MBO

Traditional organization theory has fo-

cused upon the process of starting at the topof the organization and working down;changes traditionally were initiated by higherlevel managers and passed down to those inthe lower echelons. This, however, is not theonly way that changes can come about. In-deed, in the current era of organizational re-search there is serious question as to whetheror not this kind of a top-to-bottom directionchange is followed very often. We repeated.ly see top executives step down from theirthrones because of the frustrations whichaccompany the failure to make their influencefelt at the lower levels of the organization.Experience, as well as empirical research, isshowing that it is extremely difficult to pene-trate large bureaucracies and cause mana-gerial influence to have strong impact atlower levels.

What appears to happen frequently is

that goals and organizational directions "sortahappen." By the process of group consensus,a working compromise emerges which becomes the goal of the organization. This hasa specific relevance for MBO implementation,particularly for those who are in middle andlower management levels and therefore feelthat they are not in positions to initiatechange.

Certainly, if the top levels of managementare not behind an MBO program, then theprogram will not be adopted on an agency-wide basis. Indeed, one of the greatest prob-lems discovered in ineffective MBO programshas been the lack of top management commitment to the philosophy of MBO (Tosi andCarroll, 1972, p. 568). Nevertheless, a greatdeal can be done by middle and lower levelmanagers even without the direct overt sup-port of their superiors. This is mentioned sothat no one will cling to the excuse that be-cause "the boss has a different system," it isnot possible or productive to use MBO sys-

33

tems in their organizations. It may not, ad-mittedly, be as productive as it would havebeen with the approbation and involvementof the top management, but the implementa-tion of MBO principles can lead to increasedefficiency on the part of those managers whoare willing to make the effort to use it.

It is beginning to become apparent that itis not the sequence of events which is im-portant in the MBO process, but rather thatit is the opportunity for interaction by asmany members as possible that is significant.Managers at different levels of the organiza-tion or agency can set objectives for theirown work even though objectives have notbeen set for the overall agency coordination(Mali, 1972, p. 239). Certainly it is best ifas many managers and personnel within anagency as is possible utilize MBO processes

so that optimum results might be achieved.

The responsibility, then, for effectiveMBO usage rests upon all the managers with-

in the system, not just those at the top. IfMBO is being used by only a few of the man-agers in the system, then they should recog-nize that they are also all accountable for itssuccessful implementation and carry-through.In suggesting that all participating managersshould be responsible for managing by objec-tives, the Federal Aviation Agency insists that"one of the advantages of MBO is that amanager at any level can identify and pur-sue his own objectives, even if those aroundor above him are not managing by objectives"(Federal Aviation Agency, 1974, p. 4). More.over, the responsibility for the effective usageof MBO does not rest with management alone,but in large part with the employees. Manage-ment must train and inform the employees,and the employees, in turn, have the respon-sibility to respond to the objectives set. Ex-perience is showing that employees do re-spond more numerously and actively when

40

they are included in the goal-scif4sg and plan-ning processes.

It seems appropriate to addfor thosewho feel that MBO may not be adopted onan agency-wide basis, but yet would like toimplement MBO techniques into their ownworkthat the time and place to start iswhere you presently stand. The followingshould be implemented:

1. Build on what you already have: startwith yourself. If higher managementpositions have not clearly articulatedgoals, then make your own, and writethem down.

2. Share your goals with your superior.In so doing you will minimize con-flicts between yourself and your superior, and increase communicationand understanding: if he doesn't likeor agree with one of your goals, hecan say so, and a common agreementcan then be formulated.

3. Having set goals with upper manage-ment, then begin to do the same thingwith your subordinates. Provide yoursubordinates with a statement of yourformal goals. Give them guidelines forshaping their own goals.

The first step of implementation is a per-sonal onethe minute a manager beginsthinking this way others around and associ-ated with him are forced to do the same,simply because of their mutual interaction.

In any different agency the exact avenueof implementation will probably differ--and,indeed, it should. The overriding principles,however, are much the same. The essentialfeature to remember in any objective is thatit must be specific, measurable, significant,and tied to dates and costs. It should providethis conceptual understanding about the goalsto be implemented:

To /Action Varb/Result/Deto/Cost Not To Exceed 4

34

IN CONCLUSION

MBO can be implemented in the cor-rections setting. The prerequisite conditionsmust first be met, and there are potentialdanger spots to the unobservant MBO user.Nonetheless, the keys to implementationare available, and but wait the willing handto unlock the door.

REFERENCES

Beach, D. N., and Mahler, W. R. "Manage-ment by objectives." In A. J. Marrow(ed.), The failure of success. New York:The American Management Association,1972, 231-240.

Brady, R. H. "MBO goes to work in the pub-lic sector." Harvard Business Review,March-April 1973, 65.74

Federal Aviation Agency. Management by ob.jectives. Handout prepared by F.A.A. andgiven by Jay Meisel to participants ofSCMTC Conference on MBO, held inAthens, Georgia, January 13-15 1974.

Mali, P. Managing by objectives. New York:J. Wiley and Sons, 1972.

McConkey, D. D. "Applying MBO to non-profit organizations." S.A.M. AdvancedManagement Journal, January 1973, 10-20.

Terwilliger, C., and Adams, S. "Probationdepartment management by objectives."Crime and Delinquency, April 1969, 15(2), 227.237.

Tosi, H. L., and Carroll, S. J. "Managerialreaction to management by objectives."In W. A. Nord, Concepts and controver-sies in organizational behavior. PacificPalisades, Calif.: Goodyear PublishingCo., 1972, 568-579.

Chapter VII. MBO ASSESSMENT

This chapter focuses on the importance'of properly assessing and evaluating, in anon-going fashion, the MBO usage of anagency. In particular, it emphasizes:

the importance of non-judgmentalassessment of progress toward goals,the usage of intermediate milestones tomonitor progress,the value and need for oral evaluationsbetween the manager and the subordinate,

the use of management conferences,a listing of some of the achievement

indicators which managers need to watch,and

the importance of year end evaluations.

THE NEED FOR ASSESSMENT

The problem of monitoring the progressof MBO and evaluating its effectiveness needsalso to be considered. A keystone of evaluationis that it is not conducted as a personalvendetta, designed to find out who has donewhat, and why or why not, so that punitivemeasures can be imposed.

Evaluation seeks to know what has takenplace, and even who has or has not done it,but the end result of assessing organizationalprograms or personnel is not to imposepunishment, but rather to improve programeffectiveness. This means that evaluationsshould be so extensive that managers as wellas subordinates should be assessed. EveryMBO program should include regular ap-praisals of the manager by his subordinates

35

42

and "should be reviewed by the manager'ssuperior" (Levinson, 1972, p. 129). The pro-cess of evaluating the behavior of superiorsshould follow all the way up the line to topmanagement. No one in the agency shouldbe exempted from such evaluation. Not thatevaluations should be threatening; such a"threatening" evaluation should be avoided.People generally impose enough rigor ontheir personal behavior simply by knowingwhat they are to do and by being held ac-countable for doing it.

COACHING -NOT JUDGING

The first step in effective evaluation andprogress assessment is that of employing theMBO process correctly.

MBO is designed to replace weak ap-praisal methods.' It is not the purpose of anevaluation to point the finger at the employee,remind him of all his deficiencies, and thenaccuse him of being responsible for any slow-down in progress. When managers meet withsubordinates, their attitude should be one ofseeking to help improvenot judgeper-formance. But unfortunately, "to evaluate"or "to assess" implies to many that a judg-ment is to take place. The relationship be-tween the subordinate and his superior is

strengthened when it moves away from thearea of judging to that of coaching.

"Coaching" refers to the practice of ad-vising, suggesting, counseling, and encourag-ing; its purpose is to educate, inform, and

motivate subordinates. Coaching sessions arehelp sessions; subordinates are not on trial.Usage of the word "coaching" helps to em-phasize in MBO literature that the purpose ofassessment is to help find out where theorganization is and what needs to be done inorder to get where it is going. Coaching en-courages more 'cooperating between managerand subordinate.

INTERMEDIATE MILESTONES

One of the bccter means for monitoringprogress toward the achievement of goals andobjectives lies in measuring progress towardthe achievement of intermediate milestones.An "intermediate milestone" is nothing morethan a fixed point in time at which a particu-lar percentage or portion of the goal shouldhave been accomplished. To illustrate, a pro-bation officer who seeks to personally counselwith and review the case of each of his as-signed probationers by the end of a threemonth period should pick intermediate pointsat which to evaluate the percentage of thosewith whom he has already personally visited.He may decide to "check-up" on his own in-terviewing progress every two, or perhapsthree weeks; maybe monthly. The importantthing is that he determines what is the ap-propriate point in time at which to schedulesuch checkpoints, and that he also determines;;hat is an honest expectation in terms ofprogress toward the ultimate goal.

The appropriate use of intermediatecheckpoints gives a sense of direction and anawareness of need that will not be achieved inany other fashion. "By carefully selecting in-termediate milestones that logic says must beachieved to accomplish the end result, one canin effect measure interim progress" (Brady,1973, p. 69).

36

43

ORAL EVALUATIONS

Periodic evaluations should be held be-tween th.1 'nanager and his subordinates. Dur-ing these ..valuationsor, better said, "coach-ing sew, ins,"attention should focus onprogress toward (or beyond) intermediatemilestones. In face-to-face conversation themanager and subordinate can discuss the prob-lems confronting further accomplishments andset their sights on end results. Without ques-tion, these coaching sessions, or oral evaluations, constitute the most important part ofthe assessment process. The manager neverhas a hater opportunity to appraise himselfof the grassroots feelings within the agency,or to better motivate employees, than he doesin these one-to-one dialogues. While this isone of the most fundamental and basic prin-ciples of good management, it is one of themost frequently abused and neglected. Thefrequency of these "interviews" is a matterto be decided by individual agencies andcircumstancesbut such sessions should beheld frequently.

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES

Management conferences are modifica-tions of the coaching sessions described above.Their purpose is the same; they simply in-clude more people. In a management con-ference upper management meets with agroupwhatever number is appropriateofsubordinates so that they can jointly measureprogress. Elliot Richardson, when serving asSecretary of the Department of Health, Edu-cation and Welfare, set an example worthy ofimitation by meeting with his agency headson a bimonthly basis. Management confer-ences (even a regular staff meeting agendaitem dealing with assessment helps might suf-fice) and oral evaluations provide the man-

1alter with his greatest opportunity to manage.It is in these management conferences, as incoaching sessions, that the manager can giveadvice or assistance in meeting agency ob-jectives and overcoming problems.

The key consideration in these meetings,as in coaching sessions, is whether or not theselected objectives were realized. Because cor-rections agencies are public agencies chargedwith specific public responsibilities, correc-tions managers have the responsibility to

think in terms of the achievement of specificpublic benefits. Management by objectivesshould be an effective tool in focusing eachmanager's attention on these public respon-sibilities.

ACHIEVEMENT INDICATORS TO WATCH

In formulating MBO programs in the

Federal Aviation Agency, managers havebeen given some indicators of what theyshould expect to learn during managementconferences and oral evaluations. As outlinedby the Federal Aviation Agency, the managershould learn:

1. whether he is moving toward his ob.jective.

2. whether he is moving at the right rateof speed to meet his objectives.

3. whether work is being carried out asplanned.

4. whether money and manpower arebeing used as anticipated.

5. whether any problems are developing(Federal Aviation Agency, 1974,

P. 7)And to these five guidelines from the F.A.A.,another should be added:

6. what specifically can the manager doto help others in the accomplishmentof the goals?

A variety of indicators can be used to

37

measure progress and answer the above ques-tions for managers. Since quantitative mea-sures are desirable wherever appropriate, the

F.A.A. has suggested ". . . a manager mightcount the number of times something happensduring a given time period, or he might mea-sure the time lost under certain conditions.But indicators need not necessarily be quanti-tative so long as they are clear, simple, ra-tional,- and reliable. That is, they should beunderstandable without complicated interpre-tation or philosophical discussion. Above all,they must be indicators of goal achievement,not work progress" (Federal Aviation Agency,1974, p. 7).

YEAR END EVALUATION

Each year should be climaxed by a year-end evaluation in which the successes andfailures of the agency in meeting objectivesare reviewed. It may be held at the end of thefiscal year, or whenever the goal periodelapses, but the important thing is that it becarried out yearly, and that the learnings ob-tained from it be applied to the goal settingprocedures of the coming year.

REFERENCES

Brady, R. H. "MBO goes to work in the pub-lic sector." Harvard Business Review,March-April 1973, 69.

Federal Aviation Agency. Management byobjectives. Handout prepared by F.A.A.and given by Jay Meisel to participantsof SCMTC Conference on MBO, held inAthens, Georgia, January 13-15 1974, 7.

Levinson, H. "Management by whose objec-tives?" Harvard Business Review, July-August 1972, 125-134.

Chapter VIII. A FINAL WORD OF CAUTION

Management by objectives is not thesovereign remedy to all of management'sproblems. It is a help, but not a panacea.There are several areas of concern which areoften violated by those intending to use theMBO approach. This final section is to re-

ind corrections personnel of some of thefrequent pitfalls encountered in MBO appli-cation.

MUTUAL GOAL SETTING

Of all the criticisms hurled at MBO andits proponents, the most frequent is that itprovides management with a tool to makegoals and force them upon the employees,who, because of their subordinate position,are forced to accept them. Critics charge thatmanagement hangs goals, like millstones,around employees' necks.

Managers who hold self-made goals overthe heads of employees seriously violate theMBO code. When this occurs, the critics areperfectly justified in hurling their spears. Thepoint of MBO is that this is the very behaviorwhich is to be avoided. Goal setting is a mu-tual task. Levinson, in a critical evaluation ofMBO, argues that in order to meet the sub-ordinate's psychological needs, the "manage-ment by objectives should begin with his(the subordinate's) objectives" (Levinson,1970, p. 129). Suggesting a solution to thefrustration born when managers force objec-tives upon "underlings," the F.A.A. offers thisremedywhich is nothing more than a cogent

reminder of the importance of mutual goalsetting:

Every objectives and appraisal program shouldinclude group goal setting, group definitionof both individual and group tasks, group ap-praisal of its accomplishments, group appraisalof each individual member's contribution tothe group effort (without basing compensationon that appraisal) and shared compensationbased upon the relative success with whichgoals are achieved. Objectives should includelong-term as well as short-term goals (FederalAviation Agency, 1974).

Perhaps the most apt illustrations of theimpact of mutual goal setting are in the testi-monies of those who have done it. Said onemanager:

I like the fact that I sit down with my bossto set these objectives. Every time I sit downand talk with him, I can't help but learn moreabout what he expects of me. Anything thatdoes that is a help.

Another manager thought mutual goal set-ting to be:

. . . a fantastic idea to have a voice alongwith your boss in setting individual goals. Notonly do you get a chance to put your two centsworth in but it gives your boss the benefit ofthe individual's thinking. I thought it was apsychological lift. I like the fact that theyask me what I thought my goal levels shouldbe. I think the chance to sit down with yourboss is important (Tosi and Carroll, 1972, pp.573-574).

THE HUMAN POINT

A second, and almost as frequently re-peated criticism of MBO, springs from the

38

45

same negligence and poor managerial be-havior as the first. Harold Levinson expressesthis position in the Harvard Business Reviewby saying that with MBO "the underlyingreason it is not working well is that it missesthe whole human point" (Levinson, 1970, p.128). He argues, and his argument is typical,that MBO is a punishment-reward system,wherein you are rewarded if you reach theobjective and punished if you fail. In eitherevent, concludes Levinson (and those of thisschool of thought), there is no recognition ofhuman emotions and feelings. If managersare not careful they will fail to account forthis "human point." It is the result of amanager standing on the pedestal of his unquestioned superiority and dictating to sub-ordinates. To repeat, this violates the fundamental principles of MBO, and should beavoided through group goal setting.

We have learned by sad experience thatit is the nature and disposition of almostall men, as soon as they get a little authority,to immediately begin, to exercise coercive andsometimes dominating controls over thosewith whom they work. It is reasonable to sug-gest, and in harmony with the best manage-ment principles known to man, that no poweror influence can or ought to be maintained byvirtue of managerial position, status, or posi-tion in a powerstructured hierarchy. Menseem to respond best when they are ap-

proached in reasoned concern, where highlevels of trust are present, and where theycan have the assurance that their behaviorwill not be used as motive for managerialreprimand. In short, nothing more than thevoice of human relations pleads for manage-ment to remember that employees "are peo-ple too."

REFERENCES

Federal Aviation Agency. Management by ob-jectives. Handout prepared by the F.A.A.and given by Jay Meisel to participantsof SCMTC Conference on MBO in Athens,Georgia, January 13.15, 1974.

Levinson, H. "Management by whose objec-tives?" Harvard Business Review, July-August 1970, 125-134.

Tosi, H.L., and Carroll, S.J. "Managerial re-action to management by objectives." InW. Nord (ed.), Concepts and controversyin organizational behavior. Pacific Pali-sades, Calif.: Goodyear Publishing Co.,1972, 573.574.

46

39

Appendix A. CHECKLIST FOR THE APPLICABILITYOF MBO TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Dr. Dale McConkey of the University ofWisconsin has suggested the following check-list as a guide for determining the applica-bility of MBO to non-profit organizations. Hesuggests that the applicability and value ofMBO to non-profit organizations is directlycorrelated to the number of positive answersto the following questions:

1. Does the organization have a missionto perform? Is there a valid reason forit to exist?

2. Does management have assets (money,people, plant, and equipment) en-

trusted to it?

3. Is management accountable to someperson or authority for a return onthe assets?

4. Can priorities be established for ac-complishing the mission?

5. Can the operation be planned?

6. Does management believe it must

4

40

manage effectively even though theorganization is a non-profit one?

7. Can accountabilities of key personnelbe pinpointed?

8. Can the efforts of all key personnelbe coordinated into a whole?

9. Can necessary controls and feedbackbe established?

10. Is it possible to evaluate the per-formance of key personnel?

11. Is a system of positive and negative re-wards possible?

12. Are the main functions of a manager(planning, organizing, directing, etc.)the same regardless of the type of or-ganization?

13. Is management receptive to improvedmethods of operating?

Taken from Dale D. McConkey, "Applying MBOto non-profit organizations," S.A.M. AdvancedManagement Journal, January 1973, p. 12.

Appendix B. A CHECKLIST FORWRITING OBJECTIVES IN MBO

1. Defined in terms of results or conditionsto be achieved rather than in terms ofactivities to be performed.

2. Written so that they can be analyzed andreviewed from time to time.

3. Limited in time so as to provide mile-stones of achievement.

4. Written forcefully, starting out with suchterms as achieve, complete by, and re-place which suggest results or perfor-mance stretches.

5. Completed with an accountability assign-ment to a member of management.

6. Formulated in the light of past experi-ences.

7. Stated in positive terms, that is, in termsof what is to be done rather than interms of what is to be avoided.

8. Stated concisely and briefly withoutcomplex and elaborate descriptions.

9. Designed to cover a single end result andnot a number of commitments.

10. Communicated to managers involvedwhen changed or modified.

11. Designed to coincide work resources,facilities, and skills that are available.

12. Planned to find the best fit among in-dividuals and situations in deploying re-sources.

13. Written to meet organizational improve-ment requirements such as profits, op-portunities, development of personnel,attainment of schedules, technical com-petency, return on an investment.

14. Assigned a priority to foster a sense ofimportance and value in the company.

15. Documented to provide "performanceexperience" for future goal setting.

16. Assigned a risk factor to indicate theconfidence level of completion.

17. Written so as,to be at least significantand perhaps critical to the individual ashe carries out the responsibilities of hisjob.

18. Written in quantifiable terms that areeasily measurable and hence easily re-portable.

19. Designed as a commitment 'between theemployee and his supervisor.

20. Written to embody the basic ingredientopportunity which makes possible a leapforward in performance and results forthe individual and the company.

Taken from Paul Mali, Managing by objectives.New York: J. Wiley and Sons, 1972, pp. 111.112.

43

41

Appendix C. "HOW DO WE SET OBJECTIVES":A SUGGESTION FOR SHORT-TERM GOALS

ISUPERIOR ROLES, MISSIONS, AND OBJECTIVES

1ORGANIZATIONAL ROLES AND MISSIONS I

4'IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS

1) NORMAL WORK OUTPUTIMPROVEMENTS

a) What products or servicesconstitute your group'snormal (steady state)work output?

b) What areperformanceimprovementor desirable?

tFie areas ofwhereis necessary

c) How much (measurable)improvement is realisticand achievable duringthe forecast timeperiod?

2) PERSONAL OR ORGANIZA-TIONAL CAPABILITYIMPROVEMENTS

a) What are your currentindividual or organizationalcapabilities?

b) What capability im-provements (or newcapabilities) would re-sult in the greatestoverall benefit tothe organization andindividuals concerned?

c) How much (measurable)improvement is realisticand achievable duringthe forecast time period?

OBJECTIVES

Analysis routes for determining objectives

Adapted from George L. Morrisey, Management by objectives and results. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970, p. 43.

442

This diagram was constructed to show oneway in which measurable objectives may beset. The method illustrated, called "improve-ment analysis," is designed to uncover newor innovative ways of doing things. Notice,however, that objectives set in this fashion aregenerally those which will be completed in arelatively short time. It may be a useful guide-line in planning for "one time events." Themanager again' has the freedom of selectingwhich route he will follow, depending onwhether his primary concern is output im-provement (significant innovations, break-throughs, new developments) or capabilityimprovements (increased effectiveness and ef-ficiency, ability to accept greater responsi-bility, new assignments, or improved work-ing environment).

Consider the following objectives set byusing the above outlined guidelines:

The Analysis of Normal Work OutputImprovements

"To reduce discrepancies by (date) withno increase in established budget."

"To decrease the average number of man-hours for writing management proposalsections from X to Y without loss ofquality by (date)."

"To reduce the cost of preparation, repro-duction, and release of manufacturingorders by X% over (previous year) with-in existing budget."

5043

The Analysis of Personal or Organisa-tional Capability Improvements

"To improve effectiveness of departmentcraft employees by X% as measured inthe Performance Index, by (date) withinexisting budget."

"To achieve a submittal of at least twoapproved cost reduction items per salariedemployee with an accumulated estimatedsavings of not less than $10,000 within(year).""To participate in six technical symposiaduring (year) at a cost not to exceed Xman-hours and $Y of other costs."

"To develop and implement a job rotationand training program that will assure thateach salaried specialist in the unit under-stands and can reasonably perform theassignments of any other such specialistby (date) within current budget."

When properly adhered to, the end resultof this kind of analysis will be a list of ob-jectives covering the manager's expected ac-complishments. The important thing is notwhich route is followed, but that a list ofvalid objectives is obtained.

*George L. Morrisey, Management by objectivesand results. Reading, Mass.: Addison-WesleyPublishing Company, 1970, pp. 43-47.

Appendix D. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCESON OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Barnes, L. B. "Approaches to organizationalchange." In V. Vroom (ed.), Methods oforganizational research. Pittsburgh, Pa.:University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967, 57..111.

Bennis, W. G. Changing organizations: essayson the development and evolution of hu-man organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Coch, L. and French, J. R. P., Jr. "Overcom-ing resistance to change." Human Rela-tions, 1948, II, 512-532.

Costello, T. W. "Change in municipal gov-ernment." In F. G. Brown and T. P.Murphy, Emerging Patterns in Urban Ad-ministration. Levington, Mass.: D. C.Heath, 1970, 13-32.

Golembiewski, R. T. Renewing organizations.Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, 1972.

Kaufman, H. The limits of organizationchange. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: The Universityof Alabama Press, 1971.

Lippitt, G. Organization renewal. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.

Mosher, F. C. Governmental reorganizations.New York: Bobbs-Merrill', 1967, 475-535.

Shepard, H. A. "Changing interpersonal andintergroup relationships in organiza-tions." In J. G. March, Handbook of Or-ganizations. Chicago: Rand-McNally,1965, 1115-1143.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beach, D. N., and Mahler, W. R. "Manage-ment by objectives." In A. J. Marrow,(ed.), The failure of success. New York:The American Management Association,1972, 231-240.

Beck, A. C., and Hillmar, E. D. "OD to MBOor MBO to OD does it make a differ-ence?" Personnel Journal, November1972, 827-834.

Brady, R. H. "MBO goes to work in the pub-lic sector." Harvard Business Review,March- April 1973, 65-74.

Federal Aviation Agency. Management by ob-jectives. Handout prepared by FAA and

44

01

given by Jay Meisel to participants ofSCMTC Conference on MBO in Athens,Georgia, January 13.15 1974.

Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., and Lyon,H. L. "A study of the impact of manage.ment by objectives on perceived needsatisfaction." Personnel Psychology,1970, 23, 139-151.

Kirchoff, B. A. "Using objectives: the criticalvariable in effective MBO." MichiganBusiness Review, January 1974, 17-21.

Kleber, T. P. "The six hardest areas to man-age by objectives." Personnel Journal,August 1972, 571.575.

Levinson, H. "Management by whose objec-tives?" Harvard Business Review, July-August 1970, 125-134.

Mali, P. Managing by objectives. New York:Wiley Interscience, a division of J. Wileyand Sons, 1972.

McConkey, D. D. "Applying MBO to non-profit organizations." S.A.M. AdvancedManagement Journal, January 1973, 10-20.

McGregor, D. The human side of enterprise.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Morrisey, G. L. Management by objectives

52

and results. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970.

Terwilliger, C., and Adams, S. "Probationdepartment management by objectives."Crime and Delinquency, April 1969, 15(2), 227.237.

Tosi, H. L., and Carroll, S. J. "Manageriaireaction to management by objectives." InW. Nord (ed.), Concepts and controversysip organizational behavior. Pacific Pali-sades, Calif.: Goodyear Publishing Co.,1972, 568-579.

45 e u. s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE t 1975 0 - 210-839 0908)

PRESCRIPTIVE PACKAGE: "Management by Objectives - A CorrectionsPerspective"

To help LEAA better evaluate the usefulness of Prescriptive Packages, thereader is requested to answer and return the following questions.

1. What is your.general reaction to this Prescriptive Package?[ ] Excellent [ ] Above Average [ ] Average [ ] Poor [ ] Useless

2. Does this packagerepzrntnestalliljable knowledge and experience?No better single

1Pitbrtlh:nagegse=1W1p1(please

Does not represent best knowledge or experience (please comment)

3. To what extent do you see the package as being useful in terms of:(check one box on each line)

Highly Of Some NotUseful Use Useful

Modifying existing projects [

Training personnelAdminstering on-going projectsProviding new or important informationDeveloping or implementing new projects

4. To what specific use, if any, have youarticular package?

Modifying existing projectsAdministering on-going projects [

Others:

put or do you plan to put tilt

Training personnel

new projects

In what ways, if any, could the package be improved: (please specify)e.g. structure/organization; content/coverage; objectivity; writingstyle; other)

6. Do you feel that further training or technical assistance is needed'and desired on this topic? If so, please specify needs.

7. In what other specific areas of the criminal justice system do youthink a Prescriptive Package is most needed?

8, How did this package come toLEAA mailing of packageContict with LEAA staffLEAA NewsletterOther (please specify)

1

our attention? (check one or more)3 Your organization's library] National Criminal Justice Reference

Service

53

9. Check ONE item below which best describes your affiliation with lawenforcement or criminal Justice. If the item checked has an asterisk*1, please also check the related level i.e.

Federal [ ] State [ CountyHeadquarters, LEAALEAA Regional OfficeState Planning AgencyRegional SPA OfficeCollege/UniversityComeercial /Industrial FirmCitizen Group

10. Your NameYour PosiiTinOrganization obi AgencyAddress

Police *Court *Correctional Agency *Legislative Body *Other Government Agency *Professional Association *Crime Prevention Group *

[ ] Local

Tel Humber Area Code: --Number:

U.S. OSANTAIIINT Or MIMIC!LOW lainmeassorr ASSISTANCS ADMINISTRATION

WAIIIMMISTON. D.C. MIMI

OFFICIAL ROSINESSFON PRIVATE wt. sue

(fold here first)

POSTAGE AND FELS PAIDU.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

JUS3111

THIRD ;''',.,,ASS

Di rector

Office of Technology. TransferNational Institute of Law Enforcement

and Criminal JusticeU.S. Department of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20531

(fold)

11. If you are not currently registered with NCJRS and would like to beplaced on their mailing list, check here. [ ]

J Lk

1

-t