Paste your essay in here…Management by objectives is a system in which specific performance objectives are jointly determined by subordinates and their superiors, progress toward objectives is periodically reviewed, and rewards are allocated on the basis of this progress.
Everybody within the organization has a clear understanding of the aims, objectives and awareness of their own roles and responsibilities in achieving those aims.
Management by Objectives is an extensive administration framework in light of quantifiable and participative set of goals. It has made some amazing progress since it was initially recommended by Peter F. Drucker in 1954 as a method for advancing administrative restraint.
Management by objectives is one of the effective management strategies that allow for the employment of all available resources, and gives at the same time a common direction to the efforts towards the vision, and also created a team spirit and harmonize the individual «employee» goals with a common public interest of the enterprise. Is the theory and method of administrative work of setting goals collectively are in it to achieve the maximum work for a certain period (six months or a year) and the definition of the factors that hinder reaching these goals to be redressed, and at the end f the period specified results are reviewed and analyzed to evaluate the performance of subordinates and to move away from targets inadequate and setting goals other alternative was able to achieve its objectives established by others with minimal effort and cost possible.
Characteristics of management by objectives: Set goals for each management position is the basis of the method of management by objectives and position who has no goals unnecessary. Management objectives depends on the personality of workers in the performance of any achievement the person through what has been achieved and is not, with its recipes.
Management by objectives based on a participatory democratic participation in management and not closed the door blocked management.
MBO steps:
1- Identify and formulate the general objectives of the facility in cooperation with the board of directors and advisors.
2- The distribution of powers and responsibilities between the presidents of the Supreme departments so that each of them recognizes the part pertaining to him from the overall goal and preferably notation so as not to get in the overlapping jurisdictions.
3- Assigning line executive management to prepare the goals that will work to achieve them in the light of the objectives of senior management that follow them.
4- Determine the direct line management objectives in the light of the operational unit goals that followed her.
5- Set a goal each employee a subordinate and a construction worker on the objectives of the operational unit in collaboration with the unity and boss.
6- Place the work of each official at the facility agreed with the president's plan and everyone is committed to implementation.
7- Periodic review of the achievement of the objectives achieved by subordinates.
There are limitations of management by objectives:
1- As a new program, the mangers would not have time to do their normal work so its time consuming.
2- MBO cannot be implemented effectively on account of difficulty in setting verifiable objectives.
3- MBO is showing up the danger of inflexibility in the organization, a particular objective may not be valid for ever.
4- Less applicable in routine jobs.
5- Presupposes fixing of individual responsibilities.
6- It is difficult to make comparative ratings of individuals because each individual goal is different from others.
Advantages of MBO:
1- Effective planning and controlling.
2- Reveals organizational deficiencies.
3- Elicits people’s commitment.
4- Demonstrates objectivity and reduces element of judgment.
Disadvantages of MBO:
1- The managers and employees both of them they don’t have time to do the routine work on daily basis.
2- The elaborate written goals, must be careful in communications, detailed in performance evaluation because it’s required in the MBO program so that’s will lead to increase in the paperwork.
Short-Term Orientation. By definition, the MBO process is structured around an annual performance evaluation system with an emphasis on accomplishments within that time frame. The emphasis on results may lead to the establishment of objectives which cannot easily be carved into annual accomplishment phases. Once in operation, any system or activity possesses inertia.
Short term objectives will exert an inertia like influence on long-term planning and upon the objectives which are established for the subsequent time frame. Long-Range Perspective. The adoption of a long-range viewpoint introduces an element of risk that results from a form of organizational inflexibility. Long-range planning must incorporate periodic reviews to assure that effective communication, coordination, and the commitment of resources, basic to MBO exists both in the current time frame and throughout the life-time of the planning period.
MBO is conceptually deficient in considering the educational environment as a closed system, incorporating primarily the value systems of embedded personnel. In reality, educational institutions must be viewed as organizational modules within an open societal system with influences and pressures being exerted or applied by external agencies and individuals (e.g., legislatures and alumni); in turn, the institution exerts influence on the society. There may be an inherent danger in the MBO negotiation process since it assumes that both the President and the key administrators are cognizant and reflective of the desires of external constituents and will assure that those desires are given consideration.
Some overt actions must be taken to assure that these external value systems and desires are introduced into the goal establishment and objective negotiation processes.
The basic concepts of MBO emphasize evaluating the individual and his performance against previously accepted objectives or standards. This type of performance appraisal or evaluation system is highly functional when individual success or reward does not come at the expense of another organizational participant. Evaluation systems which require that the sum of rewards and punishments equal zero are known as "zero Sum Performance Appraisal systems.
MBO program has certain benefits:
1- Improves management: the objectives are established with planning, it couldn’t work out without planning. The managers planning to get the results.
2- Encourages personal commitments: MBO encourages the employees to commit themselves to their goals because the objectives are clearly defined.
3- Clarifies organization.
4- Device for organizational control and systematic evaluation: the MBO program is helping in systematic evaluation of performance.
5- Develops effective control: it is better to have a set of clean goals, whenever the employees are well known what to achieve, controlling will become very easy and automatic.
6- Improving productivity: MBO helps to improve the productivity, the management team focus on the important tasks to reduce the costs.
7- Motivating the subordinates.
8- Personal satisfaction: it provides the opportunity to the managers for a personal satisfaction of participation in objective setting and rational performance appraisal.
It is also improved the communication and organization structure.
Furthermore, there are common elements of a management by objectives program:
1- Goal specificity.
2- Decision making.
3- Time period.
4- Performance feedback.
The manager’s focus on the results not the activity, it’s all about setting the self-objectives and then breaking these down into more specific results.
MBO is an administration strategy for expanding representative inclusion in the arranging and controlling exercises. Through association, it is trusted that representative responsibility to an arranged strategy will be improved and execution will be more productive.
Numerous varieties are found in the act of MBO. Be that as it may, fundamentally it is a procedure through which objectives, arranges, and control frameworks of an association are characterized through coordinated effort amongst directors and their subordinates.
There are several continuous themes throughout the literature regarding how MBO should be implemented. At the onset, it should be stated that there does not appear to be any one best.
Method of implementation since the MBO system must be molded to address and reflect the specific and unique needs and difficulties of each individual organization. Therefore, simply as a guide, ten steps for implementation have been developed which reflect general opinions from the literature.
The initial step is to obtain support and firm commitment from the President and his top executives. This implies an active attempt at familiarization with MBO and knowledge of how it operates. This also implies a willingness to accept a time requirement for installation of three to five years. Once these conditions are satisfied, commitment and understanding of the expense and time involved.
Give key administrators a more applied exposure to MBO via workshops or a trip to an institution where MBO is in operation. The visitation approach has many advantages since it allows the prospective implementer to gain insight into both the positive and negative aspects of MBO.Another reason for the visitation approach is that most workshops are somewhat promotional in nature. These workshops are usually very brief and provide only a survey of the topic and the implementation process. The optimal procedure may be to attend a general orientation workshop, become familiar with terminology and basic concepts and then make a visit to a comparable institution with an operational MBO system. After returning to one's home campus and digesting the information obtained and beginning to formulate an action plan that recognizes one's own institutional uniqueness, it may be advantageous to schedule a return trip to the same educational institution for the purpose of clarifying questions that have arisen since the first visit and to engage in much deeper, more detailed analysis of the implementation process.
Once the management team members are fairly familiar with the:
1- Operations of MBO, they should address the decision as to what process is to be utilized in the application of MBO. This implementation plan should recognize and state in specific terms, the time, personnel and resources required, and should clearly outline the strategy of implementation to be utilized.
2- The development of this plan should be a cooperative effort that must consider the needs and abilities of all subsdinates, either via their participation, or the superior's prior knowledge.
3- The President and top executives must review, and redefine if necessary, the organization's mission and purpose statements. This is very important as all administrators and subordinates must have a common and clear idea of the institution's mission in order to assist their development of goals and objectives.
4- Each administrator must identify role responsibilities which are functions of his organizational position.
5- Next is the definition of major goals for each administrator in relationship to his role
Responsibilities, These goals, when summed, will fulfill overall institutional goals.
6- Derived from the establishment of goals is to determination of means or objectives necessary to meet the goals. Each administrator has his unit identify a set of objectives for each stated goal. The set of objectives would include those objectives discussed previously, terminal objectives, enabling objectives, and process objectives the development of these objectives is a negotiated process between superior and subordinate and often includes (lateral) peers. This negotiation allows for establishment of evaluation criteria, inclusion of individual needs, establishment of a unit priority scheme, and a discussion of the most effective and efficient strategies for goal fulfillment.
The negotiation process is vital to the successful installation of MBO and may be approached in different ways by different managers. Some managers may request the subordinate to submit only his ideas for consideration offering little input until the actual negotiation session, while other managers may prepare a written statement of expectations and submit these to the subordinate who then prepares his version of expectations and objectives. Once the subordinate's statement is prepared the negotiations between superior and subordinate begin. Many other arrangements for negotiations exist of course and simply reflect personal management styles. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of negotiations, both superior and subordinate have a clear understanding of each other's responsibilities and a common agreement on means and ends. Measures of performance have been agreed upon and the coming year's work is spelled out in objectives which are specific, measurable, time constrained, and consistent with overall institutional goals.
7- Once administrative units have defined their goals and objectives, top unit management and the President negotiate the administrative unit's objectives.
8- .Last in this MBO cycle is a final review of the year's performance with each subordinate which includes setting dates for next year's negotiations.
Setting objectives which are realistic involves consulting past history, being aware of budget restraints, and ascertaining the critical factors related to quality and quantity resource requirements. It also involves establishment of realistic target dates, cost estimates, and performance measures. Additionally, it is often necessary to consider influences external to the institution in objective development. These external influences may be the community, federal and state agencies, central coordinating agencies, etc.
MBO, however, must always be cognizant of the individual organization structure and the unique distribution of functional responsibilities for each key administrator. Consistency with organizational structure and institutional philosophy can be assured only by applying a hierarchical approach to MBO wherein objectives are evolved for very broad purpose statements to extremely specific procedural or process objectives. The purpose of a hierarchical derived MBO system is to provide a clear and concise linkage from the most specific action plan element: of an institutionally agreed upon purpose or goal. The development of this hierarchical structure is based upon the means-ends analogy outlined in a preceding section with an emphasis on refining broad generalities toward specific action oriented objectives. The specific hierarchal structure that is recommended by the writers is outlined below:
HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF OBJECTIVES
– Institutional Purpose Statement
– Role Responsibilities
– Goals
– Terminal Objectives
– Enabling Objectives
– Process Objectives
The purpose statement of the institution must be unambiguous. This statement, which keynotes and justifies all of the activities of the institution, must be general enough to permit flexibility of operation under changing conditions. However, it should also address itself to the reality of existing or future characteristics of the institution. MBO is a rational system of management; unrealistic and/or unattainable purpose statements will necessarily pose difficulties for any management system. Generally, the Board of Trustees, State Coordinating Agencies, and the Chief Executive will establish the institutional purpose and the functional responsibilities of key administrative positions. From these, the President and his executive administrator’s will determine further role responsibilities or revisions as necessary.
Above all, all role responsibilities must be consistent with functional responsibilities and derived from the institutional purpose.
Although not consistently available or of the same quality, job desecrations published in faculty manuals or policies and procedures manuals are usually an excellent starting place in the identification of role responsibilities. If an individual's job description does not lend itself to the identification of role responsibilities, then it should be rewritten as necessary. At this stage, each administrator should consider input from his immediate reference group, one level above, one level below, and all relevant lateral administrators.
GOALS: Institutional purpose statements are generally broad, continuing, and non-specific (but not be ambiguous).
ROLE RESPONSIBILITIES: are more specific, clearly defined statements about the nature and division of the work to be performed. These should specify, or at least imply, the unique contribution to be made by each administrator and his staff to the overall objectives and purpose of the institution. Goals, in turn, are generated from all levels of management and may be classified in terms of source as:
a. Givens: generated by an immediate superior.
b. Arising: generated by problems or new activities not previously anticipated.
c. Cooperative lateral or shared goals resulting in coordinated activities with horizontal level administrators.
Goals precipitate from institutional purpose statements and role responsibilities. Each aspect of a role responsibility therefore may give rise to a number of goals that can be either continual or time limited. Changing conditions will constantly generate new goals–sometimes at a faster rate than previous goals are realized. Priorities must be therefore established, once again through consultation and negotiation with the various referent groups for a role responsibility.
ENABLING OBJECTIVES: Enabling objectives should specify, in a precise manner, those conditions or situations which must exist in order to accomplish the parent terminal objective. Each enabler objective will deal with a necessary but not, in itself, sufficient condition for terminal objective achievement. Only when all enabling objectives are accomplished will the terminal objective be completely satisfied. Partial progress may, however, be acceptable in view of other priorities, time, and budget constraints. Trade-offs and modifications will be normal since MBO must be recognized as a dynamic process. It is evident, therefore, that a well-structured communication system is mandatory.
PROCESS OBJECTIVE: Those activities, or procedures which are necessary to achieve the enabling objectives are called process objectives. Once again, each enabling objective may be supported by a number of process objectives or specific action tasks with various assigned priority levels or occurrence sequences. Process objectives are very specific and since they form the institution's action plan, must be developed jointly by administrators and their immediate subordinates.
TERMINAL OBJECTIVES: might define such objectives as desired end-states (or outcomes) which will result in the accomplishment either partially or completely of a single goal. They are negotiated with superior’s one level up, subordinates one level down, and all lateral administrators for which they have pertinence.
Terminal objectives may be classified as follows:
a. Routine: A continuing and periodic function highly related to the traditional job description. A minimum performance objective.
b. Problem Solving: A performance modification which leads to the correction of either an existing or emerging situation which interferes with the effective and/or efficient operation of the institution.
c. Creative/Innovative: A new and different approach which may lead to improved or expanded results.
d. Personal: An activity directed toward the improvement of professional or managerial skills and the enhancement of career possibilities.
e. Interpersonal: An effort to accommodate differing approached and perspectives. Communication and interactions with co-workers would be improved.
Routine objectives are, by definition, critical, persistent, and highly related to the traditional job description. Unless there is a major restructuring in an individual's job description, routine objectives are generally continuous from year-to-year. It is generally acknowledged that the specification or development of routine objectives is easier than other types.
of time or requiring the organization of considerable resources for resolution. These types of objectives can usually be identified in advance. This is not true with the second type of problem-solving objective which is typically identified as an emergency or crisis situation. Every administrator or manager, irrespective of location within an organizational hierarchy, faces a varying amount of uncertainty in his job requirements.
These situations by definition are not identifiable in advance and could not be included in the initial MBO development process. They must be included, however, and they provide significant insight as to why objectives must be reviewed and revised periodically, rather than being considered as a static entity.
A third type of objective, creative or innovative, is like the problem-solving objectives in that it will vary from year-to-year and will probably constitute or represent a minority portion of an individual's functional responsibilities. Some writers indicate that only one or two problem solving or innovative objectives should be considered each year, but this will vary from individual to individual and "cookbook" percent-distribution figures are neither available nor recommended.
Growth or professional development objectives are basically skill-like in nature and should be of short-term duration. The fifth type of objective, interpersonal objective, is seldom discussed in the literature. It is vital as its purpose is directed at improving institutional harmony which generally leads to less absence, turnover and to greater productivity.
INSTLLATION OF MBO: Although there is great variation in the specifics, there are several continuous themes throughout the literature regarding how MBO should be implemented. At the onset, it should be stated that there does not appear to be any one best. Method of implementation since the MBO system must be molded to address and reflect the specific and unique needs and difficulties of each individual organization. Therefore, simply as a guide.
Ten steps for implementation have been developed which reflect general opinions from the literature.
1. The initial step is to obtain support and firm commitment from the President and his top executives. This implies an active attempt at familiarization with MBO and knowledge of how it operates. This also implies a willingness to accept a time requirement for installation of three to five years. Once these conditions are satisfied, commitment and understanding of the expense and time involved, Step 2 can be initiated.
2. Give key administrators a more applied exposure to MBO via workshops or a trip to an institution where MBO is in operation. The visitation approach has many advantages since it allows the prospective implementer to gain insight into both the positive and negative aspects of MBO.
Another reason for the visitation approach is that most workshops are somewhat promotional in nature.
Setting objectives which are realistic involves consulting past history, being aware of budget restraints, and ascertaining the critical factors related to quality, quantity, and generall resource requirements. It also involves establishment of realistic target dates, cost estimates, and performance measures. Additionally, it is often necessary to consider influences external to the institution in objective development. These external influences may be the community, federal and state agencies, central coordinating agencies, etc.
Finally, it must be remembered that MBO is a delicate process requiring sensitivity by all those involved to individual human needs and differences. The superior must not get involved in personality discussions at any meetings nor discussions of salary and performance at the same meeting. The superior must also be careful not to hold individuals accountable for things beyond their direct control.
Systematic Integration vs. Fragmentation. A possibly significant criticism of MBO is that it tends to reinforce fragmented thinking by department managers which stresses their individual functions without recognizing the inter-relationships with other organizational units and the basic cooperative nature of educational institutions. Colleges are complex structures demanding high cooperation among the various components. The MBO process, with negotiation primarily occurring between immediate superior and subordinate. If the superior has and utilizes an institutional-wide perspective in these negotiations, then functional overlap and cooperative activities will be identified.
The literature nor is a consistent hierarchical classification schema ever developed. It is critical that an overall or institutional wide consolidation of objectives from all levels and all functional sectors of the organization be accomplished.
CONCLUTION
In Management by objectives process, the learning and abilities of numerous individuals from the association are squeezed into administration. Rather than informing subordinates concerning their objectives, supervisors request that subordinates partake and choose about what their objective ought to be.
In the wake of setting up of an adequate arrangement of objectives for every representative through a give-and-take cooperative process, the worker is requested that assume a noteworthy part in contriving an activity anticipate accomplishing these objectives.
MBO process, representatives are requested that create control the process, to screen their own particular execution and to recommend restorative measures if deviations from arrangements do happen. The whole process is a mix of planning and controlling.