instrument born of peoples’ distrust: “They were invented when they lost control,
had no visual contact anymore, could not verify whether the other person was also
fully committed. Or because they were dissatisfied with the performance of an
employee, because they wanted to drive somebody, or because they wanted some-
thing in writing, to better reward and punish, or, vice versa, because it was believed
to protect them from their superiors.” (Sprenger 2002b, p. 133)
First of all, Sprenger is surely right when he points out that objective agreements
are sometimes born out of distrust. I believe, furthermore, that they are not always
applied with the necessary sense of calm, but rather in a technocratic way: the main
point is that there are objectives written down in the documentation, which we can
semi-reasonably measure. I agree with Peter F. Drucker that “management by
objectives” leads to the alignment of individual and corporate goals and harmonizes
them. In this sense I do not believe that objective agreements are not principally
born of distrust.
In his writings, Sprenger also differentiates – that should certainly not be
concealed here: firstly, he acknowledges that within limits objective agreements
can also be useful. He also stresses thathowthese objectives have been established
is of great importance, differentiating between three scenarios:
Whenever targets are imposed on the employees from the top down, you should be
suspicious as to whether each employee is doing everything to achieve these
goals.
Whenever targets are jointly negotiated and then agreed upon, the manager should
trust the employees to find sensible ways to meet them, and trust that the
objectives ultimately be achieved.
Whenever achievement is rewarded by a bonus it signals distrust and provisions are
made for the non-attainment of goals.
One way or another, “objective agreements as a tool will never eliminate the
problems of distrust.” The reason is that objectives must be negotiated, agreed upon
and reviewed – and this assumes that the relationship between manager and
employee is serious and sincere. But this cannot be automatically assumed, says
Sprenger. “Objective agreements don’t bind workers; only trust can.” (Sprenger
2002b, p. 134)
Here, I think that Sprenger throws out the baby with the bathwater. When there
is a real possibility of establishing contact (and admittedly this can only be said
about a minority of all relationships between bosses and employees), then it should
also be possible to create an “honest” atmosphere in the target agreement process.
Again, the tone makes the music. Under no circumstances should executives give
up the goal of getting the most out of target agreement from the outset.
About Sprenger is right about another point. Since objective agreements with
their rules and parameters need clear interpretations and good conditions, and
markets are often rapidly changing, we need the room for such discussions between
managers and employees. Because: “reality is richer than words.” (Sprenger 2002b,
p. 136)
4.2 Tools as Means to an End 227