|
In coaching, a key distinction is drawn between outcome and performance*
(action)
goals. Why? I think it is clear that the work of W. Edwards Deming
provides the best explanation. Here are the basics of what Deming says
that can be applied to understanding this set of distinctions. His work indicated
that there are 5 factors in considering the success of actions. These
five factors are summarized as follows:
·
Innate or inborn genetic ability
·
The
individual effort
·
The
selection, training, orientation and job match
·
The
variability in the system
·
The
variability in the interpretation of the performance or outcome of the
actions taken. [Performance Appraisal]
Deming went on to conclude that only ONE of these factors is within the
control of the individual—effort--or individual performance if you are
talking team paradigms.
Why
is this information critical to coaches?
Without this distinction, you as a coach will have a tendency to coach to the
person’s outcomes without realizing that the only thing they can control
is their action. If we understand this distinction, our coaching can
offer them insights into their results which are far greater than we
might have previously imagined.
[For some background on action-outcomes-results: click
here]
The coaching
interaction can help focus their understanding of this distinction and
explore whether they do have appropriate training and they have been
matched correctly to their current roles at work. Helping them and others
to understand the concept or at least be aware of the concept of
variability is critical. [Deming was noted as saying that
variability is the enemy of any system.]
If people you coach are leaders, they can help remove
barriers created through variability to others functioning effectively in and around
the system. If performance is being appraised, then people making
those judgments can be
influenced to understand the variability within that appraisal process and
take appropriate measures to provide others with these distinctions.
In
other words, they can make sure the attribution is made appropriately
regarding the individual's responsibility and the responsibility of the
system as a component of performance appraisal.*
What becomes essential to the coach is to understand this distinction and
guide the client/subordinate towards success rather than failure.
According to Deming, system function accounts for almost 95% of all
outcome and performance failures leading to undesirable results. Remember the only item on the above
list, directly in the control of the client is effort; all other issues
are system related issues.
It is clear that this distinction runs counter too much of what we have
learned and been conditioned to accept over time in organizations. Yet,
understanding and applying this paradigm will improve your coaching
effectiveness and aid in the overall motivation of your clients.
Another key issue once this attribution is made is to understand the
distinction even further. The difference between action and outcome
is great. Personal action leads to outcome and performance is judged
often times on the outcome rather than the action taken. Performance is an
evaluation of
outcome and therefore we need to clearly understand whether we are coaching
action or towards outcome. Each carries with it a different
set of principles, while being a parallel or concurrent contributor to the
judgment of performance. Remember, most people tend to make a
performance evaluation on the composite of action, outcomes and results!
Here is an example.
My daughter is a sprinter. In order to keep in shape in the off-season
between her junior and senior high school years, she decided to run
cross-country. It is clear that she is not matched, trained or designed
to run cross-country. After a few meets of finishing near last [ being
a state champion sprinter], she began to get discouraged about her outcomes
and thus what seemed her performance.
When we discussed these feelings she indicated she felt like she was not
accomplishing anything. After we surfaced the reason that she had decided
to run cross-country was to keep her weight down and stay in shape, she
perked up about things, but still felt disappointed about the outcomes
that were occurring.
We talked about the difference between her action (she felt she was
running as hard as she could) and also the outcome as a result—not
finishing in among the top runners. When we separated her action
from the outcome, a shift occurred.
We set performance goals and decided to let the outcome take care of
itself. By focusing on performance improvement related to her
action, she remained steadfast to her goal and finished the season running
a full 10 minutes better at the end than at the beginning. She still
finished in the tail end of the competitors, but the result was that she
was lighter and stronger going into her senior sprinting season.
[Since I wrote this several years ago, she repeated as a state champion
in the 100-200 meters and added the 400 meters to her all class gold
performance her senior high school year. She currently holds the state records in all three events
and along with her sister, the state record in the 4x100 meter relay.
She is now studying at Cornell University and has broken most of the
freshman and sophomore sprint records, as well as finishing first in the
Ivy League in the 200 meter outdoor championships in 2001 and second in
the 400 meters. And yes, I’m quite proud of what she’s accomplished and
what she continues to accomplish. Someday she made read this and
realize that I’m using her as an example in one of my newsletters!<G>
2004 update: Now training for Olympic Trials in July:
More Info ]
Whether or not this was a win (performance evaluation) for her was clear
in terms of action and the results. Whether or not it
was a desirable outcome could only be judged by her original aim and the
attribution separately of her action versus the outcome it produced. Clearly
if she had focused only on improving outcomes, she would have continued to
be dismayed about her performance and possibly lost sight of the results
she needed overall.
If we apply Deming’s paradigm of action (effort) outcome to the example we see
clearly that there was a mismatch among job match (sprinter vs. long
distance runner). There was no control over the other runners
(system variability) and the variability in judging her performance on a
set of criteria that were created by the system versus criteria created by
her. (winning the cross-country matches versus staying in shape).
System variability and judgment of action was refined and reattributed to
focusing on right action goals taken to produce desired results
(keeping weight off and staying in shape in the off season). This
example provides us as coaches with a distinct example of the difference
between action versus outcome goals and also how a person literally has
control over one thing--effort, yet it may not be enough if poorly matched
with the situation.
Of course, control can be gained by examining the system in which one
participates and also by understanding one’s gifts and only allowing them
to be applied towards favorable circumstances--to achieve desired results.
However much of the time in
coaching, it will be the coach that understands these issues more clearly
and has to guide this development to desired results (indirectly through
testing assumptions and surfacing right action). If we understand
the distinction between action and outcome, we are creating
opportunities for successful results to occur regardless of the situation!
Focus on action
rather than outcomes to achieve desired results.
*performance is a judgment
and has no inherent meaning until identified by person or persons forming
the evaluation." |
