Suchergebnisse

The argument of the article is to question the core assumptions upon which MBO theory rests. While MBO, in various of its practical versions may succeed here or there, defective theory is not cured by select citations of effective practice. MBO has not produced a coherent theory in which to ground its prescriptions. Rather, it derives legitimacy from other disciplines. Drucker's classical formulation of MBO is pseudo-participative despite his claim that its essence is employee collaboration and input into setting their work objectives. Drucker critically fails to give specific detailed protection to the subordinate in the MBO process against superior manipulation or arbitrariness nor recourse to via any appeals procedure. Nor does Drucker complement the obligations set by the MBO process with correspondingly concrete rewards for fulfillment. This basic asymmetry fundamentally flaws the process as does the psychologically unrealistic alternating roles for the judge-turned-subordinate. Reformist critics call for such reformulations as panels of judges, genuine adult-to-adult models for MBO negotiators, and a differential approach to the types of subordinates—high achievers versus low achievers—enlisted in the process. Others advocate the critical need to set hard goals and to enlist commitment—above all else—to the goals by individuals. Yet, we are lost in a fog as to how goal commitments are obtained or why goal setting affects subordinate performance more than Drucker's central inducement of participation. Indeed, according to certain critics, authoritarian MBO is more effective than participative MBO. In conclusion, MBO must stand or fall as a practical management tool, or if it aspires to theoretical validity, strive to co-opt the on-going theoretical research of goal setting theory. As it now stands, it is characterized by inadequate conceptualization of variables and glib generalizations from idiosyncratic laboratory conditions to the multifarious real world of many non-homogeneous industries and professions. In ignoring the raw material of the labor force—how it derives its ideas and attitudes—it utterly fails to account for the variety of that material and its built-in resistances to manipulation. The labor force cannot be regarded as so much homogeneous clay to be molded by any combination of ego psychology or the setting of hard goals in either a pseudo-participative or authoritarian process. MBO must proceed from an analysis of the concrete material conditions through which it must function, MBO must either aspire to the realm of theory or shrink to the level of a hit-or-miss performance appraisal procedure.