Many organizations that use the balanced scorecard approach require different people within different functional areas as well as different levels of the organization to complete a balanced scorecard evaluation. Why would it be important to obtain different evaluations? Would you recommend this approach? Why or why not?
Different evaluations on various levels allow the strategic objectives to "filter down" through the levels. Not all departments or people in a company can directly or even indirectly impact the metrics of the executive balanced scorecard. Allowing and advocating the setting of metrics in all department and ensuring that they align with the mission and vision can be very powerful. All employees feel engaged in the company and feel included in the successes of the company as well. This will lead to increased creativity and innovation throughout the company. This approach is highly recommended and will lead to an agile/responsive company to the changing environment lead by customer demands.
A balanced scorecard would be a very powerful means to not only align the workforce to the company's bottom line, but also ensure that the company does not drift away from the strategic objectives. I would guess that many times subtle changes happen over time "at the ranks" that end up with huge cumulative consequences that had gone unnoticed for too long. Accurate and meaningful metrics at that level would have alerted employees at that level to correct and address those issues. This would result in the problem addressed at the lowest level. If these employees needed help, then they would contact the resources they needed to address the problems. Point is that noticing the changes and issues that cause problems before they get too "out of hand" is key to maximizing success. Allowing problems to get too out of hand lead to a drain on a company's resources and missed opportunities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment