Effectiveness & Activity - Focus On The "E"! 

A common charge levelled at government organizations is that they are wasteful and inefficient. I don't think it is completely fair to make such generalized assessments, but there is no question that some organizations ARE in fact wasteful and inefficient. Why is this? Is it  because government staff are lazy and overpaid? Is it because they don't care? Are they wilfully wasteful out of cynicism? 

The answer to these questions is NO. Where waste occurs, it is usually not the result of laziness, sloppiness, and lack of caring. It is the result of a culture, management and accountability system, and general approach that confuses effectiveness with activity. 

Traditionally, organizations are judged on how much they do, not on how well they achieve specific purposes or goals. 

Simply put activity refers to WHAT one does, and how much one does. Effectiveness refers to WHY one does what one does, and whether it contributes to the overall mission of the organization. For example, an organization charged with increasing the general level of public health might have as its activities, funding of school inoculations, provision of public health education and other preventative activities. The criterion for effectiveness lie in the statement "increasing the general level of public health", while the activities - the means to that end (presumably) are the funding, public education programs, etc.   

Does Government Really Focus On Activity? 

To get a feel for the issue, one has only to go through annual reports issued by government departments. We recently did some research in this issue, and found that, at least for the reports we looked at, there was almost an exclusive focus on activity. That means that the primary documents used by elected officials and the public to assess the usefulness of government organizations are virtually useless for that purpose. Let's look at an example, one that seems to be rather typical. 

In the 1996 annual report for The Organization & Staff Development Branch (a Manitoba Special Operating Agency) there is virtually no mention of whether the provision of services has had any measurable effect, positive or negative in terms of the reason training and development activities are used. What does it report? let's quote: 

The success....is reflected in the achievement of its goals and objectives. This success is measured in part by: 

.    more seminar choices.... 

.    more consulting projects 

.    more partnerships with private vendors 

In the same document, the mandate is states as follows: "...to provide consulting and training services to support the implementation of the government's human resource policies and priorities". 
 

Further in the "Progress Towards Goals & Objectives" section, the ONLY performance measures relate to a) the number of training and consulting projects, and b) the achievement of internal objectives such as organization structure, contractual arrangements and so on. 

ALL of these are activity based, not effectiveness based. What would effectiveness basedreporting look like? It would focus not just on the what, but the why, and the outcomes. Here are some example questions that come to mind. 

1. How did clients benefit, generally and specifically from the training and consulting services? 

2. Did client organizations become more cost-effective, offer better customer service, reduce waste, increase employee satisfaction, reduce performance problems, increase use of effective management tools? 

These are relatively simple, common-sense questions, but they remain unanswered. It's easy to point to a single organization, but the reality is that this approach, reporting activity rather than effectiveness, is endemic to the system. A quick glance at a report from an Employee Assistance Organization yields almost the same pattern. The amount of services offered increased, but nowhere is there a discussion of whether this is good or bad, and whether the services offered were actually useful and effective. 

The Effects of The Wrong Focus 

On a wide system basis, the focus on and reporting of activities rather than effectiveness removes the oversight function. It means that elected officials, and even departmental executives (eg. Deputy and Assistant Deputy Ministers) are not in a position to make reasoned, rational decisions about the allocation of resources. How does one determine whether a budget should be increased or decreased if one doesn't know whether an organization is actually accomplishing anything? Gut feeling? Politics? Who knows whom? 

Whatever criterion used, it's a crap shoot unless effectiveness is assessed. 

But let's look at where you probably live. How does the focus on activity affect you and your staff? First, let's assume that for the most part, people want to make a difference. Simply being busy is not as satisfying as it once was. The focus on activity is not an effective way to motivate staff, although for some it does work. But, for an increasing number of staff, the  question: "Why are we doing this" is becoming more important. A health professional doesn't just want to be busy, and count the number of educational programs delivered. A health professional wants to know that his or her activities have had a positive effect on peoples' health, even perhaps saved lives. That is something to be proud of. Or, looking at another venue, do you want to work with a personnel officer in a human resources section that gauges success by the number of interviews and resumes scanned, or by things like retention rates, management satisfaction with new employees, or productivity of new employees?   

Here's a little exercise for you. Think about the projects and activities you have been involved in over the last two years. How do you know they accomplished something worthwhile? How many were worthwhile, and documented and reported on in terms of effectiveness? How many of these projects would you look back on and say "That didn't really do much except keep us busy"? 

How do you feel about that? Does it feel like wheel spinning? Running faster and faster on a treadmill that is taking you nowhere? 

Staff often have the same perceptions. Simply put when you divorce activity from purpose and effectiveness, you create an environment where stress and detachment from the work occurs. In extreme cases, individuals and even the organization itself experience depression. 

People stop caring. 

I am sure you can think of other outcomes in terms of wasted resources, human potential and productivity. 

What Can You Do? 

A good part of the focus on activity is a result of a culture and a system that encourages it. 

Reporting and focusing on activity seems to protect organizations from scrutiny, so there is pay-off for doing so. Given that you are not able to change the system on your own, are there things you can do locally to help prevent the negative effects of activity based functioning? 

Staff members can play an important role in helping an organization consider it's effectiveness. One of the primary ways this can be achieved is to ask the right questions. 

Don't be content with knowing WHAT you are asked to do, but make every effort to find out WHY you are doing it, and how you are going to know if the activities are effective. Press for ways to evaluate effectiveness. Ask questions of your colleagues and your manager. For example: Why are we doing this? How will we know we have succeeded? How will we measure success? Is this really worth doing? 

Sometimes the answer will be that "we were told to do it", and that is a reality of any workplace, public or private. But simply asking the question reinforces the idea that you are paid not to DO a job, but to achieve something as a result of doing a job! 

Keep in mind that management works in the same system and can't always see outside of it. Consistent, courteous and insightful questioning can help managers see outside of the "way things have always been done". 

Managers and executives can do many of the same things.Ask those same things to those above, and those below in the hierarchy. Ask staff why they think their activities are valuable. 

Encourage staff to find out how successful their activities are. Ask, and gently push and prod YOUR boss about measures of effectiveness. 

Beyond that, ensure that staff are focused on effectiveness, not just activity. Work this in toperformance appraisals (we prefer the term effectiveness enhancement discussions). Use strategic and operational planning methods to highlight purpose, and results, not activity. This means allowing your effectiveness criterion to drive your activities to the degree that you can do that in a political environment. Include and involve staff in the planning process. 

Where possible, consider changing the way you report on your activities. There is nothing wrong with reporting activity levels, but there is something wrong with reporting ONLY activity levels. If you can demonstrate effectiveness, trumpet that loudly and often. Think of doing this as a way of helping resource allocators make sensible decisions that can be to your benefit. What is more convincing? 

1.   In the past year we doubled our provision of preventative health activities. 

Or 

2.   In the past year, as a result of doubling our provision of preventative health activities, the incidence of illness among neo-natals whose parents attended education sessions dropped by 40% with a cost savings to the health care system of $XXXXX. 

Which statement is more likely to help people understand your usefulness? Which statement is more likely to build organizational pride, and a sense of meaning for staff? 

Final Comment 

Our experience is that there is a strong tendency to confuse activity with effectiveness, and it is more a result of the way government systems have worked in the past. If you are a manager, you first step is to examine whether you have been making the distinction between the two. If you haven't been doing so, start. If you have been making the distinction, then work to ensure that your staff understand the difference. Look at your performance management and strategic planning methods to ensure that they become more effectiveness-based than activity based.