Corporate Agreeableness: When Goal-Attainment Programs Work

In order for a corporation to change, it must be amenable to the changes. A constant push in large organizations is to be more efficient for the purpose of increasing revenue while reducing costs. The result has been a large pool of efficiency experts, lean techniques, and productivity software — all of which appear logical, sound, and worth the investment. So why are the desired results not always realized?

Most failures are caused, directly or indirectly, by disagreeableness. The corporate culture, employee personalities, leadership, and corporate customers must be amenable to the productivity changes in a way that allows the changes to grow and take root. If agreeableness is not accomplished, any short-term gains are not sustainable, and the organization begins a tailspin of regression and failure.

Use case

Consider a corporate culture that allows employees to work from home, take unlimited vacation days, and manage their own workday. If the company decided to implement a program that reduced vacation time, required employees to be in the office at set times, and assigned new micromanaging supervisors, the company would most likely find itself in disagreement with the changes — likely leading to attrition, decreased morale, lower productivity, and unrealized goals.

The proactive solution

The proactive solution is to test for agreeableness before making any substantial investment in a new goal-attainment program. Rebral Learn supports this with working sessions across every level of the organization — leadership, goal-attainment managers, and end users — to discover the changes the organization would need to make to reach its goals.

When to course-correct, and when to abandon

It is hard to know when to course-correct because there are a lot of factors that appear not to be measurable but indeed affect the success of the program. This is why it is imperative to implement a goal-attainment system that allows you to see what is working and what is not. A program with a sustained downtrend represents disagreement, and is usually better revamped than nursed along.