7 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Linking rewards to performance measures.Should compensation systems be linked tobalanced scorecard measures? Some compa-nies, believing that tying financial compensa-tion to performance is a powerful lever, havemoved quickly to establish such a linkage.

      Linking compensation to Balanced Scorecard measures makes sense because it creates alignment—people are rewarded for achieving the same goals the organization cares about. I like that Pioneer Petroleum went beyond just financial outcomes to include customer, employee, and environmental indicators, since this encourages a more balanced focus. At the same time, I think the risks are very real. If the wrong measures are chosen, or if the data isn’t reliable, people could “game the system” or prioritize numbers over quality. To me, this shows that while tying rewards to strategy can be powerful, it requires careful design and ongoing review to make sure the incentives actually drive the right behaviors.

    2. Communicating and educating. Implement-ing a strategy begins with educating thosewho have to execute it. Whereas some organi-zations opt to hold their strategy close tothe vest, most believe that they should dis-seminate it from top to bottom. A broad-basedcommunication program shares with allemployees the strategy and the critical objec-tives they have to meet if the strategy is tosucceed. Onetime events such as the distribu-tion of brochures or newsletters and theholding of “town meetings” might kick off theprogram. Some organizations post bulletinboards that illustrate and explain the balancedscorecard measures, then update them withmonthly results. Others use groupware andelectronic bulletin boards to distribute thescorecard to the desktops of all employeesand to encourage dialogue about the mea-sures. The same media allow employees tomake suggestions for achieving or exceedingthe targets

      think this section really emphasizes that strategy only works if it’s communicated clearly and consistently across the whole organization. It’s not enough for leadership to have a plan on paper—employees need to see it, understand it, and know their role in achieving it. I like how the Balanced Scorecard encourages different communication methods, from town halls to digital platforms, because it makes strategy visible and open for dialogue. This approach also empowers employees to contribute ideas, which turns strategy from a “top-secret plan” into something everyone owns and helps drive forward.

    3. When a scorecard is disseminated up anddown the organizational chart, strategy be-comes a tool available to everyone. As thehigh-level scorecard cascades down to indi-vidual business units, overarching strategicobjectives and measures are translated intoobjectives and measures appropriate toeach particular group. Tying these targets toindividual performance and compensationsystems yields “personal scorecards.” Thus,individual employees understand how theirown productivity supports the overall strategy

      The “cascading” idea is powerful. Linking corporate strategy to departmental goals and then to individual performance ensures alignment. Otherwise, people just work toward isolated targets. This process also makes employees feel that their contributions matter to the big picture.

    4. The first new process—translating the vision—helps managers build a consensus aroundthe organization’s vision and strategy. De-spite the best intentions of those at the top,lofty statements about becoming “best inclass,” “the number one supplier,” or an “em-powered organization” don’t translate easilyinto operational terms that provide usefulguides to action at the local level. For peopleto act on the words in vision and strategystatements, those statements must be expressedas an integrated set of objectives and mea-sures, agreed upon by all senior executives,that describe the long-term drivers of success

      I like how the authors stress the need to turn lofty mission statements into measurable objectives. Without that translation, staff don’t know how to act on broad slogans like “best in class.” This reminds me of how frontline teams often struggle when leaders fail to define what success looks like in practical terms.

    5. Most companies’ operational and man-agement control systems are built around fi-nancial measures and targets, which bearlittle relation to the company’s progress inachieving long-term strategic objectives.Thus the emphasis most companies placeon short-term financial measures leaves agap between the development of a strategyand its implementation.

      The article makes a strong case that focusing only on short-term financials leaves a strategy “stranded” at the planning stage. The Balanced Scorecard is valuable here because it integrates operations with vision, turning abstract strategy into actionable steps.

    6. These nonfinancial metrics are so valuablemainly because they predict future financialperformance rather than simply report what’salready happened. This article, first published in1996, describes how the balanced scorecard canhelp senior managers systematically link currentactions with tomorrow’s goals, focusing on thatplace where, in the words of the authors, “therubber meets the sky

      This is an important insight—nonfinancial measures (like customer satisfaction or learning & growth) act as leading indicators. They can flag risks or opportunities before financial results are affected. In healthcare, for example, staff burnout rates could predict future patient care quality and costs.

    7. Why do budgets often bear little directrelation to a company’s long-term strategicobjectives? Because they don’t takeenough into consideration. A balancedscorecard augments traditional financialmeasures with benchmarks for perfor-mance in three key nonfinancial areas:• a company’s relationship with itscustomers• its key internal processes• its learning and growth

      his really highlights the gap I’ve seen in practice—budgeting and strategy often feel disconnected because financial targets are usually backward-looking, while strategy is forward-looking. The Balanced Scorecard seems like a bridge between the two by forcing organizations to budget in ways that actually support long-term goals, not just short-term results.