Defining Outcomes: What are they and why are they important?

In Boundary Managementsm, outcomes are the purpose or the reason for the existence of the organization, unit, or work group.  Outcomes have a unique definition, and are somewhat synonymous with the way that the word “mission” is used.   There are three components to outcomes: (1) what good is sought, (2) for which people, (3) and at what cost. 

For those of you that are familiar with Policy Governance®, outcomes that define the purpose of the organization are equal the Ends that John Carver uses.  However, outcomes have a broader application than Ends.  Outcomes can be applied to subdivisions of the organization.  This is not true with the use of the term Ends. 

For organizations, outcomes need to be thought of as subsets, attached to each other, which then forms a greater system or process.  The ultimate outcomes are defined at the highest levels of the organization; with everyone being held accountable that has some impact or influence on those results.  The difference here is that we have generally grown up with an organizational model that designs jobs so that we have complete control over our results.  This is different from being held accountable for results for which we have only some control.  In the real world we almost never have total control over anything important and yet we almost never have absolutely no control either.  We generally have some control.  This creates a difference in the way people respond.  We no longer carry out a predefined set of tasks.  Instead, we must learn to find the control that we have and the influencing factors on that control so that we can manipulate it when we need to.  This is why the means in Boundary Managementsm are managed by limitations rather than prescriptive processes.  This gives the room to be creative and explore new approaches and processes.  It is only through experimentation that the connections can be discovered. 

Limiting means is not enough.  This doesn’t provide the focus that the organization needs.  Only outcomes can do that.  Outcomes become the performance area that the organization has decided to maximize.  To try to maximize any of the means that lead to outcomes, will lead to a reduction in outcome results. For example, increasing sales is not good if you are unable to deliver.  The reverse is true as well; increasing production is not good if we are unable to sell it.  Yet, these two traditional units of an organization act as if the relationship between them has no impact on overall performance.  Each will try to maximize their results, and will be rewarded for doing so, even when those actions decrease the total performance. 

Workgroup Outcomes

 One of the struggles that people have with this model when they first encounter it, is that it is not a model of punishment or even reward; it is a model of creating action.  It will reward action in the right direction and it will punish inaction.  It forces action when limitations have been exceeded and it focuses all other action on maximizing outcomes.  Boundary Managementsm improves performance because it creates action, and particular appropriate action.  It defines the roles and responsibilities through the use of limitations and outcomes, and therefore clarifies who is accountable.  There will be times when everyone is accountable, such as when a company is losing money.  There will be times when only a small group or an individual might be accountable.  Remember, that the definition that we are using here for accountability is “who is responsible to take corrective action when something goes wrong or when results are not achieved.”  This is not a model to help assign blame or fault.  In fact, it recognizes that often everyone is more or less at fault when something goes wrong. 

Let’s take an example of a finance department.  Although, these are changeable depending on the organization, the outcomes for this group might read this way:

·        All departments know their financial status in relation to the budget.

·        All departments understand their impact of total organizational financial performance.

These are no organizational outcomes.  They are internal outcomes.  A Staff group, which the finance department usually is, will have more internal outcomes, whereas line groups will have more organizational outcomes.  Staff groups become support structures to the central processes that line groups represent.  

One of the common remarks is that these groups are not responsible for the outcomes listed.  This is particularly true for organizational outcomes.  It is true that they are not totally responsible.  However, they are partially responsible. Everyone is partly responsible.  Linking the organizational units to outcomes recognizes the interdependency of the total organization. 

Internal Customers

Internal workgroups may have two types of outcomes for which they will be accountable.  The primary accountability will be for any organizational outcome on which they have some control.  These will take priority over the second type of outcome, which is outcomes for other internal workgroups that count on the first groups’ performance, products, or services. 

A common approach would be to develop an internal customer chain that links up to the organizational outcome. This however does not eliminate the problem of workgroups maximizing their performance at the expense of the overall outcome.   A better way is to define the linkages as limitations.  This assures that the internal customers will receive a minimum level of performance or support.  This makes sense to in terms of the End/Means separation.  Internal activities are clearly means and not ends; therefore we should be predisposed to use limitations to guide these internal actions. The exception to this was used in the previous example, the staff workgroup.  Staff functions support line activities.  The line activity is the customer and should have a greater control over what is needed from staff, but this too can often be handled through a limitation approach.  This approach of organizational outcomes and limitations for internal customers does two things; it keeps the balance between units by tying all of them to the organizational outcomes and it keeps the internal linkages well attached by holding workgroups accountable to internal customers.


Lynn A. Walker, Ph.D.
Copyright © 2000  Boundary Management Consulting 
All rights reserved.