The issue of "personal rationalisation" or "subjectivity" is not limited to "employees". In my book "Corporate Crap" and in the research upon which it is based, I speak extensively of management's subjectivity and the impact of that subjectivity on shareholder/owner objectives.


There is no doubt that staff / managers / people will accept the interpretation that suits them when there is freedom to do so. The reasons for this are varied, but in general, people try to "self-optimise" and "risk-minimise" in their own self-interest.

How much more difficulty exists when employees subjectively interpret managers' subjective instruction following directors' subjective instruction? Plenty of room there for misalignment between intent, action and outcome.

I have found that the way to manage a corporation's natural subjectivities is by being crystal clear about the outcomes expected and required. Provided one is equally clear about the parameters (constraints) within which those outcomes must be achieved, then there is (should be) much greater clarity of what needs to be done with what outcomes.

What of the issue of trust in that environment then? If one issues an instruction but is discontent with the outcome because the effort was misdirected as a result of "instructional ambiguity" then trust is under pressure. Most people can withstand this happening once or twice, but when it become symptomatic of the ways "things are done in the organisation," then distrust becomes the cultural norm with its resultant ramifications.

By having clear measurable corporate objectives at the top, and having those KPOs drilled down through the organisation to the individual level, there is much lower potential for "outcome subjectivity".

The remaining "implementation subjectivity" results from a lack of clarity in the "activity constraints" and/or the agreed action strategy and can be "easily" remedied with agreement on parameters and methods.