What cascading is meant to solve
The problem is real. In an organisation of any size, people set goals against what their own team values, and the sum of those goals is not the organisation's plan. Cascading is the attempt to make the connection explicit.
Done properly, each layer answers one question: given the objective above me, what does my part of it consist of. That produces goals that differ by level rather than repeating.
| Level | Objective |
|---|---|
| Organisation | Reduce cost to serve by twelve per cent in the financial year |
| Function | Payroll and HR operations cost per employee down fifteen per cent |
| Team | Payroll query volume down by a third through payslip clarity and self-service |
| Individual | Move investment proof submission fully to self-service, with under five per cent of employees requiring assisted entry, by December |
Notice that the individual goal is not the organisational one restated. It is a specific thing one person can do, whose contribution to the level above it is arguable but visible.
The three ways it breaks
- Repetition. Every level carries the same target, so twelve people share a goal none of them individually controls. At assessment, everyone is rated on an outcome driven by the two people who actually influenced it.
- Arithmetic. Targets are divided by headcount rather than by opportunity, so a mature territory and a new one carry the same number, and one team is rewarded for a market condition while the other is penalised for it.
- Support functions. Finance, HR and IT receive a share of an objective they can only influence indirectly. A payroll team given a revenue goal will treat the goal sheet as a formality, correctly.
The other structural problem is timing. A cascade that requires each layer to finish before the next begins takes weeks, and in practice individual goals are set in the second month of the period or later. People then work the first quarter against last year's goals or against none.
When to cascade and when to align
Cascading is one mechanism, not the only one. The choice should follow the nature of the objective.
| Situation | Mechanism |
|---|---|
| Objective divides cleanly by unit, region or product | Cascade the number |
| Objective is a standard everyone must meet, such as safety or compliance | Apply it as a condition, not as a divided target |
| Objective needs different contributions from different functions | Publish it and let each team write its own goals against it |
| Work is cross functional | One shared goal with a named accountable owner |
| Objective is exploratory | Set a learning goal with a decision date rather than an outcome target |
The alignment model, in which the objective is published and teams write goals against it that their leader signs off, is usually faster and produces better goals below the second layer. It requires the objective to be stated clearly enough to write against, which is a discipline most cascades avoid by passing the number down instead.
Making it work in practice
- Publish the organisational objectives before the period starts, in a form people can read. A cascade cannot begin from a plan still under discussion.
- Cap the cascade at two or three layers and let alignment take over below that. Layer four rarely adds information and always adds weeks.
- Make the trace visible. Each individual goal should show what it supports, so an employee can see why they are being asked for it.
- Allow challenge upward. A team that cannot influence the goal it was given should be able to say so before the period, and that objection should be resolved rather than absorbed.
- Re-cascade when the plan changes. If the organisational target moves in the second quarter, the goals below it are now measuring the old plan.
- Check the aggregate. If every team achieves its cascaded goals, the organisational objective should be met. Where it would not be, the division was wrong and the goals were never a plan.
Frequently asked questions
What is goal cascading?
Translating an organisational objective downwards through management layers so that individual goals trace to something above them. Each layer defines its own part of the objective rather than repeating the same target.
Why do cascaded goals feel meaningless to employees?
Usually because the same target was repeated at every level rather than divided into specific contributions, so people are rated on an outcome they did not control. Support functions feel it most, since they receive a share of an objective they can only influence indirectly.
How many levels should a cascade go through?
Two or three. Below that, publishing the objective and letting teams write their own goals against it is faster and produces better goals, and it avoids the delay that leaves people without goals for the first quarter.
Should everyone have a goal linked to company revenue?
Only where the person can influence it. A shared revenue goal for a payroll team produces a goal sheet treated as a formality, which then undermines the credibility of the other goals on the same sheet.
What happens when the company plan changes mid-year?
The goals below it are now measuring the old plan and should be revised formally, with the date and reason recorded. Leaving them in place means the appraisal at the end of the year assesses people against a plan the organisation abandoned.
How Engage shows the trace
Engage links each goal to the objective it supports, so an employee can see what their target is part of and a leader can check whether the sum of the goals below them actually adds up to the objective above. When a plan changes mid-period, the goals that traced to it are identifiable rather than having to be found by asking.
See goal management in Engage