I've had a number of bosses who surprised me when, privately, I asked them what their goals were and how I could help them meet those goals. The way I phrased my query was something like: 'What metrics does your boss use to evaluate your performance? If I know how you are measured, I can contribute to the team more effectively by keeping those goals in mind.'
In one case, my boss explained to me the specific technical projects he wanted to see completed that year. He had 'sold' these projects to management, and they were expecting them to be completed. I soon realized that much of the work I did had little to do with those projects, and I redirected my priorities to make my boss a success. He noticed, and I benefited.
Another time, I was told the criteria that determined whether my boss got a bonus at the end of the year. It sounded greedy at first, but then I realized, who am I to judge? So I redirected my priorities to make sure that those criteria were met. My goal was, essentially, to make sure my boss's bonus was maximized. That would put me in the best position to get what I wanted, whether it was a raise, a promotion, or just a super-duper cool new computer on my desk. Is this unethical? Certainly not (as long as I didn't do anything unethical to meet those goals, of course).
This brings up an interesting conundrum. What if my boss had said the criteria he was measured by was something that I felt wasn't good for the company? For example, if I felt that what the company needed most was to strive for technical excellence, but he was being measured by growth metrics? You have to trust the judgment of the superiors who set up your boss's criteria. Or, strive for both goals. Sound difficult? Well, if you're smart enough to know more about what's right for your company than your boss's boss, it shouldn't be very difficult to find a way to meet both goals at the same time.
I don't think it's cynical to give higher management exactly what they ask for. However, sometimes your boss is measured in a way that unintentionally promotes bad behavior. For example, I once visited an IT helpdesk whose manager was rewarded based on whether he was able to decrease the average initial response time to customer requests. (You can see where this is going, right?) Soon, everyone he managed was answering calls on the first ring (or very soon after receiving an electronic trouble ticket) and putting the caller on hold. Service wasn't getting any better, but they were meeting their metrics. The following year, management started measuring performance based on average time to resolution. As you can guess, tickets were closed very quickly whether or not the issue was really resolved. The statement, 'I'll close this ticket; you reopen it if my suggestion didn't fix your problem' became commonplace. Again, customer satisfaction didn't improve.
If management thinks the only way to drive a business is on metrics, but is incompetent at creating metrics that successfully encourage the desired behavior, then they should either learn how to make better metrics or not manage using metrics.
Tip
A friend once worked at an ISP that measured the sales team based on T1's booked, with no penalty if the order was cancelled later. The boss encouraged everyone to get customers to sign contracts and cancel when the technician came to perform the installation. Unethical? Maybe at first, but after more than a year of this, the management that set up the criteria didn't change the criteria. Therefore, they must not have seen this as a problem, right? The boss, and his staff, enjoyed a long string of bonuses for meeting their superiors' goals. Did the ISP eventually go out of business? Absolutely. The Internet is a better place for having one fewer ISP with incompetent management.
A friend asked his boss what his boss's goals were and was completely surprised by what his boss revealed. His boss was getting near retirement and really just wanted a quiet last year with no surprises. He was, essentially, told not to work very hard for the next year because work meant new projects, and new projects meant new risks. The boss really just wanted to sail through to his last day. My friend realized he had three choices: (1) have a relaxing year, (2) work hard to position himself for a promotion to succeed his boss, or (3) update his resume and start job hunting. He chose the first option. It was his most enjoyable year at the company. He spent the time sending himself to various kinds of training conferences and workshops. Coincidentally, the training positioned him for a promotion. After his boss retired, he was promoted to replace his boss. I guess it all worked out in the end.
When you visibly contribute to making your boss a success, it opens many doors. He will spend extra effort helping you with your career path, you will increasingly receive first pick at the 'fun' projects, and it opens the possibilities to small but important rewards such as cool equipment. Of course, it can't hurt your potential to receive better raises and bonuses. Best of all, if your boss is successful enough to receive a promotion, an ethical boss will take you with him.
From that perspective, the ultimate criterion for how to prioritize your work is to center it around what will make your boss a success.
Action expresses priorities.
--Mahatma Gandhi
