Personal Balanced Scorecard and Total Performance Scorecard Approach

 Hi

Yes, there are equivalences as you describe.

There are also equivalences at the corporate level too. Back in 2005 we were working with an organisation that was corporately very keen on 7 habits and so to aid the 'location' of what we were doing (strategic balanced scorecards at corporate level then cascaded into the organisation) within the corprate psyche I prepared a simple statement of how our work 'aligned' with 7 habits.  I've pasted in these ideas from that original document below.  Maybe it will help, maybe not.

To help you understand the cut / pasted text, DS = Destination Statement, SLM = Strategic Linkage Model (a more elegant form of Strategy Map), Activity Objectives = a kind of oval appearing on the SLM describing something the management team are focusing on (think cross between objective and initiative in 2nd Generation Balanced Scorecard designs), 3G Style = refers to 3rd Generation Balanced Scorecard design methods used by 2GC.  Any questions etc. please let me know.

To be candid, I strongly suspect that the reason you can make these equivalences is a reflection of how feeble and vague 7 habits statements are - I imagine you could find equivalences between the 7 habits statements and most things - astrophysics, motorcycling, violent crime and so on.  So the presence of an equivalence or two relating to balanced scorecard (at either personal level or corporate level) means little or nothing - I think the obverse would be more interesting (if you couldn't find an equivalence).  So don't read too much into it really.

Best regards

Gavin Lawrie

2GC Active Management

Here are the sentences from 2005

1: Being proactive

that is what effective Balanced Scorecard use for corporate performance management purposes is all about. Take charge of the organisations destiny as far as possible.

2: Begin with the end in mind.

That is what we do through development of the DS. You cannot identify the drivers of your future situation and begin to influence them (being proactive) if you havenｫt got a good idea of the future situation you are seeking.

3: Put first things first -

That is what we do when we develop the SLM and identify activity objectives. The process we use is to identify the "big rocks" in the way of reaching our desired future destination (voting on the DS) and agree how we remove them or work around them (Activity Objectives)

4: Think win/win

This is the roll-out 3G style. Our approach seeks to create win/win relationships, where we develop performance agreements or partnership agreements (SBU Scorecards) "shifting the paradigm of productive interaction from vertical to horizontal, from hovering supervision to self-supervision, from positioning to being partners in success", as Cowey describes it.

5: Seek first to understand then to be understood.

In the design phase when rolling out the Scorecards this relates to the process of negotiating and agreeing subordinate Scorecards. Donｫt bully subordinates into creating the Scorecard you wish to see. Invest time in understanding their arguments about alternative solutions and possibly alternative results compared with whatever expectations you have communicated.

6: Synergize.

This is when you start achieving horizontal and vertical organisational alignment by putting the other habits to work on an ongoing basis.

7: Sharpening the saw.

At a personal level this is about personal development based on ongoing physical, mental, social/emotional and spiritual renewal. In an organisational context I would say this is about continuously evolving our Scorecards and approach to corporate performance management i.e. renew the contents of our Scorecards and the way we use them as well as what we do to develop our ability to use them.

 Hi Ahmed

Dr. Rampersad is selling you a line here.

Apart from a one diagram (Fig 7) and a short list of Balanced Scorecard related terms on page 4, this paper has little or nothing to do either with personal balanced scorecards, or gaining enagement within an organisation.  The very large majority of the paper comprises a retelling of standard materials on personal goal setting, linked to a bit of "Plan Do Act Review"  thrown in for good measure.  Which is fine as far as it goes.  But I suspect if the paper had been called "Improve your focus by setting personal goals and adopting good work patterns" it would perhaps have obtained slightly lower awareness.

A common sales pitch is to try and get the potential purchaser to engage in 'positive conversation' before you present your product.  e.g. "I am sure you would agree that we would all benefit from being safer on the roads... <yes> well then let me show you this new car that is safe - given your interest in safer roads you really should consider buying one".  A second common sales pitch is to suggest that a product you are being offered actually is something else.  e.g. "Can I interest you in buying this tablet computer - it is a Nokio ePad2 - a special educational version of an iPad 2 style computer and is made by a famous mobile phone company?"  

Dr. Rampersad seems to be using this approach to try to sell you copies of his two books, and services of his consulting firm.  

I could find no aspect of Dr. Rampersad's paper that actually build upon the principles that underpin performance management or balanced scorecard in anything other than highly generic capacity.

Your intention (to implement a personal and life performance management framework) is a good one.  I suspect there are many dozens of variants of this you can find in your local business bookshop.  Personally, I would go for one that is slightly more up-front about what the books are about.

Best regards

Gavin Lawrie