Someone may appear to be productive when in fact they are just busy with activities, or ‘inputs’. Real effectiveness is defined by results, or outputs. Inputs are more about what Leader-Managers do, whereas outputs are about the measurable results they achieve. When leader-managers confuse the two, they can find themselves spinning their wheels.
Before evaluating whether a person is effective in their job, we must first define what their job is in terms of results and outputs.
Imagine telling an employee to make their presentation better. They might respond by giving you a presentation full of pretty images that leaves key messaging obscure, if it was even there to begin with. Job descriptions are often no different, and provide an ambiguous list of duties for which an employee is responsible.
When we fail to clearly defining roles and outputs, we can’t expect leader-managers to deliver on the results that matter. To measure effectiveness and evaluate performance objectively, we must first list the specific outputs the job will require.
Sweating the details can help keep us on course and get things done properly. Too often, however, managers fail to trust their team to do what they need to. In the name of staying in the loop, Managerzillas emerge – obsessing over every task assigned to the team, constantly looking over shoulders, and demanding work is completed “their way”.
There is no denying the damage micromanagement can cause. Research conducted by Trinity Solutions, also featured in Harry Chambers My Way or the Highway, showed: