Only the Results Are Important in Management
The thoughts and actions of competent managers reflect a general pattern which is their focus on results. They are primarily, sometimes exclusively, interested in results. Everything else is of secondary importance to them or does not interest them in the least. The fact should not be concealed that their focus on results can sometimes assume even pathological proportions which I do not consider good nor do I recommend it as, to some extent, it is difficult to tolerate. Nevertheless, it is the results that count for them.
My basic assertion is that management is a profession. With regard to this first principle, it may be said that: Management is the profession of achieving results or obtaining results. The yardstick is the achievement of objectives and carrying out tasks.
This principle is not always important to the same degree. As long as results are relatively easy to achieve, perhaps due to a particularly favorable economic situation, management is not really under pressure and, in certain circumstances, management may not even be necessary. Under such conditions, this first principle is hardly used. Its application becomes necessary, useful, and even urgent when results are not achieved automatically; when real effort is required.
Of course, adherence to this principle does not mean that all targets will be achieved. To expect or presume such a thing would be naïve. Even managers who have made the principle of focusing on results the foremost maxim for their actions suffer setbacks and must accept failures. However, they do not give up because of this, they do |18|not resign, and, above all, they are not satisfied with explanations and justifications.
A Self-Evident Fact?
It may occur to us to believe that this principle is a self-evident fact that managers act according to this principle in any case, and that it therefore hardly needs to be mentioned. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Firstly, this can be observed; we need only look for it. Secondly, every experienced manager will confirm it. Thirdly, this statement is confirmed by a small test, which I like to conduct occasionally. When I am with managers, and there is occasionally time to have a drink together, I like to ask the question: What do you do in the company? All of those questioned describe their actual work. This is only to be expected. Then comes the interesting part. About 80 percent then start to describe how hard they work, how much effort they put in, the amount of stress they are under, and how much trouble they go to. Only 20 percent talk about results after they have described their work.
I think this should be given some thought. Some are perhaps too modest to talk about their achievements; they think it would be interpreted as self-praise, bragging or presumptuousness. Even if we were to take that into consideration, the type of answers coupled with other observations would indicate that most people are more focused on input rather than output in their thinking and perception, and perhaps, therefore, also in their actions. Working hard, making an effort, withstanding stress, etc. are all important, of course. Without this, management would not work. However, this is all input. These are exactly the things that do not matter. What counts is the output.
Input focus can be recognized by another, very typical symptom. Eight out of ten curricula vitae that I receive when recruiting usually contain quite a long list of positions or jobs held by the applicant. However, only one out of the ten mentions what he or she accomplished in these positions, what his or her achievements were, and finally the extent to which targets were achieved.
|19|Hence, it should not be assumed that people are, naturally of their own accord, focused on output. A human being is, by nature, not focused on output but, to a certain extent, focused on input. A baby asks: What does the world owe me now that I am here? It is justified in asking this question because, after we have brought it into the world, we owe it a few things – nourishment, education, love, etc. It is alright for a baby to have this attitude. However, at some point in time, let us say between the ages of 15 and 25, a person has to learn to turn the question around radically. It should no longer be: What does the world owe me? but the opposite: What do I owe this world at this point, after I have been brought up for these 25 years, had the privilege of getting an education and training and having obtained a degree at university?
Some may think that a question framed in this manner sounds pathetic. But this change in viewpoint and attitude is crucial for managers and their effectiveness. It is one of the keys to their success.
Once the principle of focusing on results is taken seriously, and the world is viewed from this standpoint, it is remarkable how many people are always in a position to say – and also to justify very well – exactly what will not work, what is not possible, what is not functioning. I would suggest that too much time is spent on this. Managers should direct their strength, energy, and attention to things that do work. If these people are young, we must give them the chance to retrain and show them some patience. However, if we are dealing with people from an older age group, we cannot stand by and watch for very long.
Misconceptions
This principle is often plagued by inappropriate application and misconceptions which frequently trigger very emotional reactions. Firstly, it is to be noted that I expressly call this principle a management principle and not a general life principle. Very often management and life principles get mixed up, confused or equated with each other. However, we must be able to separate them. What is right for management does not necessarily have to apply to life, and vice versa.
|20|If one wants to apply the principle of focusing on results in their lives, one must make that decision on a very personal level. For my part, much of what I do in my life is not because of the results but for totally different reasons – because it gives me pleasure, because it is fun, because I think it is beautiful, etc. I am a passionate skier; however, I do not ski to win races but because I enjoy skiing. On the other hand, management cannot be practiced for the sake of fun or enjoyment. Management must be focused on results and its effectiveness measured according to those results.
Secondly, this principle in itself, as with all the other principles, has nothing to do with style. From experience we can say that many managers find it astonishingly difficult to understand and accept this. The discussion on management style, which has dominated literature and training for decades, has made it almost impossible for many to differentiate between form and substance, outward characteristics and content. What could perhaps be a question of style is how we apply or express a principle. This can be done harshly, roughly or loudly; but this is probably not a very helpful style. We can also apply it quietly, kindly, and in a friendly manner. This is another style, probably the better one. The principle itself, its substance, its assertion, and its validity, however, are not affected by the style.
A focus on results has nothing to do with brutality, backbreaking work or anything like that. Therefore, the principle of focusing on results is not only to be found, as many believe, in organizations in the business world to which harshness, and occasionally even inhumanity, are imputed time and again. This principle is found in every organization that is well managed, in every one that achieves results. Schools have to aim for results in the same way as business enterprises; the results are only different in their nature. Even hospitals have to achieve results; this is the sole purpose for which they are established. The same holds true for the Salvation Army, a military organization, ora society for the promotion of world peace. Even an association that sets as its objective the combating of harshness in management has to achieve results.
Inevitably the question arises: What results are actually meant when |21|focusing on results? This question, as important as it is, is also independent of the principle. What I discount, for obvious reasons, is the sophistic opinion expressed occasionally that failure to achieve an objective is a result in itself. In purely formalistic terms, that may be true, but that is not what is meant here. However, a practical, positive answer can only be given when we are talking about a particular, specific organization. It is obvious that the results important to companies are different from those in the case of public administration bodies or cultural and arts organizations.
There are two categories of results that are always to be found in every organization. Firstly, there are results related to people, to their selection, promotion, development, and deployment; and secondly, results related to money, to the procurement and utilization of financial resources. In other words, every organization needs money and it needs people. Apart from this, it is difficult to generalize. Even within these two categories, there are vast differences between organizations. For example, even if money is important for every organization, its role in companies is totally different from the one in non-commercial or nonprofit organizations.
Results must, by no means, be always and exclusively economic results, as is assumed only too quickly. Hence, management does not inevitably lead to a purely materialistic, economic viewpoint that people who do not work in the business world, and sometimes are not well acquainted with it, are quick to assume. They occasionally confuse results as a whole with a particular type of result that is given prominence in the business sector. As soon as this misconception is cleared, it is evident that, as has already been mentioned several times, every organization needs results. Organizations are established precisely because of this and for this purpose.
Therefore, the principle that results are what matters and, in the final analysis, nothing else, is applicable to all organizations. In complete contrast to widely held assumptions, this principle is much more important and also more difficult to apply in organizations which aspire to non-commercial, non-material and, above all, non-financial results. The principle is of particular importance in areas where quantification |22|is not possible, something that is almost always possible, toa great extent at any rate, in the case of economic results.
Effective people do not question how much or how hard they work; they ask about the results. They care little, if at all, about their motivation, but are very interested in the results. After working hard, they are just as tired and exhausted as the others are, but that does not satisfy them; they also want to know if anything has been achieved.
And What About Those Who Cannot Accept This?
This gives rise to an important question: What do we do about people who cannot live according to this principle despite all the explanations, distinctions and clarifications? There are people, perhaps a majority, who say something to the effect that: I understand what you mean but this is not my world; I cannot (or will not) accept this. Are these incompetent people? Are they bad employees? Are they unsuitable? Though these possibilities cannot be ruled out, it is seldom the case. Many of them are sensitive, cultured people, who are, however, a little “detached from the realities of management”.
The consequence is that these people should, firstly, not be given responsibility for other people, and, secondly, that they should not be responsible for an organization and its divisions. The attitude should be somewhat as follows: You say that you cannot accept this principle. I am glad you told me this. It takes a lot of courage to admit to something like this in today’s society. However, now that I know, it is my duty as your boss to ensure that you never get a management position in this organization…
This certainly does not mean, and this must be emphasized, that the person has to leave. It could be that the person is a highly qualified specialist whose expertise and factual knowledge is crucial to the organization. However, such people must be kept away from this type of management position, in the interests of the organization and the people who would have to suffer under their incompetent management and, above all, in their own interests because they themselves very often |23|suffer under the constraints of a management role. These types of people become ill in a management position, they cannot sleep, they are stressed, they become nervous, and it is not rare for them to lose their value as experts because they cannot perform under these circumstances. Such a burden should not be placed on people and, if it is, the mistake should be quickly rectified.
In order to avoid this type of error, I consider it important to ask, starting with ourselves, more often than is usual: Do you really want to be a manager? Do you actually want that – and are you very clear about what that means? Above all, do you know that under certain circumstances you have to adhere to principles and make decisions, which you may feel are hard and painful?
These questions are not asked often enough. Too many people aspire to attain management positions in complete ignorance of what they entail. These are not well thought out, deliberate decisions but people who stumble into situations which they do not understand. Most are seduced by status symbols, a better income, and the prospect of importance and influence.
I do not wish to present a case for the incorporation of clear and strict self-testing obstacles, similar to those that existed, and continue to exist, in religious orders, for example. That would perhaps be taking things too far. However, aptitude test criteria modified in an appropriate and sensible way would also be advisable for management.
The principle of focusing on results deeply affects a few convictions which are widely held and indiscriminately accepted. They are to be found in company mission statements, they are standard statements in lectures, are championed with the deep conviction of religious belief, and are usually defended emotionally, sometimes even aggressively. If these convictions are questioned, it is taken as an affront.
One of these religious tenets is: Work should be pleasurable, it should be enjoyable. It appears in various forms – as a demand, as an expectation, as a postulate of modern personnel management.
Möchten Sie mehr lesen?
Den vollständigen Text gibt es als eBook bei Ihrem Online-Händler.