Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

One of the mantras that many business executives, consultants, coaches, and academics use when trying to motivate clients, executives and employees is, “Only results count.” What they are intending to communicate is the importance of focusing on the outputs of efforts and that outcomes are what determines success or failure of a business. At first blush, it seems to be relatively intuitive to think that rather than focus on procedural steps and actions; it is the generation of a sale, collection of revenue, creation of profit, etc. that allows a business to thrive. However, that may not in fact be the recommended approach to managing one’s business. As counter-intuitive as it seems, focusing on the results may lead to less success than one might have presumed.
You Can’t Manage Results
Business results are the scorecard used to determine how well a business is functioning and how well it is meeting obligations. While the metrics or measurements applied to assessing business performance make sense in determining how well the business is performing; results are beyond our ability to manage. What a manager can; direct, lead, model, evaluate, train, etc. are the activities, procedures, and tactics or techniques applied. If the activities are performed as needed, the results will occur as expected.
Holding someone accountable for a result is really beyond their ability to completely control and may not at all be a reflection of how well they perform the job. It introduces a layer of frustration in that simply telling an employee to:
• Sell more
• Gain more customers
• Generate better profit
• Be more creative

Without providing the “how-to” aspect or activities required and then measuring how well those things are performed, it is no more likely to occur than the impact of random chance. Results are the goals, but no one can work on results directly. Only the behaviors and actions required to generate those results.

Manager Expectations
Most managers were expert and excellent at performing the roles and tasks that they are now asked to manage in others. Those managers are rarely given any training on how to perform the role of manager (versus super-performer). Therefore, their expertise at performing the task actually prohibits them from doing their job as a manager as well. By virtue of having risen to the rank of executive, manager, or supervisor, the assumption is that they need to create replicas of themselves within their direct reports. But the reality is that the role of super-performer and manager are two very distinctly different assignments. Being able to do something well is not an indicator of how well one can teach another to do it. Unfortunately, when one is especially good at doing something, it is often at least in part because they are a “natural” at it or do things unconsciously. Because they cannot articulate what they do and how they do it, it makes it hard for them to then help others to perform at their level. In essence, they are like the baseball hitting coach that counsels batters to do as he did, “I see the ball, I hit the ball.” Most managers are capable of defining what their peoples need to do better, improve upon, or stop doing; but there is a wide chasm between knowing what needs to be done and being able to train or teach others how to perform without your intervention.
Few managers and nearly all employees would think it is a worthwhile developmental exercise to tell an employee that they need to improve their prospecting skills, or should focus on their handling objections abilities, if they are not then shown how. Without a demonstration, an example of an approved technique, or some other way to recognize the desired performance, the employee is ill equipped to change their behavior and certainly will struggle to change results in a positive manner.
What often happens is that the manager is called upon to step in and solve the most complex problems or issues, often under a time pressure or when there are other hurdles or obstacles to be overcome that are beyond the current ability of the employees. However, rather than devoting the time to developing the skills of their employees so that those employees could perform at a higher level in the future; the manager acts more like the technician of last resort or the salesperson to close the deal that eludes the other employees.
Role of Manager
Using the Sales Manager role as an example, it quickly becomes evident that there is a tension in the job title. Sales is a specific function within a company that is tasked with prospecting, lead conversion, turning prospects into customers, and existing customers into repeat customers. The measurement for a sales effort is likely to be: number of accounts, size of orders, profitability of sales, etc. However, the role of a manager is to guide or intervene in a positive way to ensure that a process is followed to allow for the mission of the function to occur (in this case, for sales to occur so that prospects are sourced, converted to customers, and repeat purchases all at profitable margins). It is therefore the role of the manager to be evaluated on how well direct reports perform their activities or tasks in pursuit of a result. If the activities are well chosen and proven to lead to the desired results, the function will perform admirably. However, to merely demand that results be achieved without offering assistance in the skills or behaviors leading to that result will fall short of desired performance. It is akin to focusing on the scoreboard and not the game. You can’t influence the score without playing the game itself. The skills required to play the game are what leads to a better performance. The result cannot be managed – only the activities needed to drive results.
So, the sales manager is best served by performing his or her role to allow employees or direct reports to learn, experience, and demonstrate their competencies at performing the sales role and not by jumping in to close the business or assist in the prospecting calls to raise the likelihood of success. Surely, there are many business roles where the manager’s expertise can be directly applied and she or he can be integrally involved in the execution of the task – but in the role as manager; it is incumbent to maintain focus on the development of others’ to perform the actions necessary to complete the task and not solely measuring some result or output.

Ask yourself:
1. Does your company have a specific, documented process that you teach and review, and practice, on a regular basis?
2. Do you have a specific set of behaviors and activities that your team is expected to perform in a consistent manner?
3. Do you measure the effectiveness and the efficiency of those activities?
4. Are there core competencies that each member of your team is taught and held accountable for maintaining?
5. Do you review with your sales people activity performance (not outputs or results) and jointly create a remedial plan of action into place?