The corollary is that the effective manager begins by defining the
end result and then does what is necessary to accomplish it. The
question is not one of what the manager can control but of what they
can contribute. The effective manager decides what result is
required (the goal-setting stage), ensures that action steps are
taking (the process) and takes responsibility for producing the
outcome. Success will be measured by the degree to which a goal is
accomplished.
If only life were this simple. It is more realistic to view success
in terms of a batting average. Success in the managerial world is a
matter of degree. Thus managerial performance cannot be judged
entirely in terms of success or failure. An organization that does
so tends to be a blame-culture and the end result is always a CYA
(cover your ass) culture.
The most positive focus is on lessons learned, where learning is a
core value. In this sense, success becomes a journey, rather than a
destination. We cannot produce positive results every time. There is
always room for mistakes and even failure, but there is never room
for complacency or low standards.
Whilst managers can and should work towards positive results, they
are not the only thing and the ends do not justify all means. While
positive results will not, for example, justify unscrupulous means
used to attain success, appropriate means do not justify
unsatisfactory results.
Means and methods are designed to achieve some specific end. When
circumstances change and new means are called for, it often turns
out that the old ones have become sacrosanct. The means have become
ends in themselves - perhaps they are no longer effective but they
are enshrined. Means and ends, processes and goals must be in
alignment in order to attain positive results.
For what research confirms employees would tell bosses - if asked, send an email to bs@futurevisions.org with
"MWS research on bosses" in the subject
and nothing in the body