Output focussed leadership

I was having a conversation with a friend recently around a policy at their company on parental leave. I was intrigued to know how parental leave was defined as I had assumed it was around maternity / paternity but as it turned out it was more around creating a flexible environment whereby parents were able to attend certain events such as school meetings, performances etc. The definition isn't too important to this subject, but where the conversation went goes to the core of this article. Essentially the regulations of the policy meant that the employer was looking at inputs as a way of judging performance. In this case the number of hours worked versus what I would be more familiar with which is judging performance by outputs.

Let's start with a simple question… what is more important the number of hours a person works or the quality of their output? If we look at a simple comparison of two people doing the same job and say John works from 8.00am to 8.00pm and Mandy works 10.00am to 4.00pm. Most people would naturally say that John is likely to be the most productive, based on this simple input measure only. But let's dig down a little bit and we find that John outputs 5 units of work per hour and Mandy outputs 10 units of work per hour. This changes the context of the conversation significantly because now what we are looking at is actually the output of the work done. In this case John and Mandy are both putting out 60 units of work. But on a superficial level many of us would still see John's commitment in terms of hours worked make him the more committed or even harder worker. But isn't the reality that Mandy is more efficient, isn't she just as committed but working more effectively? Of course there are other factors, such as the quality of the outputs, perhaps John works slower, but his work is twice as good. Perhaps Mandy could work just as long hours and would be even more productive, or perhaps Mandy can only work certain hours because she has other commitments which are just as important to her?

This article looks at the importance of judging performance based on informed thinking and not simplistic observations, it's critical for an effective leader to drive good results and in doing this they must set expectations appropriately. Looking at hours worked is so often quoted as a benchmark for how hard someone works, but in this day and age surely this approach is too simple? In another article I wrote earlier (https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/equilibrium-stephen-harrison-mirfield-fcipd/) I looked at the importance of work life balance and mentioned that when I had told a former boss of mine that I had done an extraordinary amount of hours instead of praising me he told me it wasn't a good thing and that I needed to consider my work life balance. As a result of this feedback I found myself focussing on spending more time with my family and yet still maintaining my work output at the levels I had before. I learnt two very important things from this lesson 1) Effective delegation was essential and 2) Output and quality of output was far more important than the amount of time it took me to do things. So in order to address this second point I had to become more effective and cut through the noise in order to delivery effectively.

My thinking moved from monitoring inputs for myself and my team to focussing on outputs. It was during my time at this professional services company that I developed my interpretation of what is sometimes referred to as the professional working week. To me this is the idea that our working hours are set by the work we have to get through and not by the clock on the wall. If some weeks that means you can drop the kids to school each day and attend a school sports day, but the next you might have to pull a couple of long days, then so be it. It moved me from getting stressed about people not being in on time to being focussed on them delivering the work that needed to be delivered, on time and to the expected standard. It improved my relationships with my work colleagues, introduced flexibility into the working week and business environment and improved engagement of my colleagues. In this industry the approach was manageable, there were certain rules and expectations on attendance, punctual attendance at client meetings was mandatory, regular attendance at team meetings was needed and if anyone let anyone else down then they must be prepared to suffer the consequences. We focussed on punishing the offender and not managing to the lowest possible denominator. The approach is something I have brought into my subsequent jobs and it works really well. But there needs to be a solid foundation and a framework to operate within and there is a significant emphasis on trust. I have set out below some of the key considerations that are required in order to make this output based approach effective:

• Expectations need to be clear - For any performance tool to be effective everyone has to understand what is expected of them. It is particularly important if you want to adopt an output based approach that allows for flexibility. Everyone must understand what is expected of not only themselves but the others around them, in doing this they will quickly understand the impact of them not doing their part has on their colleagues. This 'invested' style requires the leader to set out the vision, assign the objectives and ensure that everyone not only understands them, but also agrees with them.
• As well as being clear on the objectives, as measured by outputs, it is important that people understand what is at stake if we fail to deliver. An output focussed approach allows leaders to develop a more flexible working model, which in turn should drive engagement as the team are able to strike a balance between work and their other interests. But as mentioned above the model works on trust and where that trust is abused, and unfortunately it will be from time to time, the team need to understand that the benefits given can be rescinded as well. The longer this approach goes on the more effective it becomes as the team engages with the benefits being offered and will work hard towards ensuring they can continue and as such the team become self-regulating in some ways. No one wants to let anyone else down or if they see someone faltering they are likely to chip in and help them or have a word with them to highlight what they're doing is letting the team down. But
•  Outputs need to be meaningful - In the same way that an input based approach can be too simplistic in measuring productivity and output based measure can similarly be misleading. If a consultant is told that they must make 10 client visits per month as part of their business development efforts, is it enough to just say 10 clients per month? It probably isn't, it lacks clarity and objectives as to what is actually expected. There needs to be clarity about what you expect to get from those visits, we expect to pick up 3 requests for proposals (RFP's) and perhaps we expect to win 50% of these over the year? Essentially the client visits whilst seeming to be an output are really the input that produces the output in terms of RFP's and wins.
• You need to be really clear what the ultimate goal is and set it out, perhaps the ultimate goal is to generate $0.5m of profit for the business, once we know this as the output we can start to work back and look at the inputs that are required in order to achieve that output. Think it through, debate the outputs and agree them as a team, then work out the delivery model.
• Understand the motivations of your team - if you are looking at adopting a flexible model, which is measured on outputs, then you need to understand what this might look like and to make it the most effective you need to have a good understanding of what your teams internal motivations are. I have a team which has a number of different nationalities in it and a diverse age group. Some of the team have young families and they would like flexibility around school events. Another person has a desire to explore the world and so whilst they are prepared to put in longer hours during the week, they enjoy a long weekend so as to be able to travel. Others are happy with the standard working hours and that is fine too. Ultimately we all need some flexibility though, Doctors appointments, a surprise for a family member etc. As a leader our role is to understand our team and develop solutions that work for everyone.
• An output based approach allows us to build the flexibility into the work place and provide the freedom for your team to be able to strike the right balance between work and life. As time passes this will move from being a leadership approach to become part of the culture itself, as the late Peter Drucker the management guru is often cited as saying 'Culture eats strategy for breakfast'. The importance of a positive culture cannot be over stated, research shows that companies with positive cultures outperform those which don't. Having a good work life balance is part of a positive culture and this encourages long term loyalty to the organisation and also drives engagement.
• Make sure your team work as a team - when your team work together and embrace an output based approach, my experience is that the team then start to work for each other and not against each other. This means when there is a need for all hands to the pump, everyone puts down what they are doing and gets stuck in to help the team out. If the team is fragmented and are too focussed on internal competition what tends to happen is that people think of themselves first and foremost and then flexibility becomes more difficult because people are not prepared to cover for each other. There needs to be a psychologically safe environment where people can raise concerns or needs and you can work through the requirements together. Without this sense of togetherness the whole model becomes less sustainable and people revert to working in silos and the shared benefits are missed.
• Experience in both business and indeed sports suggest the best teams are not made up of superstars they are made up of team players, no person is bigger than the team. When we understand that by playing for each other we will be more successful we are best positioned to work and achieve collaboratively. These are the team members that you want by your side and the ones who will benefit the most from this sort of approach.
• Don't allow the minority to spoil it for the majority - What you don't want is for one person who is not a team player to spoil it for the rest. As leaders we have to ensure that we avoid the temptation of saying well that person has abused the system so therefore everyone else will. If they are not strong enough to avoid the temptation then the team will feel as they are being communally punished for the actions of one. Instead act swiftly and decisively, address the issue with the person who is abusing the system and make it clear to them the ramifications for them and potentially the rest of the team of them not playing their role in the team. If they see their colleagues as being let down often this will bring them into line. In teams that are fully functional and operating effectively this desire to never let their team mates down becomes the motivating factor behind the team's success.
• Lead by example - Your team are much more likely to follow your example than they are to simply listen to what you are saying. You need to be accountable for your outputs and adopt a flexible approach that suits your life style. If you are telling people to adopt a more flexible approach and get their work life balance right, they are not likely to do that if they see you working 12 hour days and missing all your children's key school events. You need to practice what you preach and it is good for you as well. As long as the work is getting done and you are delivering on your output targets then why shouldn't you take some time to get the balance right between home and work life. Getting this right makes us all happier and ultimately sets the example for your team, it should keep them effective and engaged and with clear output goals it should help to keep you all aligned.
• It is not easy and you have to work at it - Some jobs lend themselves to flexibility more than others. My example above of professional services is a classic industry where expectation of long hours are rife and yet there isn't necessarily a need for those hours to follow an exact pattern every day. Other jobs which are perhaps shift based and require people to be in attendance to deliver the outputs are more difficult to accommodate certain aspects of flexibility. But all roles have some scope for flexibility, perhaps it is around being able to switch shift patterns in order to attend a school event, maybe it is around a customer services role being able to work from home using the technology available to derive flexibility.

An output approach lends itself to people who like to manage at a macro level and not to micro managers and this is because it is fundamentally based on trust. Macro management approaches require an implicit trust relationship to be successful as they require a leader who has developed delegation skills, is able to provide clarity around their expectations and can instil a trusting and collaborative environment. It's not an easy one to just implement, it requires the team to buy into it and understand what the benefits are for them. It is essential that when building this approach to start it slowly and small, perhaps with one or two key team members. With these trusted colleagues you can then build the guiding coalition that John Kotter (Kotter, 1996) references as the second of the 8 essential steps to successful change management. Then with this group you can go onto enlist further volunteers, demonstrate quick wins and ultimately institutionalise the approach so it becomes part of the culture.

I'd like to thank my dear friend Brian Hempel for his help is drafting this article, his feedback and encouragement has been fantastic throughout.