I just finished reading an article by a well respected organization on the topic of remote work. One of the challenges listed in the story was the challenge associated with supervising remote employees.
Now I’m the first to acknowledge that different work roles require different approaches in management style. That flexibility in approach is in fact part of the thesis of allowing people to work in the way that satisfies the overall objectives of a company in the most effective and efficient manner possible. If you are always including total cost and total value in assessing the way work happens, you’ll tend to structure work the right way.
In this way, outcome management is imperative. If you start at the highest levels in a corporate environment, you understand that a corporate board doesn’t supervise the management of a company. The word oversight is used time and again when it comes to the roles of a board. A tremendous amount of time invested by a board is ensuring that the appropriate guidance is in place, strategies are sound, risks are managed in a way commensurate with a company’s mission and that the right people are put in place at the highest levels to ensure delivery of desired company results. Individuals are not being supervised by the board, long term outcomes are.
At what point in the hierarchy of an entire organization does management shift from oversight of purpose and ensuring outcomes to management of the employee? At what point does effectively providing guidance and setting appropriate goals for employees translate to “I have to supervise you” versus “I want to ensure you are adding value to our organization in the intended manner”?
Empowerment, reasonable autonomy and certain flexibility all lead to higher job and career satisfaction. Why doesn’t that translate to higher productivity and efficiency within and organization? Managing outcomes benefits the entire organization and results are what should be managed.
