What separates great managers from mediocre ones is not what they do but how they do it.
If a mediocre manager reproduced a great manager’s schedule – holding the same meetings, delegating the same tasks, and so on – they would still obtain mediocre results. This is because their meetings would be confusing, their delegation unclear, and in general, their actions ineffective.
Of course, doing the right things is a prerequisite for effectiveness. But doing them right is necessary too.
The two differences between mediocre and great managers
There are two differences between mediocre and great managers. The first is that great managers care about their own effectiveness. When they delegate, great managers are not satisfied with assigning a task. They also want to ensure that the delegee understands the assignment and is able and committed to fulfilling it. Similarly, when great managers run a meeting, they are not satisfied with covering a list of agenda points. They want the attendees to walk out with a clear understanding of what to do next. In general, they do not only care about completing a to-do list but also about doing it in a way that brings results.
The second difference between mediocre managers and great ones is competence. Great managers know how to delegate so that people understand what to do next and are willing and able to do it. They know how to give feedback so that it improves the recipient’s skills and motivation. And they know how to run meetings so that they are engaging and effective. Great managers care about being effective and learned how to be it.
Great managers coach
Great managers have high standards for effectiveness, not just for themselves but for others too. They are not satisfied with their people knowing what to do; they also want them to know how to do it.
Therefore, great managers do not limit themselves to telling people what to do. Nor do they limit themselves to telling them what to do and how to do it. Instead, they coach their people. They ask people to practice in front of them and then give them feedback.
Great managers know that the hard part isn’t knowing what to do but how to do it. And the latter can only be taught reliably through practice followed by individual feedback.
For example, great managers do not just tell their subordinates to “call clients to organize a meeting.” They also ask their subordinates to roleplay it, imagining the manager is a client and calling him as they would with a real one. Then, after the “call,” the manager gives feedback, both noting the bad and reinforcing the good.
It’s hard, if not impossible, to learn and teach skills without a practice-and-feedback exercise. Therefore, great managers do not leave delegating and teaching to luck. Instead, they coach their people until they achieve proficiency.
Great managers are coached
Just like great managers coach their employees, they also seek coaching.
And they do that for the same reason: knowledge of what must be done is often insufficient to produce effective action. It must be distilled through practice and feedback, and coaching is an efficient way to get it done.
Summary
What separates great managers from mediocre ones is not what they do but how they do it.
Great managers do not act to check items on a to-do list. Instead, they do it to achieve a result, and they acquire the competence to achieve it.
And they teach that focus and competence to others.
And they know that it cannot be done through teaching or delegating alone; it must include practice-and-feedback sessions. Coaching.
P.S.: I have already coached several managers and entrepreneurs to improve their management skills. If you are interested, send me an email with 1-2 paragraphs describing your current role and ambitions.
While i like some of these points, the example of coaching gets close to the type of micromanagement that makes employees unhappy and is ultimately counterproductive. There needs to be a balance between instruction, coaching, and following up, on the one hand, and trusting and displaying trust on the other hand. Not mutually exclusive, but there is tension between the two