Do your goals combine outcomes and activities?  For example, “Decrease procurement costs by 15% through vendor consolidation.”  If so, you may be missing key opportunities to execute effectively and drive results.

Despite the increased focus on outcome-based management, many leaders still spend most of their time focused on activities.   There are many reasons for this.  However, I’ve found that often the problem is exacerbated by goals that combine activities and outcomes.  Combining outcomes and activities creates two problems:

First it takes the focus off of the outcome.  Activities are more visible and tangible than outcomes.  Therefore, they often become the focal point of a combined goal.  There are a million details to manage when executing an activity.  Those details quickly distract you from the big picture.  Your questions shift from whether you are achieving the outcome to managing all of the details of the activities (e.g., are you completing tasks on time, resolving issues, staffed appropriately, etc.) Banging out the tough tasks and resolve the big issues become proxies for successful completion of the goal (because of the energy and attention they consume to accomplish). 

Or, you may get so mired in details while chasing a losing activity down the wrong track in order to get it done, you don’t have the time or energy to focus on the broader outcome.  In that case, completion of the activity inadvertently becomes the de facto goal. (e.g., your goal becomes to resolve the consolidation issue, not reduce procurement costs) and while you may burn a lot of resources completing the activity, you still may fall short of the outcome.

The second problem with combining activities and outcomes is that doing so limits your options (either explicitly or implicitly). When the activity and outcome are combined, you are effectively committing to both.  At that point, there is a disincentive to explore other options for achieving the outcome. Any time taken away from completing the activity is perceived as potentially jeopardizing your goal.

Additionally, once you get caught up in the details of completing the activity, you simply might stop thinking through other options for achieving the goal due to natural constraints placed on your time and attention.  As a result, you might drive the completion of ineffective activities instead of regrouping and considering alternative activities or ideas that are better suited to helping you reach your goal. 

I’m not suggesting that leaders abandon activities or stop focusing on them.  After all, you can’t achieve an outcome without performing activities.  I am suggesting that we reframe how and when we focus on activities.  Activities should always be framed in the context of an outcome.  State outcomes in one place and activities in different place (e.g, action plan). Then, start with the outcome and assessing whether you are making progress toward it.  Then, constantly evaluate whether you still have the right activities in play and determine if you are making appropriate progress on them.

TIP:  A simple way to determine if you’ve mixed outcomes and activities is to watch for the prepositions “by”, “though”, or “in order to”.  Those words often separate outcomes and activities in a goal:

ACTIVITY in order to OUTCOME
Example: Consolidate vendors in order to decrease procurement costs

OUTCOME by/through ACTIVITY
Example:  Decrease vendor costs by/through vendor consolidation.

When you see this, put the outcome in your goal and the activity into your action plan.

——————————————–
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm.  He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.