But I totally agree with "I think management would be much more successful if their time was spent more on defining strategy and goals, and just ensuring their team was going in the right direction, at the right pace, vs. managing the people and having to make sure the employees are DOING what they're supposed to."
and that is why i think that the skills to manage leaders--people who understand strategy/goals and their role in achieving it--is an important and different skill set than managing the custodial staff--who are very important to success by the way.
I love using West Marine as an example of good leader management---West Marine says, "As part of our strategy to build market share, we want to be known as the easiest place to return items--so, store managers, you will be sure to build that reputation" (they don't actually say that, I am putting words in their mouths) So, Tom Rancich goes into WM with a radio that doesn't work and says, "This radio doesn't work, it says Wet Marine on it but I don't know when it was purchased" Tom walks out with a new radio--well, the store manager is out 150 bucks, but that is okay because he understands the intent and strategy of corporate and he understands that his leadership role is to build market share through happy customers--not just claw at the bottom line--had that manager succeeded in making 150 that day, but been outside of the parameters set by corporate--in other words succeeded outside acceptable practise--he would have been in trouble--(as a result, I spend a lot of money at WM---)So I try to be very clear in guidance but I am absolutley clear that I would failing inside the parameters is acceptable--succeeding outside them is not.