I don't like to write about an aphorism for which I can't cite the source. But I was a baaaaad (recovering) English major and didn't make a note of it at the time. It ran something like, "Measure outputs and you won't need to bother with timesheets." Which, I'll admit, seemed like a good idea at the time--perhaps for no better reason than I read it on Thursday or Friday, when the chore of the timesheet loomed.
There's definitely merit to that sentiment, except that it ignores measuring inputs as well. You know, the whole "bricks without straw" business. I didn't realize that until Dennis & I checked in on the two beehives this afternoon. One hive is going absolutely gangbusters; the other's progress is more modest.
Both hives were started from packages of equal size. Both were given roughly the same amount of existing comb (as opposed to starter foundation). Both had approximately the same amount of food to help them through the fickle month of April. Neither is collecting parasitic mites on its sticky-paper. Both Queens--bless their little ovipositors--are laying eggs wherever they can find room.
By all rights, if beekeeping were a reality TV show, the second hive would be fired or voted out of the apiary or snarkily ripped a new one by a celebrity judge. Or something.
The catch is that one hive is more shaded than the other, particularly now that the red clover & other ground-cover around the cornfield are pushing two feet and the trees of the woods to their backs are in full foliage. In the cooler parts of the year, bee-power expended on keeping the hive--particularly the brood--at liveable temperatures is energy that can't be used for building comb, scouting, foraging, or other productive activities.
The difference in location is something that an experienced/informed beekeeper will doubtless take into account & do what s/he can to tweak the environment. But an inexperienced beekeeper might not recognize the solar heating factor as an "input," because that's not something that s/he deliberately added or has a receipt for. In accounting terms, sunlight doesn't show up in the "operating costs" ledger, so it, in a sense, doesn't exist.
Translating from six-legged workers to their two-legged equivalents, an inexperienced or ill-trained manager could quickly do a lot of damage by blindly following the "measure outputs, not timesheets) mantra. Not accounting for all inputs--particularly if based on the corporate balance-sheets--could theoretically lead to perfectly sound employees being sacked for reasons beyond their control, while less ambitious (though more fortunately-situated) ones are retained during lean times.
Think about the person who always seems to know what's actually going down in the office, plant, etc. and has saved you from being blind-sided by politics. Or the front-office denizen you hit up when you need to know who the heck knows the answer to your question. The person whose job description should be "Minster of Other Duties as Required." The person in customer support who's been around long enough to answer questions about products that--officially, at least--they are no longer supposed to support.
You and I both know how important those folks are. But firing or penalizing them for "less" output does serious damage to the organization as a whole. That will show up on the bottom line, except that there will be no account to which the loss can be charged. And, thus, the root problem will likely not be addressed--at least not by the paint-by-numbers management.
In other words, if inputs are not as accurately and rigorously measured as outputs, the wheels start to fall off the concept of replacing timesheets with units of output. At best, the organization will create a monoculture of folks who won't do anything outside their job descriptions. At worst, the resulting organizational friction will clobber profits, and possibly drive away customers as well.
But, then, I suppose that basing management off a single aphorism you found on the internet is just begging for trouble.
