From my personal experience and observations I suggest that you cannot manage people—you manage their activities and through that process help them become effective contributors to meeting the organization's objectives. Managing people implies some level of command and control—do what I tell you to do, the way I want it done, and within the time that I think it should be done. Of course there are many levels of command and control, but its use should be limited to crises that require making a decision without the opportunity for seeking input from others. In contrast, managing activities means that managers look at results and how they were achieved. They balance freedom and control to the extent required. They provide opportunities for independent action within appropriate limits.

What do we mean by managing activities? Every organization fulfills its mission by accomplishing well-defined goals directed toward meeting specific objectives. Those objectives are eventually broken down into various activities and assigned to individuals who possess the necessary competence to complete them. The completion of those activities involves expectations that are usually defined as outcomes or results. The focus must be on results achieved from engaging in specific activities that further the purposes of the organization. We also want to provide our employees an opportunity to contribute their knowledge, their creativity, and their skills toward completing those activities. That's why we brought them into the organization.

As an example, Mike has been given responsibility for developing one part of a business plan for a new program. Mike has all the required qualifications. The goals are clearly defined and a completion timeline has been established. Does Mike's manager tell him how to do his job? Definitely not. Does she review the job objectives so Mike understands both the requirements and any special conditions? Definitely yes. Does she only check his progress at appropriate intervals?

If Mike needs to be told how to do his job then evidently he doesn't possess the necessary education, experience, or skills. However, Mike doesn't need to possess all of the qualifications. Keep in mind that seldom will a person or group possess all the education, knowledge, and skills to perform some activity. There are usually gaps that must be accommodated. If Mike is moderately proficient, he has an opportunity for gaining experience if his manager takes the opportunity to teach, coach, and provide direction toward successful completion of the activity. There is no need for Mike to reinvent the wheel, so input from his manager should be expected and welcomed. Both Mike and his manager agreeing on the objectives and other requirements is absolutely essential; both must be playing off the same sheet of music.

Mike's manager must also check his progress: this may be formal or informal. It depends on the confidence and level of trust between Mike and his manager. How Mike's manager responds to his work depends on what factors determine the success of this specific activity, knowledge of how Mike's work integrates with other activities, and some understanding of the principles being applied by Mike. So, if Mike is moderately competent, has a desire to learn, demonstrates enthusiasm for the challenge, and fully understands the requirements associated with the activity, his manager has an opportunity to provide a career growth opportunity. But, she needs to work with Mike, and perhaps in the future it may be appropriate for her to check on his progress only periodically.

By focusing on managing activities rather than managing people we direct attention to what it takes to achieve a particular objective. We accept people as they are with all of their idiosyncrasies and focus on developing their talents by providing direction and allowing them to expand their competencies