The ability to outperform others in productivity allows managers to focus intensely on completing their tasks; however, this often leaves them with little time to concentrate on other equally important elements—specifically, the human factor. Activities such as connecting with, inspiring, developing, and bonding with employees are sometimes overlooked. Managers may even fear that focusing on people will hinder productivity, inadvertently causing them to fail in their roles.
In the study *Leadership That Gets Results*, Daniel Goleman—a psychologist and author of best-selling books on Emotional Intelligence—labels this the "Pacesetting" leadership style. The paradox is that the harder managers strive for high productivity and a singular focus on results, the less effective they actually become; this approach creates immense pressure, demotivates staff, and proves unsuitable when managing employees with lower levels of expertise.
A 2017 study by Kronos—a global human capital management firm operating in over 16 countries—identified work-related pressure as the greatest threat to employee engagement. Furthermore, 95% of HR professionals cited it as a decisive factor in their company's staff turnover rates.
This management style also directly negatively impacts the manager's long-term career progression, not to mention the serious toll it takes on their personal lives and social relationships. Consider the case of Sarah, a Deputy CEO at a real estate investment firm. She was a high achiever known for her ability to close deals at lightning speed—until the decision to promote her to the board of directors was scrapped. Her exceptional productivity actually undermined her rapport and engagement with subordinates, consuming the time she should have spent connecting with them. Her rapid deal-closing ability was a key factor in her potential promotion, but her employer signaled that it wasn't the sole determinant of success for either her or the company.
Then there is James, a key figure at an international professional services firm who possessed extensive knowledge and skills and was highly regarded by clients and peers alike. It is not unusual for someone like James to set exceedingly high standards and expectations for his subordinates. Unsurprisingly, this approach negatively impacted team engagement and led to the departure of talented staff—and eventually, to his own dismissal.
The examples of Sarah and James illustrate that an effective manager is one who strikes a balance between work performance and the human element.
Such managers do not fixate solely on results or operate from a narrow, self-centered perspective that ignores the needs and capabilities of their colleagues; instead, they prefer a steady, reliable pace over the risk of burnout caused by exhausting themselves and their teams.
In their book *Scaling Leadership*, Robert Anderson and William Adams present research highlighting that people skills are the defining factor in a manager's success. Six out of their ten greatest strengths are people-oriented—such as listening skills, the ability to inspire, and the capacity to motivate employees.
Leaders who are overly focused on task completion often operate out of fear; they manage through intimidation and become controlling and authoritarian, ultimately demoralizing their teams. Sarah, for instance, feared that without strict control, her subordinates would eventually cause chaos, causing her to lose face and damaging the reputation she had worked so hard to build. James, meanwhile, feared that unless he focused intensely and worked relentlessly, success would elude him. Such limiting mindsets turned them into productivity obsessives, fixated solely on output.
If you recognize yourself in Sarah or James, here are the steps you, as a manager, need to take right now:
