When we want a person to succeed at doing a work-task we must consider 3 things:

1.    The Task [the thoughts and action steps required for success]

2.    The Person’s Strengths [Innate Talent + Specialized Knowledge + Practiced Skill] at performing the Task.

3.    The Person’s Frame of Mind [good mood?, bad mood?, what emotions/feelings? - does the person enjoy the Task?]

If the person accurately understands the task, has the strength required to perform the task, and has a positive attitude about doing the task then the task will be done right.

If any of these 3 pieces are missing then there is a high likelihood the task will not be performed well.

The keys to helping people succeed at work tasks are (1) assuming as little as possible and (2) helping as much as possible when people illustrate they are struggling to get over a hurdle. To help a person get over a hurdle the leader needs to be able to accurately identify the hurdle. Does the hurdle rest in the person or in the task?

It is easier to remove the hurdles in tasks. So, leaders should remove as many of those hurdles as possible…establishing clear processes and testing those processes with many people to prove the task is doable.

When leaders and managers spend time thinking about work-tasks before they delegate them to people they gain advantage over those who choose not to invest the time.

They gain advantage for 3 main reasons:

1. They improve their ability to match people's talents to work-tasks,
2. They improve their ability to communicate about work-tasks, and 
3. They make fewer delegation errors.

• Is it a routine task or a not-routine task?
• Is there a system/process for doing the task?
• Is that system/process in writing?
• Has that system been well communicated to all involved and affected?

If the leader or manager does not understand both those things then the leader is taking a chance – taking a risk – when people are assigned to perform tasks.

To make this point more graphically - It is risky to assume bright people can perform simple tasks.

Another graphic point – When a task is not performed well there are only a few reasons why it is not performed well.

Seeking Simple, let’s create a short list of the reasons why a task is not performed well:

1.    The task is impossible, so nobody could do it

2.    The task is possible but not clearly defined/described, so people may do the wrong thing

3.    The task is possible but the person doesn’t understand it: the person isn’t capable of understanding the way the task was defined/described; the person, for one reason or another, didn’t listen…the communication failed

4.    The task is possible & the person understands it  but lacks the talent to perform it

5.    The task is possible & the person understands it  but lacks the knowledge to perform it

6.    The task is possible & the person understands it  but lacks the skill [practice/experience] to perform it

7.    The task is possible & the person is capable of doing it but chooses not to do it: the person chooses to spend the time doing something else; multi-tasking - the person does something deemed more important and runs out of time; the person doesn't like the task; the person is prone to procrastinate; the person doesn’t like the boss or the company - sabotage

Yes – even the short list contains many possibilities. That’s the challenge of managing and leading people. Many things can go wrong according to Murphy they do go wrong.

So - leaders and managers need systems/processes for sorting through the possibilities to determine why things went wrong.

Some people are happy performing the routine day-to-day things in life, including routine work. Other people yearn for more variety in their work.

The people who yearn for more variety tend to talk about their desires. The people who are satisfied with the status tend to talk less. When desires are communicated, each type of person tends to discount or shrug off the desires of the other.

People who are happy performing routine day-to-day work tend to resist change and oppose innovation. People who seek more variety tend to be curious and inventive. When ideas are discussed, each type of person has difficulty understanding the views of the other.

And worse, these opposing views about the value of routine and not-routine work often generate never-ending problems. These problems can cause businesses to sputter, stall, and become entrenched in poor performance.

Perhaps, these fundamental differences are responsible for most business failures?

Certainly, these fundamental differences are the root cause of many interpersonal clashes. Interpersonal clashes eat up energy, demotivate, and in some cases lead to business failures.

About eating up energy…

People energize one another. One good example is the thing we call team spirit. Team spirit exists when people are like-minded and share a drive to succeed. When team spirit is present, ‘mutual-motivation’ leads to harmonious thought and action, which cause positive momentum to build and teams to do better.

People eat up one another’s energy. Examples range from co-workers who visit with interruptions to discourteous sales clerks to road rage. People are prone to mirror other’s behaviour: road rage is contagious. People are prone to react negatively when others behave negatively: fight and flight reactions are part of our genetic make-up.

We have 2 choices:

1. We can eat up one another’s energy…leaving insufficient energy to do productive work.
2. We can energize one another…building energy to expand productive work.

The choice is clear.

People need to understand their differences. People need to communicate about their differences. People need to buy into shared goals.

People need to help one another satisfy different needs.

Using better communication, people need to figure out ways to accomplish both routine and not-routine work.