> You likely again have never seen a true high performer No one has. ;) > [You] are confusing them for high output. Not really. I agree that high performance

> You likely again have never seen a true high performer No one has. ;) > [You] are confusing them for high output. Not really. I agree that high performance is more than just high output. When I said this: > My job is to make sure they have clarity on the team and organizational goals, make sure my management has visibility and confidence in our team, and create a healthy, high trust environment that allows my team members to work at their best. I was thinking specifically about empowering them to be effective across the management hierarchy. That's the point of creating clarity around goals: so that team members can make autonomous decisions that don't rely on me to be the arbiter of quality/truth/whatever. I'm going to describe the target, not prescribe the path. And yes, even that description of the target is open to reevaluation. Facilitating healthy communication and bringing clarity is one of the fundamental purposes of the management role, in my opinion. As an organization grows the sheer number of conversations happening becomes too much for everyone to keep track of. Managers should function as clearing houses for important communication (not bottlenecks) so that other don't have to spend all of their time doing it. But the purpose of this is to make sure that people that have the skills/context/responsibility/ability have everything at the ready. It's also why I said > [I expect they] eventually grows to be better at their job than I am at their job High-trust management is in many ways a different and orthogonal role. But you likely have never seen a truly high-trust manager. If the high-performer is "so good [..] that it makes you almost unnecessary in the equation," great! Let's promote them to Staff/Principal/Distinguished and have them report directly to the VP/C-suite, whatever.