Management style is one thing. Management substance is another.

In the Greek business context, we often pay more attention to how someone appears to manage than to what improves because they manage.

In how they present their position. In the certainty with which they speak. In how demanding they appear. In whether they have a ready answer for every issue.

This is how we end up with heaps of management style and disproportionately little value in management substance.

We readily recognize presence. We find it harder to assess contribution.

Yet the true quality of management is reflected in the P&L, in resource efficiency and in the business's ability to deliver sustained results.

There, confidence needs to translate into better decisions. High expectations into higher performance. And experience into fewer recurring mistakes.

Adjectives describe the interaction. Choices describe the management

Otherwise, the business pays for an impressive management presence without receiving corresponding value.

We often describe a leader with adjectives: dynamic, approachable, strict, humane, decisive. These words matter. But they mainly describe the experience of interacting with that person.

The substance of management lies in the quality of a leader's choices: where they invest, how they price, which margins they protect, which risks they take and what criteria they use to assess whether an activity is worth continuing.

It lies in their ability to turn the business's capital, knowledge, people and capabilities into greater economic value.

This requires an understanding of how the company actually makes money. Which customers contribute to its profitability. Which products support its margin. Which investments increase its future capabilities. Which revenues come with disproportionate costs or risks.

The general demand to “deliver better numbers” does not, in itself, constitute management substance. It requires an evidence-based explanation of how those numbers will be achieved.

A leader may speak passionately about growth while rewarding sales that erode profitability. They may call for cost containment while cutting capabilities that support competitiveness. They may call an investment “strategic” without having defined what result they expect and when they will reconsider their choice.

The wording may sound convincing. The economic logic of the decision needs separate examination.

That is precisely where management evaluation must focus.

The P&L has no line for “management ambiguity”

The P&L has no line labeled “management ambiguity.” It does, however, contain its financial consequences.

We find them in higher execution costs, in the cost of delayed or misguided decision-making, in work done twice, in late deliveries, in lost sales, in discounts that cover failures and in the time of people who are paid to create value but are consumed by decoding intentions.

This friction may not be measured separately. But the business is charged for it.

And here lies a particularly uncomfortable aspect of management: sometimes, the performance problem we ask the company to solve is produced by our own way of making decisions.

By choices we defend because they are ours. By assumptions we do not revisit because they once worked. By the tendency to treat unwelcome data as a presentation problem rather than a reason to reconsider.

Management maturity also shows in the ability to change our position when the facts change. To acknowledge that a decision did not deliver. To adjust resource allocation before the cost of persistence exceeds the cost of change.

The certainty with which a choice is defended does not increase its economic value.

Of course, the P&L needs to be read correctly. A good quarter may be supported by favorable market conditions, past investments or one-off revenue. Similarly, a necessary investment may temporarily weigh on results while strengthening the business's future capabilities.

The quality of the result

That is why management's value is also judged by the quality of the result: how it came about, what it cost and how repeatable it is.

A business that improves its current margin by continually postponing maintenance, training or product development may simply be shifting costs into the future.

Another that increases its revenue with lower margins and ever-growing financing needs may be growing without a corresponding improvement in its financial resilience.

The substance of management shows in the ability to recognize these differences in time and act accordingly.

Style still matters because it affects the quality of information and collaboration. When people avoid delivering bad news, management makes decisions with an incomplete picture. When the need to remain agreeable leads to difficult conversations being postponed, problems accumulate.

A style that lets reality reach the table

What is needed is a style that allows reality to reach the table clearly and substance that translates it into sound choices.

In Greece, we need a more rigorous assessment of management's contribution. We need to examine more precisely what improved thanks to the decisions made. Which investment paid off. Which profitability leak was fixed. Which competitive capability was built. How much more resilient the business became.

A more rigorous assessment of management's contribution

We need to be able to distinguish financial performance attributable to management from performance achieved despite its weaknesses.

Because capable people on a team can compensate for poor decisions for a while. A favorable market can conceal misguided choices. A strong product can keep a company profitable even when it is managed below its potential.

Even then, evaluation remains necessary. The profit reported needs to be examined alongside the value that could be created but is being lost.

This is a more demanding discussion about management. It forces us to move from impression to contribution and from personal certainty to business evidence.

FAQ