Effort vs. Output: Why High Performers Focus on Both

In any position — whether it’s sales, engineering, marketing, or management — productivity can be measured in two fundamental ways: effort and output.

On one extreme, we can evaluate people (or ourselves) based on the effort they put in, such as the number of hours worked or tasks completed.

On the other, we can focus purely on output, like how many sales were made or how many features were shipped.

Both measures have merit, but both also carry significant pitfalls when viewed in isolation.

The Two Extremes

Measuring effort alone can be tempting. After all, more activity should theoretically translate into more results.

The problem with this thinking is that it assumes all effort is equally effective. Someone can be extremely busy — making endless phone calls, attending meetings, cranking out code — but without much to show for it.

Solely rewarding effort is essentially rewarding busyness for its own sake, and effort becomes divorced from impact.

You might end up paying people to push buttons, but not necessarily to make progress.

On the other hand, focusing solely on output — what someone achieves — is actually equally problematic.

If you only measure the outcomes, you could easily overlook whether someone is working to their full potential.

It’s actually pretty common, especially as people become more experienced, for someone to be able to hit their targets with minimal effort, achieving “just enough” to meet expectations without really pushing themselves or the business forward.

In this scenario, the company ends up underutilizing talent and wasting resources, because people could be achieving far more.

Sales and Fishing

To make this idea more concrete, let’s use the quintessential example of effort vs productivity: sales.

In sales, you can either measure someone by their activity (calls made, emails sent, meetings booked) or by their output (sales closed, quota attained).

Measuring only one of these metrics gives an incomplete picture of performance.

Compare sales (or any role) to fishing.

If you measure only by the number of fish caught (quota/goal attainment), you’ll end up with people who can hit their targets with just a few hours of effort.

Maybe they’ve found a lucky spot where the fish are biting that day. Maybe they’ve gotten better at reading the pond and finding the opportunities every day.

Either way, this looks like success superficially.

But is it really?

If someone can hit their target with minimal effort, it begs the question of what more they could achieve with a full day on the water.

Are they fishing to their potential? If not, the company (and the person) is missing out.

Alternatively, if you measure only by how many times someone casts their line (activity), you will obviously also run into trouble. Lots of casts might suggest hard work, but if there are no fish being caught, that effort isn’t translating into results.

Just because someone is making 100 calls a day doesn’t mean those calls are strategic or effective.

Paired Indicators

In Andy Grove’s High Output Management he addresses this paradox through the concept of paired indicators.

Grove argues that certain metrics must be paired with others to give a full understanding of performance. In isolation, a single metric can be misleading.

Activity and output are perfect examples of paired indicators.

When we only look at activity, we reward people for staying busy without ensuring that their busyness drives results. If we only look at output, we miss the opportunity to push people to higher levels of performance.

When paired together, we can make adjustments to ensure people are both working hard and working smart.

The Role of Great Management

One of the things that separates good managers from great managers is their ability to a.) recognize the necessity of tracking both effort and output and b.) help each of their direct reports navigate this duality based on their unique circumstances.

There’s no simple formula for knowing when to push harder on effort versus effectiveness — it’s case-dependant.

The real magic happens when a manager can discern whether a person is underperforming because they’re coasting to their goal or because their max effort isn’t translating into results.

This requires close attention to both the activity levels and outcomes of each individual — something a manager who is only focused on one or the other will miss.

The Objection: “Isn’t Quota/Goal All That Matters?”

In the context of an early-stage startup, this objection isn’t just flawed — it’s dangerous.

In a startup, the goal isn’t just to meet expectations—it’s to exceed them and continuously find the ceiling of what’s possible.

If someone can hit their goal with less time and effort than expected, it’s a signal that we’ve set the bar too low. And in a startup, where every ounce of potential matters, that’s a major problem.

The mindset that “the goal is all that matters” fails to recognize the need for constant exploration.

If people can consistently hitting targets with minimal effort, you’re leaving value on the table. And if you’re leaving value on the table, the company is effectively wasting money.

Everyone at a startup, from top to bottom, should be asking, “What more can I do?” If there’s untapped capacity, it’s up to both the individual and the manager to raise the bar, find additional value-adding activities, or push for steeper quotas.

Wrapping Up

The paradox of effort vs output is something every company and every individual grapples with.

The highest performing people and managers understand that measuring both is essential, because each metric on its own gives an incomplete picture.

It’s not enough to just be busy, and it’s not enough to meet expectations with leftover capacity.

It’s about pairing effort with results and pushing beyond the limits of what we think is possible.