Working for the Sake of Working: Why Some Companies Imitate Activity While Others Achieve Results

Introduction

Over nearly two decades of working in industry and related fields, I have changed quite a few places. The reasons varied: interesting projects would come to an end, priorities would shift, or I would simply outgrow a position. I have worked at enterprises in Russia and Kazakhstan, collaborated with companies from Europe, and in recent years have been closely interacting with colleagues from Israel. And over these years, I have clearly seen a fundamental difference in approaches to work organization. A difference that, in my opinion, is one of the key reasons why some companies develop and capture markets, while others stagnate for years, imitating vigorous activity.

The main problem of management that I have encountered across the post-Soviet space — both in Russia and Kazakhstan — is that no one looks at the big picture and no one understands what the result of teamwork actually means. A simple, almost primitive logic sits in the minds of most managers: "A person came to work, I pay them money, so they must do something." And this "something" can be anything at all. The main thing is that the employee is busy, creates the appearance of work, and does not ask unnecessary questions.

The Domestic Approach (Russia and Kazakhstan): Process for the Sake of Process

What does this look like in practice? An employee comes to the office or production site at nine in the morning, sits down at a computer, opens some spreadsheets, drawings, and answers emails. Throughout the day, they may be loaded to the brim — endless meetings, reports, approvals, and solving momentary problems. They get tired, feel like a squeezed lemon by the end of the day, go home, and the next day it all repeats. At the end of the month, they receive a salary. Everything seems correct: the person worked, got paid.

But if you ask a simple question: "What exactly was accomplished this month? What measurable result was achieved? How did the project advance?" — the answer will most often be bewildered silence or a set of general phrases about "heavy workload" and "many tasks." Because there is no result as such. There is a process. There is an imitation of activity. There are hours worked. But there are no completed stages, no commissioned facilities, no solved problems.

Moreover, a manager thinking within this paradigm sincerely believes that if an employee is not sitting in front of their eyes from eight to five, then they are "not working." And so they begin to load them with any work, just to keep them busy. A commissioning engineer may be sent to organize a warehouse because "they are already on site, let them help." An automation specialist may be transferred to the procurement department because "they are swamped right now, and you have downtime anyway." The fact that this specialist has a different qualification, different tasks, and a different area of responsibility bothers no one. The main thing is that they are doing something, creating the appearance of work.

What does this lead to? Employees quickly understand the rules of the game. Why strain and try to make a project faster or better if no one will appreciate it? Why suggest improvements if there is never time for them because another meaningless report needs to be filled out? It is much easier and safer to create an appearance of busyness: sit in meetings, shuffle papers, and solve tasks slowly and languidly, stretching them out over weeks. As a result, the business stands still, managers deliver beautiful speeches about development and innovation, but in reality, all their words are worthless. Because the system rewards process, not result.

The Foreign Approach (Europe and the Middle East): Result at Any Cost

In the foreign companies I have had the opportunity to work with — both European corporations and Israeli high-tech companies — the approach is fundamentally different. There, result is placed at the forefront. You have a specific task, and you must complete it within the allotted time. When you do it — whether with overtime, on weekends, or, conversely, strictly during working hours — and how you do it, what tools and methods you use, in most cases, no one cares.

The reason for this approach is simple and pragmatic: you are paid not for sitting in the office from nine to six, but for completing a specific task. You may not show up at the office for weeks, working from home, from a café, or from another city. But if the task is not completed by the deadline, you have failed. And that is the only evaluation criterion.

This is especially evident in Israeli business culture. Israelis are direct and results-oriented people. They do not waste time on endless approvals and bureaucratic procedures. If there is a problem, it must be solved, and solved quickly. An Israeli manager will not stand over your shoulder and monitor every step. They will set the task, specify the deadline, and expect you to handle it. How you do it is your concern. At the same time, Israelis are very demanding in terms of quality and deadlines. If you promised, you must deliver. If you fail, you lose trust, and regaining it is extremely difficult.

Such an approach, of course, places much higher demands on an employee's professionalism. No one will spoon-feed you what and how to do. You plan your own time, assess your own resources, and bear responsibility for the result. If you succeed, you are great — receive a bonus and a new, more interesting task. If not, you will be shown the door.

Of course, this model also has its nuances and distortions. Sometimes deadlines are set unrealistically, and insufficient resources are allocated. Sometimes tasks are formulated vaguely, and the result expected by the client does not match what is ultimately delivered. But here everything depends on the professionalism of the manager setting the task. A good manager can decompose a large goal into specific, measurable stages, provide the employee with the necessary resources, and give them freedom in choosing methods to achieve the result. A bad one will micromanage, change requirements on the fly, and create chaos. But even with a bad manager, the system itself is oriented toward results, not process.

Why Did This Happen: Historical Context

The roots of this difference, in my opinion, lie in history. The Soviet economic system was built on a planned economy, where the main criterion was plan fulfillment, not economic efficiency. Worked a shift — got paid. Overfulfilled the plan — got a bonus. The fact that the products were sitting in a warehouse and no one needed them was no longer your concern. This psychology is deeply ingrained in the mentality and, unfortunately, still determines the behavior of many managers and employees in the post-Soviet space.

The Western capitalist model, on the contrary, has honed its focus on results over centuries. There, if you do not generate profit or create value, you simply do not survive. Competition is fierce, and no one can afford to keep employees who are just "doing something." Israel, in this sense, represents a unique fusion of Western pragmatism and Eastern flexibility. A constant state of turbulence and the need to adapt quickly to changes have formed a culture where not process but concrete, tangible result is valued.

What Is the Bottom Line?

I do not want to say that all companies in the post-Soviet space work poorly, while all foreign ones are ideal. That is not true. There are excellent examples of Russian and Kazakhstani enterprises where a culture of results is established, and there are foreign corporations mired in bureaucracy and meaningless processes. But the general trend I have observed over nearly twenty years of working in Russia, Kazakhstan, and the Middle East is exactly this.

Working for the sake of working, process for the sake of process — is a road to nowhere. It is a mode of existence, but not a mode of development. Companies that want to grow and be competitive must change their approach: shift from evaluating "hours worked" to evaluating "results achieved." Give employees freedom and responsibility, rather than burdening them with senseless activity. And then, perhaps, the beautiful words of managers about development and innovation will begin to turn into real actions.

Conclusion

This article is not an attempt to denigrate the management of some countries and extol others. It is an attempt to reflect on a problem I encounter constantly. A problem that prevents many talented specialists and entire companies from growing and developing. And as long as the mindset "I pay — you do what I say and sit still," rather than "I pay for results, and I do not care how you achieve them," remains in the heads of managers, we will continue to stagnate.

The good news is that shifts are happening. More and more companies, especially in high-tech industries, are beginning to understand the value of results and are restructuring their processes. Slowly, with difficulty, but they are restructuring. And this gives hope that in a few years, the situation will change for the better. For now, everyone chooses for themselves which paradigm is more comfortable for them to work in: process for the sake of process or result for the sake of result.