I wanted to explain a little more about how a good executive works.
First - almost anybody who has managed other people has into the problem where they don't do the work as you expect. One reaction is to just do it yourself - micromanaging - but that runs into a problem.
Namely, that you if you are given more and more responsibility, you eventually reach the point where one person can't do it all. There are so many hours in a day, so much work you can do before you are overwhelmed (and maybe even burnt out).
Alternatively, you can focus on just the ones who somehow manage to perform as you expect. Perhaps finding the 'whales' - but that also has its problems. It basically puts the burden on those who already know what to do, and ignores the underperformers. Then the people you rely on may get overwhelmed and burnt out whereas the rest are able to coast by. (The people focusing on the 'whales' then compete for those already able to do the job, rather than developing more people and getting them to the point where they are also able to perform.)
There's an additional problem here. Because as anybody who has ever been a subordinate knows, they are keenly aware of what the boss wants... and will strive to look good in their eyes. Simply telling them to do a task and then measuring performance on how well they achieve it means that you may ignore how they achieve it. It pressures them, sometimes to do things that are illegal... or even just browbeating their own subordinates, which eventually will drive them off. (Seriously, unless you take major steps to indicate you want to know the truth, and then prove it - repeatedly - by how you react to bad news, and also make sure you've got good feedback mechanisms, it is too easy to get blindsided by things you just don't know).
Delegation is not just a fire and forget kind of task. You have to have a good understanding of who you're delegating to, and what they're capabilities are. Maybe they're experienced and just need a general order, maybe they're new to the job and need a bit more involvement. Knowing which is part of your job.
And part of that job involves setting them up for success. Do they know the task? Do they know the standard expected? Do they have the resources they need? The funding, the personnel, the equipment?
If you can't clearly show you've given them those things, then you've set them up for failure... and it's not that they're a bad subordinate, or lazy, or whatever excuse you have for thinking any failure is theirs and not yours. (In my experience, it's poor leadership rather than poor employees that are the problem, and if you give them the tools to succeed they will.)
For complex projects, it's helpful to identify all the tasks that need to be accomplished to reach the end goal. That's where project managers come into play, and the tasks and timelines marked in some sort of project management tool, but I can illustrate this point with something much more familiar - Thanksgiving dinner.
If you want to have Thanksgiving dinner at 4pm on Thanksgiving Day, you have to figure out the timeline of all the events leading up to it.
The turkey has to be thawing about three days out (depending on the size of the turkey). The potatoes need to be peeled and ready to cook around an hour out. You have some leeway, depending on how many potatoes there are, but they can also sit in the hot water for a little while so an hour gives you plenty of time for them to cook - and then just before dinner you can mash them and add whatever fixings you want.
Same for casseroles, and pies, and stuffing, and any food to nibble on. (If we're having spinach dip or cheese dip we may prep them the day before, and then they're ready to eat all day long).
You have to assign the tasks to whoever you want. Is someone responsible for a particular casserole? Are they going to bring it already cooked? Or ready to cook? How long will it take? Is there enough space in the oven for it, along with all the other things? If using the stove top, are there enough burners? Can something be cooked earlier to ensure all of it gets done on time?
Most mothers somehow manage to track all of this in their heads, but if they were to put it in a project management tool you would soon get a list of all the tasks and which have to be done by which point in time... and you'd better make sure someone buys the ingredients ahead of time, because trying to find eggs or green beans, or sweet potatoes on Thanksgiving Day can be a bit difficult.
If someone new in the family is hosting Thanksgiving, it generally doesn't hurt to ask if they've got the turkey thawing a few days prior. It's generally easy enough to do during some sort of call to coordinate plans, and if it's not necessary then no harm done - but if they've forgotten or inexperienced enough not to know, then you've saved everyone the stress of worrying how you'll cook thanksgiving dinner with a frozen turkey.
All of this, btw, is a lot of work. Maybe you don't have to do each and every task yourself, but making sure everything happens on time and bringing it all together so that the meal is ready when you've told everyone it will be is no small feat.
To bring this back to business - management is more than just tracking KPI's and reporting on the results. It requires really knowing. Know your people, know what they're doing, know that you've given them the tools to succeed. That you're aware of any blockers and have time to resolve them before the tasks need to be done.
That entire skillset seems more rare then I expected. You can see that in companies like Boeing, where their CEO said they have "made serious missteps in recent years."
You see that in executives who seem to think they can manage by fiat. Just tell people to do something, but whether or not they follow through depends on how skilled they are at all the things I listed above. The executive isn't doing it, instead they just yell at them if they fail and praise them if they succeed - but they're not really involved enough to know if the tasks are being done to standard, or even legally.
Governing by fiat is, in some ways, the same problem I pointed out with regards to programming. It's abstracting away all the messy bits, simplifying it... and ultimately obfuscates problems and only succeeds if the someone lower down does what's necessary. Sometimes without any acknowledgement or understanding by the people who delegated it to them.
Anyways, in American Congress (as the legislative branch) is supposed to decide the what and the president (as the executive branch) is supposed to decide the how.
There has been immense pressure over decades to make the president the point person, and hold them responsible for both the how and the what, but that's not really what the Constitution says.
And governing by fiat both takes the 'what' from Congress and is incomplete without a plan for 'how'.
