|
The Two Sides of Micromanaging
Steve Adubato, Ph.D.
In last Sunday’s “Star Ledger” Jeff Whelan wrote
a piece called “McGreevey: Back to Blundering” in which
the governor’s leadership style was explored in great detail.
In the article, the article referred to the fact that members of
the media, lawmakers and McGreevey’s own Cabinet were losing
their patience “with the governor’s micromanaging.”
It’s funny, micromanaging is in the eye of the beholder.
When exactly does the positive leadership trait of attending to
the details become problematic micromanaging? At what point does
the desire not to micromanage cause leaders to become so far removed
that they are soon clueless as to what exactly is going on in their
organization?
Let’s try to make sense of the whole micromanaging issue.
First, micromanaging has its place. People need to know that you
care about getting things done on time and in the right way. They
need to know that if things go wrong, you are going to get involved
and find out what happened and how to get it right. Further, employees
in any organization must believe that the person in charge knows
something about each team member’s responsibilities and has
a reasonable method of measuring his or her respective performance.
Another positive aspect of micromanaging involves the coaching
and mentoring of individual employees. A leader must know the respective
strengths and weaknesses of their key people. They must have a commitment
to their people constantly improving and growing. In order to do
that, there is a degree of micromanaging involved. For example,
if a letter is written by an employee that isn’t concise,
clear and focused, a manager has the responsibility of explaining
exactly what was missed and making concrete recommendation as to
how to improve the performance. Then, there must be follow-up and
more coaching. These things cannot be glossed over or managed from
a distance. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty and get intimately
involved in the performance of your people.
Now the downside. Sometimes, extreme micromanaging wreaks havoc
on an organization. It causes people to look over their shoulder
unnecessarily and say to themselves, “If the boss is going
to do every job himself and manage every detail of this project,
what’s the difference what I do? He is going to redo it anyway.”
That’s bad. Over time, this type of micromanaging causes people
to give less of themselves to the organization and become apathetic
and ineffective.
The other problem with micromanaging is that there isn’t
enough time in the day for any leader, be it a governor, chief executive
or college president, to manage all the details in their organization.
Leaders must prioritize and manage their time. When an executive
becomes so obsessed with making every decision himself, some things
get missed. Sometimes, the things that get missed are big opportunities
or thorny problems that need addressing.
Too much micromanaging also creates a climate of distrust. If your
people don’t think you trust them to do a good job, they can
begin to distrust themselves and those around them. They stop sharing
valuable information with other team members including you as the
meddling micromanager. In the end, they are less willing to protect
you when the proverbial doo-doo is about to hit the fan.
Just remember, saying, “If you want a job right you have
to do it yourself,” may work in certain situations, but as
an overall, everyday philosophy for ANY leader of a large organization,
it is a death sentence. If you are a micromanager or are being micromanaged
by your leader. Write to me.
Dr. Steve Adubato coaches and speaks on the subjects of communication
and leadership and is the author of the book "Speak from the
Heart." Write to him at The Star-Ledger, 1 Star-Ledger Plaza,
Newark, NJ 07102, visit his Web site at www.stand-deliver.com,
or e-mail him at sadubato@aol.com.
Back to Star Ledger
Column
|
