Micro Management

The team is facing an issue. The members are not taking any proactive measures to address it. The manager suggests actions and asks the team member to act on it. Is the manager micro-managing? The team plans the project, taking into account the realistic scenarios. The team still fails to meet their milestones. The manager, during the status meeting, asks the team the reasons for the slip. He gets into the root cause of the slip. Is the manager micro-managing? Scenarios like these set me thinking – Is it wrong for the manager to “micro manage”, when the team is not meeting the expectation?

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines micromanagement as "manage[ment] especially with excessive control or attention to details". The two phrases “excessive control” and “attention to details” requires elaboration.

If the manager wants to exercise more control, even when his leaders are meeting or exceeding the expectation of their jobs, then yes - the manager is culpable of micro-managing. A manager is said to be micro-managing: when he does not allow his leaders to do their job because he feels it is more efficient for him to do it; when he does not allow the team members to learn from their mistakes; when he gets irritated if the team member makes decisions without consulting him; when he does not allow them to take initiative; etc.,

However, if the leaders do not meet the expectation, asking them to act on issues is not micro-management. If deadlines are missed, a manager needs to be more involved in the details and help solve the problem. If a project is not going as planned, a manager needs the details in order to develop contingency plans. If a team member is not willing to perform, a manager needs to monitor their performance closely in order to motivate or discipline them accordingly. If a manager has to report on progress, he needs a detailed understanding of the processes and procedures of the organisation. In all these cases the actions of a manager cannot be termed as micro-management. Sometimes these managerial responsibilities can appear intrusive or controlling to staff – particularly to those who are under-performing and require more supervision. It is only when a manager’s oversight or input is excessive or unnecessary that he/she can be reasonably termed a “micromanager”.

The second part of the definition of micromanagement talks about “attention to details”.The word micro is broadly synonymous to the details. A manager is not expected to get into the details of the day to day activities of his team members. His leaders are expected to work with the team members on the details. If this does not give the expected results, then instead of getting to the micro details, he should put a framework in place that addresses this issue. If he observes lack of details in the management of the projects, then he should work with his leaders and develop a framework that highlights critical milestones. Tracking these milestones gives the necessary details without the need for micromanagement.

To avoid micro management, develop leaders who are proactive and accountable. Empower them. Set clear expectations for leaders and ensure that they do the same for their reportees. Hold everyone accountable for their results. Develop the culture of pro-activeness in the organization. Develop trust with the leaders. This will go a long way to ensure manager does not need to micromanage.