Effective Management Systems Solves Micromanagement
Micromanagement stifles organizations, but it’s an all-too-common practice among managers today. How do we take the micro out of management? We build systems that naturally reduce micromanagement. Here’s how thoughtfully designed management systems can create clarity and appropriate autonomy while improving overall performance.
Download the “Effective Management Systems Solves Micromanagement” White Paper Here: Effective Management Systems Solves Micromanagement or view the content below
Effective Management Systems Solves Micromanagement
While we may lack a common understanding of both what micromanagement is and why it exists, we at least have a common reaction to it: disdain and frustration. Micromanagement is synonymous with bad management. During the era of The Great Resignation, along with other underlying shifts in work mindsets, companies need to pay careful attention to why employees may leave. Bad managers in general, and micromanagement specifically, are both the top reasons for departures and one of the most fixable. And the problem is likely worse than we think because language such as “lack of trust” is often used as a reason for departure when that is really an explanation for what they experienced, which was micromanagement.
Defining micromanagement
It is important to define micromanagement so that we can properly identify it when it occurs, and not confuse it with other bad practices which may appear similar. Micromanagement is fundamentally a consistent effort to control every part of the work, however small. Let’s break that down a bit. Consistent effort is an important factor. A CEO should be…yes, should be… asking about a single piece of paper or a screw in a piece of equipment at the right place, right time, and for the right reason. Sometimes people react to a manager asking about or engaging in a detail and calling it micromanagement, but only when it is a consistent and persistent pattern that we should call it micromanagement.
Another important element of micromanagement is an effort to control, which speaks to the intent. I choose the phrase “effort to control” specifically because it isn’t actual control. That level of actual control is elusive, a myth. Micromanagement is not control, which is why it is such a bad practice. It is more accurately only an effort to control.
Finally, micromanagement is about control of every part of the work; in other words, both the what and the how of the work. This means that leaders exhibiting micromanagement resist delegating, discourages decision-making, and expect frequent and detailed reports. There is less focus on finding the right way than it being the manager’s way because being the manager’s way is comfortable to that individual, which is just another form of control.
To be fair, how far you go with management is a continuum, not a binary condition of existence or absence. Many employees want some freedom or even a lot of freedom. Some would argue that the pursuit of full autonomy isn’t really the goal. One of my long-ago MIT professors, Jan Klein, wrote about semi-autonomous, which might be the more achievable goal, as far back as this 1984 HBR article Why Supervisors Resist Employee Involvement. Even CEOs will argue that they are not autonomous, as they answer to boards, banks, government regulations, and, of course, customers. But there is a line somewhere across that spectrum where management crosses over to become micromanagement and therefore destructive. We don’t want to throw the proverbial baby (managing) out with the bathwater (micromanaging).
Why is micromanaging bad?
We know that we don’t like it when it happens to us. However, that’s not enough of a reason to eliminate micromanagement. There are three primary costs to an organization, or even just a team, that has an unacceptable amount of micromanagement.
First, the manager is rarely the closest person to the problem. In Kent Bowen and Steve Spear’s classic article Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System, they make a strong case for pushing decision-making to the lowest level possible. I support the premise but propose different language in People Solve Problems, and that is pushing decision-making and problem-solving closest to the point of activity. We won’t dig too deeply into making this happen, but simply use this point to emphasize why micromanagement is costly. The work being done, and all the important context around it, is most often best understood by those doing it. The manager is at least one step further removed from that work and therefore likely to be missing some important context or nuance that would help make a better solution or decision.
Second, micromanagement disempowers the team. We’ve all seen plenty of examples where one engaged person can contribute far more to the organization than two disengaged ones. This is about much more than capability, but about energy, engagement, commitment, persistence, and more. Micromanagement robs the team of energy. They don’t feel valued, and in return learn to not offer value. This is if the employees stay, and that turnover is an increasing cost for most organizations.
Third, is what happens when employees do not stay, and that is we have turnover. We don’t need a lot of time to explain the cost of turnover – lost knowledge, lost time, cost of hiring, cost of training, and more. As laid out in the beginning of this article, micromanagement is a contributor to turnover and to The Great Resignation.
Why does micromanagement happen?
There are numerous reasons that drive micromanagement, and when we do see it, we should not presume to know which cause it is without careful and thoughtful analysis. Not all micromanagers are created equal. Some are well-meaning but don’t have what they need, while some are well-meaning but don’t know better, while some others are simply not well-meaning. There is a common tendency to assume the latter, but this is actually the least common cause.
One reason, for certain, is personality. The term “control freak” is thrown about casually, and for good reason. As indicated earlier, control through micromanagement is a myth, but it is an effort or an intent to achieve control by managing every little aspect. When this is the reason, there is not an easy antidote except coaching and personal growth.
Managers are accountable for the performance of their team and the related processes. They are fundamentally required to know how the performance is going and ensure that things are going well. The key question you are asking, as a manager, is whether things are operating normally or abnormally. If you don’t have an easy way to answer this question, a natural reaction is to dig in and look at all the work as it occurs to try to determine how things are going. This isn’t micromanagement with an intent to control, but fulfilling a need to know how things are going. Unfortunately, both the appearance and the effect remain the same.
Another reason that managers end up, unintentionally, in a micromanagement mode is through an attempt to be helpful. At the core, most managers want to support and help their team. However, to do this, they must be able to answer the where, when, and how they can help. Without an easy way to determine this, a manager must get deeply involved in enough details that they can at least attempt to figure out how they can be helpful.
When micromanagement is based on bad intentions, it is pretty easy to fix: you remove that manager. However, this is the minority of cases, especially when you consider how prevalent micromanagement is found. Much of micromanagement comes from good intentions, and so there must be other ways we can solve this chronic problem.
Better managers or better management systems
There are two significant levers to drive improvement: building better managers and building better management systems. Both are important and useful, however only building better managers seems to get any attention. I don’t want to discount the value of having better managers, but since that gets all the attention, let’s put a little focus on the equally valid and more sustainable leverage found within management systems.
Working on management systems is the equivalent of if you want to improve road safety, instead of training everyone to just drive safer, you change the roadway system to make it inherently safer. Instead of just hoping managers become better (although we should never stop working on that), shouldn’t we also find leverage in making the system better? The goal of our management systems should be to provide managers with the information they need without generating extra work or burden on the team. That last part is tricky but important. Of course, management could get the information they need if the team spent all of their time preparing presentations and sharing detailed updates with the boss. But that’s not the goal. The goal should be to make it easy for a manager to know the important information without imposing on the team.
Consider driving down the road. The information you need is automatically provided to you in a prioritized way. Inside the cabin, you need the speed more often (although not necessarily more) than your engine temperature, and so that gauge is more centrally visible than the other. Both are available at a glance. If you’re in traffic, the main piece of information you need is when the car in front of you is braking, and that information is packaged as a red light right where you’re supposed to be looking. The lines on the pavement keep you in the right lane, the signs tell you important instructions, and more. GPS can fall into this category, helping you navigate the turn-by-turn challenges of getting where you are going.
The other key aspect of driving would be knowing when something is wrong and that you must change your operating model. The check engine light, or any warning light, is one example of your system telling you that there is an abnormal condition and that you must act differently. Your GPS serves this purpose as well, whether you have made a wrong turn or there is a road closure. The point is, you don’t have to worry about what you’re missing, because the problem will alert you when your attention is needed. This answers the fundamental questions every manager needs.
While this article will not go into the rather deep and necessarily detailed work of building or improving your management systems, the analogy above should serve you well. Design your management systems first in a way that does not create a burden for those doing the work, such as massive reporting requirements. Second, design your management systems to help you operate normally and easily stay well-informed, like driving your car. Third, design your management systems to tell you when things go wrong, and when you need to change your attention and focus on a new problem, also like driving your car.
Better management systems will not solve all micromanagement. However, it is an important tool in the fight against this bad behavior, and one that is more scalable and sustainable than only focusing on building better managers.
As Founder of JFlinch, Jamie Flinchbaugh has helped purpose-driven leaders craft effective, resilient organizations at over 300 companies. Leveraging more than 30-years of experience and helping build over 20 companies, Jamie collaborates with leaders and their teams to bridge capability, strategic, cultural, and systems gaps so that they can safely span potential pitfalls and have a purposeful impact on their organizations.
Jamie has helped leaders across a wide spectrum of industries, including healthcare, utilities, technology, consumer products, and professional services, including Harley-Davidson, Intel, Mars, Amazon, Crayola, Fidelity, Whirlpool, among many others.
Jamie is the author of People Solve Problems, The Power of Every Person, Every Day, Every Problem, and co-author of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Lean, Lessons from the Road, and is the co-host of the podcasts Lean Whiskey and Happy Heuristics. He currently lives in Bucks County, PA, with his wife of 24 years, Jill Triani. Together they have three children, Emma, Jack, and Ben.