Micromanagement is an effective leadership principle (2)

== Rebuttal == Pro continues to hold that "getting results" is the mark of effectiveness. Of course, getting results is part of the answer, but I maintain we must consider whether a manager is getting results by doing the right thing and achieving objectives to a high degree. A micromanager is not doing the right thing, and cannot therefore be considered effective (as a general rule). Pro complains that my typing metaphor is too simple, but that's what a metaphor is: a simple representation of a complex issue. In any case, Pro has embraced an incredibly simplistic definition of effective ("getting results"), so it seems that managing a modern business must not be that complex after all.... Pro misses my point about the failures of applying great intensity and scrutiny to every aspect of a job. I used the Harvard Business Review to expose this concept, and went on to explain that it such behavior is impossible to maintain and becomes destructive. This is the reason people often complain about micromanagers: they scrutinize irrelevant details and often neglect focusing on other priorities. No one can truly apply equal intensity to everything because attention is a zero-sum quantity: attention spent on one thing cannot be attention spent on another. This is the very definition of what it means to "pay attention" to something. To combat my point that managers should give control to subordinates, Pro says that micromanagers necessarily ensure high standards and therefore should not relinquish executive power by delegating. However, he has failed to address my question of what happens when the manager is not a super hero genius with superior passion and subject matter expertise? Pro continues to assume that micromanagers are the most competent and intelligent people in their organizations, but that is simply not the case. Pro suggests it's a bad idea to forfeit control to employee competence, but that's only true if your employees lack competence - to which we must wonder why an "effective" manager would hire incompetent employees in the first place? Rather, effective managers should be building a team of competent people who can innovate and achieve high standards without excessive supervision. To the point that Disney, Carnegie, and Rockefeller are exceptions rather than the rule, Pro says these men were geniuses because they micromanaged. I could easily counter that these men micromanaged because they were geniuses, and we now have an unsolvable chicken and egg problem. Suffice it to say that Pro has given no proof linking genius to micromanagement, and still cannot point to more than five leaders to back this claim. I maintain this is a far cry from showing micromanagement's merits as a general rule. To my point that micromanagement=bureaucracy, Pro says bureaucracy happens when chief executives delegate too much control to lower levels. But let us examine once again the tools of bureaucracy: reports, summaries, forms, etc... To whom does Pro think all these reports, summaries, and forms are going to? The (micro)manager! It is because a micromanager demands intimate involvement in the goings-on of each department that those departments must generate bureaucratic products. In contrast, delegation to trusted and competent subordinates allows those departments to innovate, function, and solve problems locally without clearing every decision with higher management. This is why we can believe that micromanagers create bureaucracies. To conclude his argument, Pro says "as a leader, you possess important skills, experiences, abilities, and convictions that followers don't have." The obvious question here is: how did that leader gain those skills, experiences, and abilities in the first place? The answer is someone allowed them to rise through the ranks, innovate, achieve, and learn from mistakes. In short, that leader was not micromanaged. A follower can never rise to be a wise leader if they are constantly stifled by micromanagers who do their jobs for them. As such, micromanagement is detrimental to the leader development that fosters continuous excellence for generations. In closing, Pro has dropped a number of my rebuttals, namely: We have no reason to assume micromanagers are always super-competent geniuses. Micromanagers risk becoming distracted in details and confused by excessive feedback, leading to mistakes. Clarifying the contradiction between the claims that micromanagers are subject matter experts and the need to learn the "ins and outs" of a business by doing their subordinates' jobs. Finally, Pro has not explained why an effective manager would choose to do the job of an incompetent employee rather than firing them and hiring someone better. == Remarks == Now that I've put my sword away, I'd like to extend an olive branch of thanks to Pro for another good debate, and a special thanks for restarting after my unintended forfeiture. A true gentleman, I welcome a debate with you any time.