Micromanagement is an effective leadership principle (2)

== Rebuttal == Pro's opening argument leads us to believe that micromanagers are super hero geniuses whose "most capable and powerful hands" swoop in to save helpless subordinates from themselves. I am willing to admit there are rare instances where this may be true. Pro brings up Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, who do indeed represent exceptional genius in their respective fields. But, according to Pro's intro, the premise is that micromanagement is effective as a general rule. Pro cannot merely point to exceptions, but rather must prove the rule that micromanagement is effective. Let’s examine Pro’s first three arguments: 1) Ensuring Workplace Competence & Accuracy Pro makes many unwarranted assumptions under this point. He claims that micromanagers are “subject-matter experts who bring passion, attention to detail, managerial power, experience, and intimate knowledge of the business to the work at hand.” Yet, Pro gives us no reason or evidence to assume this is generally true. What if the manager does not have these qualities? Many, even most managers are not passionate subject-matter experts with intimate knowledge. Jewelry store managers do not have greater attention to detail than the jewelers themselves. Construction managers do not have more intimate knowledge of the machinery than the actual operators. Military officers are often placed in charge of enlisted soldiers who have many more years of experience than them. In fact, the highest officer title, General, is derived from being a “generalist” who manages the broad force rather than being a subject matter expert (for this reason, Generals remove the branch insignia from their uniforms to signify they no longer identify with a specific branch). We have much evidence to believe that micromanagers are not, in fact, more passionate or intelligent than their employees, which negates Pro’s entire point. Finally, Pro says that when micromanagers step in, the “leadership gap between workers’ execution and corporate vision is eliminated.” Of course there would be no gaps when leaders step into workers' jobs! This only confirms my point that micromanagement has the effect of two people doing the same job, which is inefficient and destructive. Pro’s argument so far has fallen short. 2) Superior Problem Solving Fast problem solving is not necessarily superior problem solving. I agree that micromanagers can receive immediate updates and rapidly solve problems. But this is a Straw Man argument – Pro ignores the destructive second and third order effects. In many cases, a manager does not need immediate updates. Sometimes input is wrong or incomplete, and if a leader has immediate access to it they can jump to wrong conclusions. Similarly, the ability to immediately solve low level problems is destructive. Micromanagers waste time fixing irrelevant or unimportant issues, thereby neglecting to focus on the big picture and strategic problems. For example, allow me to return to the Brigade Commander leading my patrol. If we had been attacked that day, the Brigade Commander would be in a perfect position to immediately identify the enemy and employ my platoon to defeat them. He could have called for air support and might have even saved lives. However…. that would be a total waste of his focus. He was in charge of all combat operations across two entire provinces, and our patrol was moving through a small insignificant village. At any given moment, multiple platoons could be attacked across the area, and he would be neglecting all of them but mine. In addition, he was neglecting his strategic level focus of tracking all units’ movements across the battlefield, meeting with government officials in the provincial capital, and managing the bigger picture. On that day, he certainly had the ability to immediately solve problems for my platoon, but it wasn’t his job to solve problems for my platoon, it was my job, and he was preventing me from doing it. Pro has, once again, indirectly confirmed my initial argument. Immediately accessing input and solving problems makes it easier for leaders to get distracted and confused. When leaders involve themselves “deep within the work,” they are more likely to get lost in the details and make mistakes. This is the whole reason why managers hire employees – to handle the immediate problems so the manager is freed up to think big picture. If, as Pro suggests, “nothing is left to trust” under a micromanager, then I would question why they are hiring people they can’t trust in the first place. Micromanagement is not superior problem solving, it is inefficient and dangerous problem solving. 3) Greater Workplace Efficiency & Competitive Advantages On this point, Pro mistakenly contrasts micromanagement with bureaucracy. Pro claims that bureaucracy comes from a lack of micromanagement, but the opposite is actually true - bureaucracy is the essence of micromanagement! Everything we call “bureaucratic red tape” is a symptom of micromanagement. Every time you have to fill out a form, write a report, attend a meeting (or ten), and submit a product for review means someone above you doesn’t fully trust you. A micromanager somewhere above you doesn’t fully trust you to do your job, so they need to review your form, read your report, hear your update in a meeting, and check your work. Contrast this with normal management, where employees are given the freedom to innovate and the trust that boosts motivation, punctuated by only periodic and appropriate quality checks. Which system would you rather work in? I choose the latter. Next, Pro contradicts their first point about micromanagers being all-knowing subject matter experts. According to Pro, micromanagers learn “the ins and outs of a business” by “put[ting] themselves in the shoes of employees.” So which one is it? Do micromanagers bring “intimate knowledge of the business to the work at hand” or are they in need of learning the “ins and outs” by giving themselves on the job training? Either way Pro falls short. Pro has given us no reason to accept the former as generally true, and the latter would be a poor excuse for a manager. Pro has not compellingly showing that micromanagement provides any benefit to efficiency or competitive advantage. == Counter Arguments == In Round 3, Pro oversimplifies the premise by saying “effective” simply means “getting results.” I hope to avoid excessive semantics, but the bar for effective management cannot be this low. Hitler got results, Saddam Hussein got results, Douglas Haig got results. I submit that we continue using Pro’s definition in Round 1 of “doing the right thing.” Nowhere in my argument did I suggest a manager must be well liked by subordinates. I did suggest, however, that a manager must ensure subordinates stay creative and motivated. Pro suggests that a micromanager who does the job of a weak subordinate is simply getting the job done. I would counter with why that manager is hiring weak subordinates in the first place? An effective manager who is doing the right thing would fire that worker, and hire someone more capable rather than continuing to pay the salary of an incompetent subordinate. Pro says my hand typing metaphor does not relate well to the "real business world," but fails to explain why. Pro says that applying the same degree of intensity to every single work related task is the hallmark of a true leader. But this is impossible for all but the most rare and exceptional leaders (Disney, Rockefeller). Most people cannot do this, and attempting to do so usually leads to failure. Trying to be good at everything usually leads to being great at nothing. Finally, as I approach my character limit, Pro says a micromanager should closely control your work because the business should be bigger than the individiaul. That's exactly my point - which is why managers must give control to subordinates rather than keeping it all for themselves. Back to you Pro.