Micromanagement is an effective leadership principle (2)

Thanks, Con.To begin, there is a common misconception in the government and business worlds, which is that micromanagers by definition are bad.According to wikipedia (a source for layman terms) micromanagers are "workplace bullys" and "narcissistic individuals" who not only tell subordinates what to do but also dictate to them that a job be done in a certain way [1]. Micromanagers often require constant and deliberate performance updates on behalf of employees whereas they themselves are either directly involved in doing the employee's work or excessively monitoring it for perfectionist details [1]. Most employees and leadership schools again, tend to see micromanagement as a bad practice for leading people.Truth be told however, micromanagement is not so much an effective solution for making subordinates feel good as it is for ensuring that a complex labor system of processes, products, marketing, negotiating, financing, and final assembly produces results, even in times of hardship or general incompetence.Here are the reasons why it actually pays to be a micromanager in a systems world:Ensuring Workplace Competence & AccuracyCEOs, middle managers, and department heads who are directly involved in a subordinates work have greater ability to ensure that performance standards are met, even when that employee or the company itself is incompetent. Micromanagers tend to be subject-matter experts who bring passion, attention to detail, managerial power, experience, and intimate knowledge of the business to the work at hand. When a micromanager steps in to do or control operations, the leadership gap between workers' execution and corporate vision is eliminated. The company is thus ensured that work is being done by its most capable and powerful hands (the leader & surgeon general himself) according to leadership expectations.Superior Problem SolvingMicromanagement, when strategically applied, is superior to delegating when it comes to solving problems. For the same reasons listed above, a leader directly observing work can better obtain tools and implement creative solutions immediately needed to solve problems. Comparatively, a subordinate cannot call on the same level of resources or make the same decisions that a corporate executive can. And unlike times when a leader is removed from the action, a micromanager is able to receive immediate updates and closely monitor the progress of a situtation by involving themselves deep within the work. When a micromanager is on station, solving a problem is guaranteed to get first priority and nothing is left to trust.Greater Workplace Efficiency & Competitive AdvantagesA final criticism you might hear about micromanagement is that micromanagers are inherently ineffective because a micromanager cannot possible be in two places at once. Micromanagement is also claimed to be inefficient because it stifles employee creativity by disallowing any dissent or deviation from company standards. Delegating then, is superior to micromanagement for the all important sake of gathering feedback needed to quickly implement workplace changes to an ever changing competitive business environment. On the contrary, bureaucracies are inefficient! And having many competing tiers of managers and layers upon layers of hierarchal social structure and procedures and professional distance is the biggest reason why low-level work goes unnoticed and decisions from the top don't get implemented. Micromanagers who are willing to deeply involved themselves in the work of the company and put themselves in the shoes of employees are far more capable then at learning the ins and outs of a business and implement effective procedural changes without needing to worry so much about bureaucracy. As general rule then, micromanagers are some of the most knowledgable and most efficient change agents there are.That's all I have for now. Looking forward to R2.1)https://en.wikipedia.org......