Micromanagement is an effective leadership principle (2)

I think it’s important for us to remember here that "doing the right thing" means getting results. Our definition of an effective leader therefore, does not necessarily include being well-liked by subordinates. Steve Jobs for instance was an "in your face" control-freak and micro-dictator who hovered over his Apple engineers with an iron-fist, and yet -despite pushing people to near perfect standards – he was still able to get results.(1) Walt Disney, another famous control-freak, is said to have obsessed about "every detail" of "every ride" at every single one of his Disney World theme parks.(2) And John D. Rockefeller, along with the great Andrew Carnegie, were both obsessive micromanagers who prioritized visiting and attending the everyday problems of individual factories above their own families (4). Micromanaging of course did not make Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, John D. Rockefeller, or Mr. Carnegie very popular with employees, but the lasting results of their attention to detail and uncompromising standards for perfection speaks for itself. Micromanagement gets results. Rebuttals 1) Micromanagement is inefficient "If a manager is closely controlling the work of a subordinate, it has the effect of two people doing the same job." This perspective is incorrect when a job is hard or a subordinate is incompetent. If a manager is vastly more experienced and vastly more skilled than a subordinate, we can believe that taking on a difficult job of a weak subordinate has effect of the job 'getting done.' Micromanagement therefore, along with getting things right the first time, is vastly more efficient than trying to correct for worker's errors and having to pay for costs later. "As an example, imagine my two hands typing this sentence on the keyboard." The metaphor of using two hands to type on a keyboard generally does not relate well to the real business world of people, processes, products, marketing, negotiating, financing, and high-tech assembly. However, if it did, then as the popular saying goes; it’s always effective for the Left Hand to know what the Right Hand is doing. This quote of course, justifies the closes observation of a subordinates work by micromanagers, and stands as a metaphor for the organizational inefficiencies that can be expected when different members of the same organization are allowed to pursue different goals. With micromanagement emplace, a manager is therefore better able to synchronize the work of subordinates to actual leadership goals by purposefully observing or controlling their work. "the manager is no longer able to fully focus on their tasks, because they are busy controlling the work of others" If one of the roles of a manager is to get things done and accomplish an objective by directing people, I fail to see how this is not a productive use of their time. "The problem with micromanagers is that they apply the same level of intensity, scrutiny, and in-your-face approach to every task, whether warranted or not." [1] This is the very definition of inefficiency - wasting intensity and effort on unnecessary things." Applying the same level of intensity, energy, enthusiasm, attitude, and standards of excellence to every single work related task is the hallmark of a true leader. I would love to be led by a manger who committed himself to a high standard of excellence in everything he did - trivial or not. Con's quote then is a definition of leadership excellence and not of inefficiencies. 2. Micromanagement demoralizes people "When a micromanager closely controls your work, it appears like they don't trust you." When a micromanager closely controls your work, it means he cares about the work and the well-being of the whole organization. The business should always be bigger than the individual, and a hands-off leader who lets the business fail for the sake of not stepping on people's toes will demoralize employees and hurt more people far more than a micromanager ever will when everybody loses their pay checks because the business is failing. "-they must personally check the work and ensure its quality." A company and its customers can take great pride then in having produced and received a superior product and also in having accomplished high standards. Steve Jobs and the success of th Apple IPhones and IPads are my chosen examples. "I have personally experienced this (micromanagement) many times in the military." As always, I'm very grateful for Con's military service and hope to learn from him. However, one of the most outstanding leadership expectations of a modern military officer -whom I have had some opportunities to learn about and shadow- is that duty must come before relationships. A commander whom attaches himself to the personal execution of a mission, and abandoned his family and friends in the process to deploy overseas does so because the military mission is so vitally important that it must be done and must be done correctly. In missions and operations where the security of the country is at stake (along with soldier's lives), the United States Armed Forces cannot afford to fail in its mission. 3. Micromanagement makes it harder to see the big picture - "Managers are supposed to focus on the big picture and guide the efforts of their workers towards it. Yet, when a manager dives into the micro level, they cannot do this as well." We can believe Con's leadership analysis above is incorrect because as a supervisor deeply involves himself in the everyday operations and smaller details of a business, he in fact learns more about the company. By learning more about the company and products, in addition to removing the communication gap between leadership vision and worker execution –which is done through intense personal involvement- micromanagers are able to make more strategic and more intelligent policy decisions. Very quickly then, Henry Ford is my chosen example. Henry Ford of course, immersed himself in the analysis of the very smallest, tiniest work-related details of car manufacturing from beginning to end where he found out the most efficient (and cost effective) ways of doing things (5). As a result of his close observation of subordinates work, intense involvement in the company and obsession for minute details, Henry Ford is credited with perfecting the Assembly Line, the modern pinnacle of workplace & cost efficiency. "This (micromangment) destroys the productivity of subordinates." I disagree. However, even if true, an absence of productivity on behalf of subordinates does not prove a lack of results on behalf of a company if it is still producing results. Micromanagement then is often a strong leadership solution for employee incompetence and situations calling for creative problem solving. Counter-arguments Micromanagement improves the productivity of subordinates. A micromanager improves the productivity of subordinates by deeply involving themselves within the work of subordinates where he can teach them about core-competencies. Core-competencies are defined as "a unique ability that a company acquires from its founders and leaders that cannot be easily imitated. Core competencies are what give a company one or more competitive advantages, in creating and delivering value to its customers in its chosen field" (6). Core-competencies of course, is just a fancy way for describing the best way of doing things, which is most often learned by imitating and observing people of competency and experience. In addition to the above, micromanages bring managerial power to front-line work and can force uncooperative workers to take on challenging tasks they otherwise wouldn't do. Micromanagement also bridges the direction gap between top-level vision and low-level execution often found in large slow moving bureaucracies when managers are absent from the everyday work of low level employees. 1) http://tinyurl.com... 2) http://tinyurl.com... 3) http://tinyurl.com... 4) http://tinyurl.com... 5) http://tinyurl.com...