Micromangement is an effective leadership principle

I think its important for us to remember here that "doing the right thing" means getting results. Our agreed 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 design teams with an iron-fist, and yet -despite pushing people to perfectionist standards - 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 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 needs of individual factories above their own families ()(). 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. Micromanagers get 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 mostly incorrect. If a manager is vastly more experienced and vastly more competent than a subordinate, we can believe that taking on the job of said 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 errors and work related inefficiencies on behalf of a less capable subordinate. "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 management in a complex systems world of people, processes, products, marketing, negotiating, financing, and high-tech assembly. However, if it did, then as the popular saying goes; its far more effective for the Left Hand to always know what the Right Hand is doing. This quote of course, is a metaphor for 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 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 the ultimate role of a manager is to get things done and accomplish an objective, I fail to see how this is an inefficient 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 would by a manger who committed himself to a 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. A hands-off leader who lets the business fail for the sake of not stepping on people's toes will demoralize employees far more than a micromanager ever will when everybody loses their jobs because the business is folding. "-they must personally check the work and ensure its quality." A company and its customers can take greater pride then in having produced and received a superior product. Steve Jobs and the 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. However, one of the most outstanding leadership expectations of a modern military officer -whom I have had some opportunities to interview and shadow- is that duty must come before relationships. A commander whom attaches himself to the personal execution of a mission, and abandon's 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 right. 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 not complete 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 company, he in fact learns more about the company. By learning more about the company and products, in addition to removing the gap between leadership vision and worker execution which comes from 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 during things (http://constructionlitmag.com...) As a result of his micromanagement and obsession for minute details, Henry Ford is credited with perfecting the Assembly Line, the modern pinnacle of workplace efficiency. "This (micromangment) destroys the productivity of subordinates." I disagree. However, even if true, an absence of productivity on behalf of subordinates does not mean a lack of results on behalf of a organization if it is still able to accomplish mission objectives. Micromanagement is also a solution to employee incompetence, a leadership means of still getting results when subordinates don't produce. Counter-arguments Micromanagement improves productivity of subordinates. A micromanager improves the productivity of subordinates by deeply involving themselves within workers' work where he can teach workers core-competencies. Core-competencies are defined as "a unique ability that a company acquires from its founders or develops and 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." (http://www.businessdictionary.com...) Core-competencies of course, is a fancy way for describing the best way of doing things, which is most oftened learned by imitating and observing people of competency and experience. In addition to the above, micromanagers bring managerial power to frontline work and can force uncooperative workers to take on work that they otherwise might not do. Micromangment also bridges the gap between top-level vision and low-level execution often found in slow moving buercracys1)http://www.nytimes.com...2)http://www.bloomberg.com...