Micromanagement is an effective leadership principle (2)

Quick Rebuttals "Pro oversimplifies the premise by saying “effective” simply means “getting results.” Being effective does mean getting results. Along with "doing the right thing," our definition includes: "the degree to which objectives are achieved and the extent to which targeted problems are solved. " "Pro says my hand typing metaphor does not relate well to the "real business world," but fails to explain why" The metaphor does not relate well (in my view) because the method and science of typing on a keyboard is way too simplistic compared to the method and sciences of managing a modern business. "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" I feel Con contradicts himself here. Prior to making this statement, Con had used the Harvard Business Review to suggest that micromanagers (in general) bring greater intensity & scrutiny to their work than regular mangers. "Managers must give control to subordinates rather than keeping it all for themselves." As a general rule, managers should not delegate decision-making powers, negotiating powers, executive powers, marketing strategies, product quality, or even important job-specific tasks to subordinates if the desired outcome is to accurately fulfill an objective. The problem again with delegating is that a manger has to forfeit control (along with notable control over standards) to employee competence. Ensuring high standards however (through micromanagement), often leads to better results. "Steve Jobs, Walt Disney, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Henry Ford." Con argues that the gentlemen above are the "exception" and not "the rule" when it comes to effective micromanagement, arguing that these men were exceptional "geniuses." On the contrary, Jobs, Ford, Disney, Rockefeller, and Carnegie weren't geniuses because they were brilliant, they were geniuses because they micromanaged. Very quickly again then, Henry Ford was able to perfect the assembly line precisely because he microscopically analyzed the smallest details of car-manufacturing. And Steve Jobs of course, shows what happens when you apply merciless attention to detail and uncompromising standards for perfection upon the core-competencies of a company. (http://constructionlitmag.com...) On Bureaucracies. When it comes to micromanagement vs. bureaucracies, Con makes a clever argument; In a cumbersome slow-moving bureaucracy (like the government or military) everyone's work is controlled by an immediate supervisor (via hierarchy & multiple tiers) and regulated by mountains of paperwork, rules, procedures, and red tape. Therefore bureaucracy is the byword of micromanagement theory gone bad. On the contrary however, we can believe bureaucracies are resultant from delegation theory gone bad because top-level administrators and chief executives (aka decision makers) have delegated so much control to so many competing tiers of mangers and departments that their executive leadership is almost totally absent from everyday operations. As Con said himself in Round 3, the leader in a bureaucracy (in his reference to the military) is often left without a defined role and is forced to act like a "generalist." However, unless the CEO, general, president, or key decision-maker in this case, is willing to leave the board room and start waving the pen to make things happen, bureaucracies will always remain slow due the distance it takes to bring an issue and decision to the attention of an administrator. Removing the hierarchal gap that exists between corporate vision, decisions, feedback, and execution, (via Micromanagement theory) is thus a solution for slow-moving bureaucracies. Delegating vs. Micromanaging (General Rules & Summaries) Superior Accuracy Micromanagement offers superior accuracy to workplace issues by enforcing standards and by ensuring close attention to detail. The secret of course to superior workplace accuracy via micromanagement is by directly observing or controlling the work of subordinates. This is superior to "delegating" standards which are at the mercy of employee interest and motivation for accomplishment. Superior Problem Solving Micromanagement theory attempts to solve problems instead of delegating them. The added bonus of bringing in a manager to solve a problem is that he brings managerial power and experience to the work at hand. A manager is thus able to wave regulations, obtain resources, monitor for progress, force workers into compliance, and implement decisions that are otherwise beyond the powers of a subordinate to even make. Having a micromanager on site also means that problems can be prioritized and solved quickly according to leadership expectations, leading to greater organizational efficiency in the long run. Solution for Workplace Incompetence & Inefficiencies Micromanagement offers a solution to workplace incompetence and inefficiency. When a micromanager steps in to do the job of incompetent employees, he ensures that the work still produces an accurate result - with or without the employee's compliance. We can also believe micromanagement produces greater efficiency because a leader can be expected to bring greater intensity along with higher personal standards (that comes with being a leader) to the work at hand. A micromanager intervening on behalf of a subordinate is often much more efficient at getting the task work completed -and in a quality manner- than trying to coach the subordinate *Getting things done right the first time (via the superior accuracy of micromanagement) is also vastly more efficient than trying to correct for workers' mistakes and having to pay for costs later. Conclusion In his rebuttals to my arguments, Con has acknowledged a few cases where micromanagement was effective, but of course, not the "general rule" to leadership theory. What is the general rule however, and isn't likely to be disputed by Con, is that leaders can get things done, solve problems, create impacts, and make lasting differences to their organization and their environment. As a leader, you possess important skills, experiences, abilities, and convictions that followers don't have. And as a manager you posses important administrative and decision-making powers, powers that can make a huge huge difference in any situation. By putting yourself at the forefront of an organization and stepping in to do work of a micromanager, leaders exercise that much greater control over their environments, which leads to an even greater result.The general rule is this; true leadership is effective in any form, and one of the most impactful is micromanagement.