Why Micro Managing Is Normally Considered a Poor Management Strategy
Most of us have heard, read, seen, or been told by “experts” that micro managing is ineffective and actually hurts our performance. In addition, it jeopardizes the performance of our staff, both individually and collectively. A micro manager classically concentrates on smaller tasks and monitors every step, action, nuance, and activity of his/her employees; hesitates to delegate properly; and does not allow staff to exhibit creativity or independent thought.
Actually, many experts can become quite forceful— even nasty— when talking or writing about the subject. With articles like, “Micro Managing Will Strangle Your Business!” (Dr. Paul E. Adams) and “Micro Management: A Necessary Evil or Just Plain Evil?” (Molly Luffy), some writers get rather emotional about its shortcomings. Most of the time, the experts are correct – micro managing is usually the wrong choice for a number of reasons:
Robert Noyce, the founder of leading chip manufacturer, Intel, has a famous quote that has become an anthem to anti-micro management: “Get the barriers out of the way to let people do the things they do well.” As an operational philosophy, micro managing achieves little and can cause long term problems.
When Micro Managing Is Not Acceptable, But Preferred
There are situations that good supervision almost mandates some micro managing to achieve desired results in reasonable time frames. Though most experienced, successful managers would rather eat live insects than admit they sometimes micro manage, all good professionals do it in certain situations. And it usually improves performance. Here is an example of a situation where micro management will help, not hurt, you and your staff.
You work for an international company and need sales data for the prior quarter. You advise your staff that you need the “sales figures for the past three months by Tuesday.” When Tuesday comes and you review the data, you are annoyed because it isn’t what you really wanted. You didn’t want just gross company-wide sales figures. You really wanted the data broken down by:
The only good news in this example: You could never be accused of micro managing your staff. You not only delegated the project, but you didn’t even provide any details about the format or depth of the data you needed. By NOT micro managing, here is what you’ve “achieved” in this example.
Micro Managing Can Often Save Time and Money
There are times when micro managing is appropriate. If there is any chance of employees misunderstanding the task or project you want to be performed, you will be rewarded for “temporarily” micro managing your staff. By being clear and precise in your instructions, your employees will know exactly what you want and will typically be a bit more careful to give you specifically what you requested.
You’re “To Do” list will not have to be scratched out (looking like your four-year-old got to it), your time will be maximized, your staff will be more efficient and proud of their efforts, and you can improve your personal performance record. Ironically, all of these positive results occurred because you did the “thing that shall not be mentioned” (micro managing, shhh).
Be wary not to get carried away with micro management. The experts are correct when they state that, unless you’re a one person entrepreneur, you will typically do more harm than good by micro managing every task that is required of your department. Learning to delegate (properly and clearly) and exhibit leadership is critical to staff development, including your own professional future.