If All Else Fails…
Have you ever stopped to consider why some bosses seem to be in love with micromanaging their employees?
If so, then here’s your answer: They are incapable of managing in any other way.
In many cases, a promotion to a management or supervisory role is a way to reward a good employee. It doesn’t really matter if that individual possesses the skill set required to manage–they deserve to move up. Of course, being good at a job doesn’t mean you’ll be good at a tangentially related task.
You’ve been a great truck driver. How’d you like to fly an F-18 for us?
Should Accountants Be Farmers?
We have a tendency to assume that any intelligent person can make a transition to working in a related field without difficulty. Comedian Mitch Hedberg best described the problem with this assumption:
“As a comedian I always get in these situations where I’m auditioning for movies or sitcoms.
As a comedian, they want you do other things besides comedy. ‘OK, you’re a comedian, can you write? Write us a script. Act. Act in this sitcom.’ They want you do sh*t that’s related to comedy, but it’s not comedy, it’s not fair.
It’s as though I was a cook, I worked my ass off to become a really good cook, and they say ‘OK, you’re a good cook. But can you farm?’”
So when you take a great accountant and make him a lousy manager, what’s he going to do to avoid looking like an idiot? He’s going to try to use his strengths to compensate for his weakness. He’s going to try to do a little bit of accounting all over the department (by looking over your shoulder) and hope that the overall level of work will be elevated.
If production is up, he’ll be viewed as an effective manager. Who cares if he had to accomplish it by putting his hands into everyone else’s work?
Everyone else–that’s who.
If you enjoy reading this blog, why not tip the author?
9 responses so far ↓
1 Michelle Malay Carter // Sep 28, 2007 at 8:08 am
Chuck,
I too have suffered the weight of micromanagement and ran screaming from the corporate world 10 years ago. Congratulations on not needing 10 years to understand that the corporate world might not be for you.
I believe micromanagement is contextual, not inherent. One person’s micromanager is another’s dream boss.
It’s all related to problem solving capability. I want a manager who is one level above me. When s/he is not, they add no value to my thinking, and the thinking they are doing is equivalent to mine.
So micromanagement is a structural issue created by ignorance that can be solved by making structural changes. It is not a bad habit or personality flaw that needs to be fixed. I’m OK. You’re OK. Let’s fix the system.
2 Chuck Westbrook // Sep 28, 2007 at 10:13 am
@Michelle– Thanks for the comment! I read your article, but I’m not sure that micromanagement and adding value as a boss are the same issue. I had several bosses that did not add much value to my ability to solve problems but they were not micromanagers. They were pretty good bosses because they were supportive, attentive, and fair.
Maybe a lack of value creation from leadership is a structural issue, but I don’t see micromanagement that way. I’d love to discuss further, though, as you clearly have a lot of insight on these matters, and a good debate is my favorite way to learn something.
3 Michelle Malay Carter // Sep 28, 2007 at 10:53 am
Yes Chuck, there is more to the story here. There are nuances that you are picking up upon.
Micromanagement is a subset of employee to manager mismatch. It usually occurs when the employees are matched to their roles, e.g. level two roles matched with level 2 incumbent capability, but the manager’s capability is below that of his/her role, e.g. manager’s role is at 3 but their capability is at 2.
So, if my role and my capability are at 2, and my boss’ role is at 3- that’s all good - UNLESS my boss’ capability is at 2. This causes micromanaging. Why? Because the boss is not capable of his/her work at 3, but is likely capable and competent at your job at level 2. So what work will he do? Yours. aka micromanagement
On the other hand, if the boss’ role and capability are both at 3, and you happen to be a young, high potential slated in a level 2 role with level 3+ capability, then your boss probably won’t do your job because he’s happy with his. However, s/he won’t add value to your thinking for long even if s/he has more experience. So this is an example of a no-value-add that will likely not result in micromanagement.
I’ve lived this situation too. I don’t believe I was as mature as you in my twenties, add that to my extroversion, and my managers were perfectly justified in labelling me as an attitude problem. I wrote an article about the situation, it’s called What to do about Attitude Problems - Promote Them.
4 Chuck Westbrook // Sep 28, 2007 at 11:22 am
@Michelle– It sounds like we are in total agreement up to this point. Namely, the boss can’t do his or her job well and, therefore, results back to doing yours for you.
My solution would be not promoting excellent workers to management unless they explicitly display promising management characteristics. In fact, it might be good to sometimes promote merely average workers who demonstrate extraordinary management potential.
How would you solve that problem via restructuring?
5 Michelle Malay Carter // Sep 28, 2007 at 4:16 pm
When I say a structural problem, I mean as opposed to a personality quirk or something that can be fixed via training or coaching .
So in the simplest of terms, if the manager is not capable at the level of the role, s/he should be redeployed into a role at a lower level - either managerial or independent contributor.
If another person has capability above his/her role, they should be offered training and experiences to prepare them to take a higher level role that matches their problem solving capability. Either managerial or independent contributor.
The managerial versus non managerial issue is related to values. Being a manager is hard work, and it takes a certain interest level. I will stop short of saying there are a fixed set of temperaments or values that are necessary for one to be a good manager. It also takes skills and knowledge to be a competent manager, but if you do not value managerial work, it is hard to apply yourself to learning those skills, much less practicing them.
The decision to promote someone should be related to their level of problem solving capability first. Then, I agree, if they are not interested in managerial work, they still can be promoted but it should not be into a managerial role. Although they are not as plentiful, there are higher level, independent contributor roles.
6 JoeDrinker // Oct 1, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Well put, Chuck. I never thought about it that way, but it makes sense.
7 Chuck Westbrook // Oct 2, 2007 at 11:24 am
@Michelle– Still with you so far. What I don’t understand is how someone’s micromanager can be someone else’s dream boss. Maybe they are well suited for a different type of management role?
@Joe Drinker– It probably doesn’t cover all cases, but that’s the explanation that makes the most sense to me.
8 Joe Jordan // Oct 4, 2007 at 8:53 am
After observing and working with scores of managers across multiple organizations I am convinced the root cause of most micromanagement is fear. We call it attention to detail, focus on results, even a commitment to excellence. But when all the rhetorical dust is blown away, we are left with the reality that people tend to over-manage both people and situations out of their often well-disguised and frequently denied fear.
I find when I am leaning toward over-managing something it is helpful to stop and ask myself, “What am I so afraid of in this situation?”
9 Chuck Westbrook // Oct 4, 2007 at 9:35 am
@Joe Jordan– That rings true to me. What are they typically afraid of in your opinion?
Leave a Comment