So, I've got this client (lots of my stories start this way)...
Well-run construction company, with a pretty darn solid management and executive staff. Recently, we promoted a mid-level manager to an executive level.
Big shift, major change.
I had worked with this new executive in the past; he was a participant in one of our leadership development efforts, and though he brought a lot to the table, I like to think those development efforts played some part in his promotion (a little shameless self-promotion there). Back to the story...
Anyway, this promotion thrust this new executive into a role far different from his previous position. Instead of functional, project management, he was now accountable for sales, a geographic P&L, and general management of a business unit.
Again, way different from his prior role.
In a conversation with him last recently, he said one of the most difficult points of the transition is the discomfort in knowing that he must now rely on others to accomplish anything and everything. In his prior life, he could personally control most of his world, and now, he was experiencing the discomfort we all face when our level of personal "control" is diminished.
Then, however, this guy said something that I thought was incredibly profound. He said, "I'm starting to get comfortable being uncomfortable."
Think about that. In this crazy world, with our way-too-hectic jobs and never-ending responsibilities, he realized that there were things he just couldn't control, and that his ability to influence would need to carry the day.
He simply became comfortable being uncomfortable.
And that's not a bad idea for many of us...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/
 |
 D. Kevin Berchelmann View my profile here |
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Micro-Managing, or Micro-Meddling??
I've recently had a couple of clients resort to "micromanagement" during some tough economic times. I know these executives; they are smart, on-the-ball, and savvy about their business and their people. My conversations with them surrounded the dangers of that micromanagement, and why that might be the precisely wrong move.
The dangers to me are straightforward: in times of economic scrutiny, we need employees to be thinking MORE, not less. A controlling environment may aid in the immediate task at hand, but from a downside, it also:
1. Limits an employee's growth, and subsequently their inherent ability to "do more (presumably 'with less')."
2. Micro-managing, to be effective, consumes an inordinate amount of management's time; effectively empowered employees (don't get lost w/the fad word, just the concept) free up a manager's time to think and contribute -- presumably at a higher level of value.
3. Micro-managing frequently over-tasks managers unaccustomed to it. In an effort to "touch" everything, they become micro-MEDDLERS instead, interjecting just enough to cause chaos and confusion, then flitting off to the next victim.
Counter-intuitively, micromanaging provides less reaction to turbulent times instead of more, burns out managers, and frustrates employees.Better to simply constrict existing parameters at some reasonable level, such as spending levels and authorities, and micro-manage by exception in those few areas (or with those few people) who need it.
I can tell you with certainty that managers prone to micromanaging anyway will feel vindicated, and that "this is THEIR time" to shine. It's not... quite the opposite.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/
The dangers to me are straightforward: in times of economic scrutiny, we need employees to be thinking MORE, not less. A controlling environment may aid in the immediate task at hand, but from a downside, it also:
1. Limits an employee's growth, and subsequently their inherent ability to "do more (presumably 'with less')."
2. Micro-managing, to be effective, consumes an inordinate amount of management's time; effectively empowered employees (don't get lost w/the fad word, just the concept) free up a manager's time to think and contribute -- presumably at a higher level of value.
3. Micro-managing frequently over-tasks managers unaccustomed to it. In an effort to "touch" everything, they become micro-MEDDLERS instead, interjecting just enough to cause chaos and confusion, then flitting off to the next victim.
Counter-intuitively, micromanaging provides less reaction to turbulent times instead of more, burns out managers, and frustrates employees.Better to simply constrict existing parameters at some reasonable level, such as spending levels and authorities, and micro-manage by exception in those few areas (or with those few people) who need it.
I can tell you with certainty that managers prone to micromanaging anyway will feel vindicated, and that "this is THEIR time" to shine. It's not... quite the opposite.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
