Great CEOs Never Micro-Manage(?)

Management Issues just ran a provocative headline: Great CEOs never micro-manage

When I see the word  "never," it raises a flag. I seldom recall "never" being very helpful unless the issue is related to piloting an airplane, skydiving, or Quality Control at a nuclear power plant.

Here is the heart of the research:

A study by recruitment firm Personnel Decisions International has come up a range of key attributes and characteristics that, it argued, distinguishes successful chief executives from other managers.

High energy levels, a desire to be in charge and an ability to cut through complex issues to what is really important were three of the most important attributes that set apart those destined to be CEOs from other executives, it found.

Conversely, those who exhibited traits of being passive-aggressive or micro-management were less likely to make it to CEO level.

The research analysed data from more than 9,000 senior executives and first-level leaders and compared it with nearly 150 CEOs in order to find out how the CEOs were different from other leaders and what characteristics made them successful.

Great CEOs , Managers, Surgeons, Parents...All Do What The Situation Demands

Professional experience and observation show that the desirable qualities mentioned are, in fact, pretty desirable. They would be desirable in anyone asked to lead an activity.

But being effective doesn't mean exercising a boilerplate set of characteristics in all circumstances. So it is with the degree of management that one exercises, regardless of title--including CEO.

Let's say you've just been anointed CEO of a global steel company. You discover quickly that the internal systems aren't in place to reduce costs enough to be competitive. Then, you are amazed to find that part of the issue stems from managers not tracking costs regularly. Finally, you figure out that they don't know much about efficient manufacturing systems or key indicators of cost effectiveness.

What do you do...tell them to get better and leave them alone until they get better?

Hardly.

You work closely to identify better systems; teach them what you know about key indicators; and follow up in great detail until the measurements are correct and self-monitoring becomes a regular behavior.

As a parent, you may have a super-responsible teenager. When it comes time to get that coveted driver's license, you probably won't hand over the car keys and say, "Give me a shout if you have any problems. I don't want to micro-manage you."

You can't leave people alone to do what they don't know how to do.

Remember: just because someone is experienced at a given role, situational changes will demand your frequent attention and close management until the person gains new skill, confidence, and effectiveness. Once that happens, back off and enjoy the fruits of your brief--but appropriate--"micro-management."

Thought for today: Trade the notion of "never" for the principle of "situational." Instead of memorizing all of the attributes ever exhibited by successful leaders, learn how to live a life of situational diagnosis followed by accurate response.

Life is about doing the right thing at the right time.  If the right thing is brief micro-management, it will be considered wise by all concerned.

photo source: picasaweb.google.com/. (and a Happy 4th birthday to Aarav!)

 

Comments

[Wally Bock]

Great post, Steve. Here's the money quote: "You can't leave people alone to do what they don't know how to do."

There's another aspect of this. No matter how sure you are that you've laid out crystal clear expectations, you have to follow-up to see how the understanding turns into performance.

[Jim Stroup]

I love Wally's phrase: "money quote." But here's what I think it is in this post: "But being effective doesn't mean exercising a boilerplate set of characteristics in all circumstances."

It seems to me there are at least three things going on here. First is the standard attraction we have to the certain trumpet call in definitive declarations like "never" or "always." Second, and close to that, is the desire to reduce our burdens to checklists which suggest that all matters are independent of confounding factors; that way, we don't have to sort things out.

Then, "micromanagement" carries so much negative baggage that it is typically assumed to be incorrect under any circumstances. Fortunately, you have provided an excellent example - the family - as a bridge to seeing why we should never say never.

Great post!

[Steve Roesler]

Wally and Jim,

Wally: ..."follow-up to se how the understanding turns into performance" is called "managing." It's what managers get paid to do as you so often emphasize.

Jim: Doesn't it sometimes seem as if the cry of "micromanagement" carries with it the assumption of guilt without anyone ever investigating the situational reality? The negative baggage that you allude to has allowed it to take on the power of instant conviction when, in fact, no crime has been committed. One might think that the alleged perpetrator even wears white shoes before Memorial Day.

I think we need to continue facing the fact that there is a lot of misinformation out there in the form of re-hashed assumptions that were invalid to begin with; sound-bite catch-phrases that pique the senses but are unrelated to truth; and many people commenting on the practice of management who have never practiced management.

We all probably understand the impact of a manager who constantly hounds employees who are highly competent and more than able to excel at their work once they have a clear goal and the right resources.

To outlaw the notion of "close" management undermines the accountability and due diligence placed in the hands of those we call "managers."

[Wally Bock]

Congratulations! This post was selected as one of the five best business blog posts of the week in my Three Star Leadership Midweek Review of the Business Blogs.

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2008/08/13/81308-a-midweek-look-at-the-business-blogs.aspx

To add to the conversation, I try to use the term "over-managing" where others use "micromanaging." Note the key word, "try." Common usage often wins.

Wally Bock

[Tom Magness]

Great post, Steve. I have seen and worked for so many leaders who believed they were "empowering their team" when they left them alone. In the military, it is the senior leader who justifies never leaving his headquarters to be with the troops in the field as "not wanting to micro-manage." Whatever!

Unfortunately, without the skills and tools that would enable success, teams can really struggle. This can have devestating impacts on morale and performance. It is certainly not micro-management to experience first-hand the difficulties of battle with the troops, to determine if they are equipped for success, to share experiences and lessons learned. That's what leaders do.

You are so right, Steve. This is situational leadership. Sometimes we can leave teams alone, and sometimes we've got to jump in and lead the way. Hooah!
TM

[Steve Roesler]

Tom,

Greatly appreciate the affirmation from your unique perspective.

Wally Bock, Jim Stroup and I have often openly discussed, commented upon, and lauded the leadership development we received in the military. In addition to the number of simulations, repetitions, and assignments, the theme of constant situational awareness + adjustment serves one well in all aspects of life--and certainly in business management.

Knowing what to do when--and why--is one heck of a life skill.

Thanks for weighing in. . .