A couple of weeks ago I posted an article on the Art of Micromanagement which extolled the virtues of micromanagement in an organization. Hopefully I was successful in expressing satire and sarcasm :) After further pondering, and many comments from colleagues, I’d like to present the opposing viewpoint. Can leaders direct their people without micromanaging them? Is it possible to accomplish the same objectives while employing drastically different methods? The answer to both these questions is: Absolutely.
Control isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Civilizations and companies thrive on some measure of control. Ideas, products and art can only be created with control. The slippery slope is found by beginning to assume that every step of the process must be controlled. Successful servant leaders find that they can exert the most control by giving the control away through delegation. Leaders should assume that the process used to accomplish results is something of a black box. If requested the leader can look into the black box and offer observations, but putting a hand in the box effectively removes the delegation.
Again, standardization is a good thing, but standards are only in place as a jumping board for further improvement. The best way to encourage improvement is to allow those doing the work to see how their work fits into the whole picture as well. They also need to be responsible for how the work gets done. Leaders can set strategic goals to prompt positive change, but these goals should normally be set with those who have been delegated to… not for them.
The only constant is change, which naturally opposes accurate predictions. Therefore, the true measure of success is not whether something is predictable, but whether you learn from the exercise. Projects that exactly followed a plan probably aren’t as successful as they are purported. There needs to be some level of risk to allow for creativity and learning. This is not to say that planning is worthless or that risks should just be accepted. The trick is to cut the plan and the risks into small enough pieces so that each risk can be experimented with, and learned from, without endangering the project direction as a whole.
Failure can’t be perfectly avoided. In conjunction with Failing Small and Fast, Leaders must continually learn from the failures that inevitably occur… and encourage others to do the same. Regular team and individual retrospectives that focus on a small number of items to change have a massive impact on long term success. The Little Engine that Could understood this principle because he didn’t try to tackle the whole hill at once. He targeted just the next couple of feet and took courage from the fact that progress had been made because he was a little closer to the top than he had been before.
Lines of authority are needed in any organization. The difference between the leader and the micromanager is that Leaders delegate authority, while micromanagers attempt to hold on to as much authority as possible. In the end, clear delegation and reporting will result in teams and individuals who understand how they can best provide value.
Leaders actively work to develop their people and are pleased, rather than threatened, when their people improve and even surpass them. My favorite bosses have been the ones who sought to hire people smarter than they were and then to promote them as quickly as possible. While such mobility may hinder the short-term efficiency of a team, it pays massive dividends to the company further down the road.
Communication channels should be simple… but they should also be rich. Leaders who insert themselves into every channel will quickly find that the value of that channel has been decreased for the other parties. No matter how hard they try, the person in the middle will always change the message being conveyed. Rather than getting stuck in the middle, good leaders seek opportunities to make communication visual. Daily Standups and Visual/Kanban Boards are just some of the tools that can be employed.