#56-4/28/08: Once More With Micromanagement
Once More With Micromanagement!
A direct report wants to manage her manager
Posted by Steven Cerri on Monday, April 28, 2008
Hello everyone!
Today I was conducting some business. The young woman who was assisting me was very competent with her company’s products, services, and she was great with customers, me. It was clear she was not in a “selling mode”. Her interest was in providing me with service and products that suited my needs.
During our conversation she asked me what I did for a living. I told her that I trained and coached engineers and technical managers to be more successful. I told her I trained in the soft skills, the interpersonal people skills, so that engineers could become managers and leaders and so that managers and leaders could be more successful leading their engineers.
I then told her that I had just completed a 15-CD set on transitioning from engineer to leader and a 3-CD set on the topic of micromanagement, and I was about to send my first book to my editor.
When I mentioned the word, “micromanagement” her eyes lit up. I said, “Oh, do you have micromanagement here?” Her response was “Oh yah!”
I asked her my famous question… those of you who have been following my blogs know this is THE question to ask. I asked her, “How do you know when you are being micromanaged?” I also asked her what she thinks her manager’s reason is for calling her three times a day.
She said, “I am 200% over my sales and revenue numbers. I’m the number one person here. And yet my boss calls me three times a day to get a status of my accounts even though he will see all the information I’m giving him in a daily report that he has available at the end of the day..... I send it to him at the close of business and he can see it .... actually at 3am.
“And he says the reason he calls me is to see if I need any help hitting my numbers.” (This is, in my opinion, an appropriate reason… three times a day, however, may be just a little much.)
So this is really micromanagement, isn’t it? Here is a top performer who it doesn’t seem will falter any time soon. She is doing very well and can be expected to continue. And yet, her boss is calling her three times a day to find out how she is doing. She feels micromanaged.
So, what to do? This is a perfect example of a situation in which an employee ought to be able to manage the manager. How would an employee in this situation actually manage her manager so that he would back off this intense management scrutiny?
Here’s how.
First, we have to determine his motivation. We could assume that her manager is a jerk or a control freak. But I seldom think that people are that simple. I think people are usually attempting to achieve something positive from their point of view with the behavior they are displaying. So my first assumption is that he has a legitimate motivation and we must determine what that is.
So I suggested that she ask him his motivation. She could say something like… “Bob (not his name), I’ve been doing really well here. I’m number one in sales and revenue and I’m 200% over my target. And I know you want to get my status three times a day, which is probably time consuming for you as it is for me. I know you get my report for the day when you’d rather be sleeping, so I imagine you don’t see my reports until the next day at the opening of business. Help me understand what you’d like to know when, so that I might be able to provide it to you in a more streamlined fashion, rather than you and I talking three times a day.”
If I understood what this woman was telling me, I think he’s probably suffering through something like this (just a guess of course):
1. Getting her daily sales and revenue results at 3am the following morning means he doesn’t really see the numbers until the opening of business the day after.
2. That is probably too late for him to prepare his status report to his boss.
3. Instead, he is probably calling three times a day, so that at the end of that day, he will be able to put together a draft status report for his boss and prepare himself for that meeting.
4. Or his boss actually wants a status at the close of the business day even though the hard numbers won’t be available until the next morning.
5. Or someone is asking him for a status during the day and he needs to contact her by phone to get a status.
In order to keep from being micromanaged, she must find out what is the motivation behind these three call a day from her manager. When she determines his motivation, all she need do is provide him with the information he wants in a way that is agreeable to him AND agreeable to her.
For example she might negotiate with him the following possibilities:
1. She could call him at the end of the day with her numbers. As long as she is hitting her daily numbers she need only call him at the end of the day. At 1pm, if she is having a difficult day meeting her numbers, then she can call him at 1pm and give him a status. Then she can call him again at 4pm or 5pm, but as long as she is hitting her numbers, the agreement is, one phone call at the end of the day.
2. Another possibility is she can send an email to him at 10am, 2pm, and 5pm. They can settle on a format that is concise and provides the detail he is looking for. If she is not hitting her numbers the email is replaced with a phone call initiated by her. The only time he would call her is if there is something urgent and critical that he must discuss with her.
With this approach, she can begin the process of managing her manager. Her goal is to find a way to provide the information he needs, when he needs it, “for the reasons he needs it.” The negotiation process is to provide him with the information in a way that helps her not feel micromanaged.
This approach has worked over and over and over again. In fact, I have another example. I spoke to a direct report who was having difficulty with his manager. After using this approach the whole manager-direct report relationship changed from micromanagement and conflict to team work and trust. But only one blog at a time. I’ll talk about this case in the future.
Be well,
Steven Cerri
“What would it be like to be as successful with people as you are with your technology?” Steven trains, coaches, and facilitates engineers to BE the answer to that question. More information can be found at the:http://stevencerri.com/index.php/Home/index/
Copyright©2008 STCerri International and Steven Cerri. You are free to pass this information on to others and to reproduce it. If you reproduce it in whole or part please give attribution to Steven Cerri. Thank you.
Posted by Steven Cerri on 04/28 at 08:01 PM (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
#55-4/21/08: Hillary & Obama & Your Management Style
Hillary & Obama & Your Management Style!
Presidential management and you.
Posted by Steven Cerri on Monday, April 21, 2008
Hello everyone!
I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) a couple of days ago to a segment regarding the anticipated management styles of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. The commentators were saying that Hillary has a tendency to be a very “hands-on” manager and Barack tends to be more of a delegator. The commentators continued to wonder how the candidates’ management styles would differ if one of them became president.
Now somewhere along the early portion of this news segment one of the commentators said something that really surprised me. He said and I’m paraphrasing to the best of my recollection, “Barack would probably have a management style that would rely on delegation and Hillary would be very hands-on. In fact, this question, if it’s better to be a hands-on manager or a delegator, is a topic still being debated in business schools. There are plenty of examples where hands-on management works and yet there are plenty of examples where delegation works. It’s still uncertain which is the best approach.”
I couldn’t believe my ears. The idea that someone is still debating which management style is best, hands-on or delegation, is absolutely ridiculous. It shows they don’t understand management.
Let me give you an example that will clarify how I see this whole discussion. Lets assume you are doing research regarding the national spelling bee. Lets say you want to decide what the best age is for children to be in order to win the spelling bee. And lets also say that you’ve got 10 kids who were 10 years old when they won their spelling bees and you also have 10 kids who were 11 years old when they won their spelling bees. And then you say, “It’s not clear which is a better age for winning the spelling bee, 10 years old or 11 years old. The universities are still debating this issue. “
The answer of course is that if you’ve got kids of both ages winning spelling bees, winning is probably not a function of being 10 or 11 years old.
The same holds true regarding hands-on or delegation management styles. If we have cases of both styles being successful (and of course both styles being unsuccessful as well) then the management style is probably not the determinant of success. DAH! Something else is going on.
So what is the determining factor in the success or failure of hands-on or delegating management styles? What should we be looking at?
Those of you who have been following my blogs for a while know I’ve been talking, at various times, about something called “Contextual Definition©”. Contextual Definition says that the best management style is a function of seven parameters which include the expertise of the direct report, the expertise of the manager, and other parameters derived from the management situation itself.
So depending on the situation, Barack’s delegating style might work or it might not and depending upon the situation, Hillary’s hands-on management style might work and it might not.
Let’s take this one step further. Let’s hypothetically assume that they both got to be president. This means that they both have the same “tasks” to perform, governing the country. Lets assume that regarding the things that need to get done they have the same mandates. How would their respective management styles work given that they both have the same “things to accomplish”?
Barack’s hands off, delegating style would work well only if he selects people to delegate to who are very competent in the areas he has assigned them to. He can only successfully step back if the people he selects to delegate to have a great deal of expertise in their respective areas and if they share Barack’s philosophy, mission, vision, and will communicate back to Barack in a way that provides Barack the visibility he wants. If he selects people who are not extremely well qualified he will end up with what George Bush’s administration has encountered. George Bush has placed in positions of authority people who were not very well qualified and then he has managed them with a generally hands-off management style. If we need examples we need only look to Katrina as the first of many examples.
On the other hand, Hillary should select people to manage her departments who are competent but not too competent. If she is going to use a close, hands-on style with her direct reports, then her staff ought to be just competent enough to implement her wishes and her vision, but not so competent as to have their own vision of what should be done. Or at the very least, they must be willing to forego their own vision of their departments’ direction for hers. If she hires extremely competent people and then manages them too closely, they might feel micromanaged. (More about this in a minute.)
So there you have it. It’s actually very simple. I can’t believe the debate about hands-on or delegation is still going on. The fact that both styles can be found to work means that there are circumstances in which each is best suited.
In my career I always did well with delegation because I always attempted to hire people who were extremely competent for the positions I wanted them to fill. In fact, I often hired direct reports who were more qualified than me in many ways. However, if I ever had a direct report that was in over their head and they were having difficulty I didn’t hesitate moving in and managing them very closely (i.e., more hands-on).
And it was the process of Contextual Definition that allowed me to manage closely, to be a hands-on manager without appearing to be a micromanager. And that is the constant balancing act that good managers must deal with. As a manager your job is to manage a the people who perform the tasks. You hire people with certain qualifications. Those people may be well qualified or they may not. You must manage them so that they can be successful. If Barack has a default management style of delegation that’s a mistake if he hires less than “stellar” people. He won’t always be able to find the perfect person to fill the slot. Therefore, his best management style is one that fits the context. He must be flexible at times managing hands-on and at times delegating.
The same holds true for Hillary. If her default management style is to be hands-on that can also be a mistake. She will undoubtedly at some time hire a person or persons who are extremely well qualified and if she manages them closely they will feel micromanaged. Her best approach is to be flexible enough to adjust her management style to the context as well.
And if you want to know what to do in order to avoid micromanaging your direct reports and if you want to know how to avoid being micromanaged by your manager, check out my new 3-CD set.
I just completed a 3-CD set in which I lay out the complete model of Contextual Definition and Contextual Leadership. It explains and puts to rest this debate about which management style is best. In the final analysis, they all work best, but only in their optimum context.
(I have no information on John McCain’s preferred management style).
Be well,
Steven Cerri
“What would it be like to be as successful with people as you are with your technology?” Steven trains, coaches, and facilitates engineers to BE the answer to that question. More information can be found at the:http://stevencerri.com/index.php/Home/index/
Copyright©2008 STCerri International and Steven Cerri. You are free to pass this information on to others and to reproduce it. If you reproduce it in whole or part please give attribution to Steven Cerri. Thank you.
Posted by Steven Cerri on 04/21 at 06:44 PM (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
#53-4/14/08: No Power Can Be Worse Than Power!
No Power Can Be Worse Than Some Power!
Helplessness can look like power.
Posted by Steven Cerri on Monday, April 14, 2008
Hello everyone!
Last week I was sitting around talking to a group of my family members. Someone brought up a newspaper article they had read about a women who was accusing the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) of harassment. Apparently, as my family member explained, the women had a variety of body piercings. She wore nipple rings that the TSA representative required she remove. As it turned out she ultimately had to use of pliers to remove them. The woman was upset and is now suing the TSA for an apology and money.
My family member who was recounting the newspaper article ended the story with the statement, “See, this is what happens when you give people too much power. Too much power in the hands of these airport people, and this is what you get!”
Now I thought that was an interesting statement. Most people would indeed come to the conclusion that the TSA representative had too much power and that in this case the representative exercised an abuse of power.
I see it exactly the opposite. Now I don’t know what the policy is. News accounts indicate that the TSA usually uses a pat-down in such circumstances. Having said that, the TSA spokesperson indicated that the TSA representative in this situation “acted appropriately”.
I can’t speak to what the TSA policy is in such cases. I just don’t know. However, generalizing, I would say that the TSA representative didn’t exercise power, in fact, I don’t think they have much power.
If we agree that power is the exercise of independent judgement, then the TSA representatives have very little power. Do you really want the safety of an airliner to be left up to the individual judgment of a TSA employee? Do you want one TSA rep at Denver using their judgment and the TSA rep at Los Angeles using their independent judgement?
I don’t think so.
When it comes to airline safety we don’t want individualized judgment. We want uniform, standardized, predictable, robotic responses. We want every representative doing the same thing and we want all of them erring on the side of conservative saftey.
Therefore, the TSA representatives are driven by policies, not by judgement. They are operating at the extreme end of micromanagement. They can’t think. They’re not supposed to think. They are supposed to implement the policies. They x-ray all the luggage. They are to confiscate all liquids in excess of x ounces. On and on and on.
I would say that the TSA representatives have absolutely no power. No power at all. They cannot deviate. They cannot use judgement. They cannot make their own decisions. I can imagine that when it comes to body jewelry, they have a policy that states something like, “All metal ornaments must be removed an inspected by passing them through the x-ray machine.”
To really have power, one has to have the ability to exercise judgement. To have no power is to be required to follow strict policies and not deviate from them. Generally speaking, TSA employees have no power. They exercise the policies.
And this gets me back to micromanagement. Most people believe they are micromanaged when they don’t have the ability to exercise judgement. The more freedom to exercise judgement, the less the sense of micromanagement.
And yet, there are certain jobs where the exercise of judgment is not what we want to allow. This is why the military has a very structured command structure. For sure, there are times and opportunities for soldiers to exercise individual initiative, but most of the time it is “by the numbers.”
The same applies to NASA and space operations. No astronaut steps out of the shuttle or the space station without check after check after check of redundant check lists. No one gets to exercise a great deal of individual decision-making flying 250 miles above the earth.
The same applies to decisions to send the Martian rovers down a slope. It’s not a individual decision where to go and when. It’s something everybody who’s anybody gets involved in.
So, it should be clear that there are certain tasks, certain operations where individual judgment must be suspended because of the specific circumstances. That means there are certain situations which will looks like micromanagement and they are micromanagement because that is what is needed. The only thing that keeps it from feeling micromanagement is that everyone understands the context and that the context “requires” a close management style.
Therefore, once again, micromanagement is a perception. It is not an absolute management style. It is a clash of perceptions between the managers perception of acceptable management oversight and that expected by the direct report.
If you want more detail on this subject, the concept that micromanagement doesn’t ever have to occur, check out my new 3-CD set at http://stevencerri.com/index.php/products/index/
Be well,
Steven Cerri
“What would it be like to be as successful with people as you are with your technology?” Steven trains, coaches, and facilitates engineers to BE the answer to that question. More information can be found at the:http://stevencerri.com/index.php/Home/index/
Copyright©2008 STCerri International and Steven Cerri. You are free to pass this information on to others and to reproduce it. If you reproduce it in whole or part please give attribution to Steven Cerri. Thank you.
Posted by Steven Cerri on 04/14 at 09:55 PM (0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
