Why Companies Love Micromanagers

Back in the day when I was first promoted into management, the term itself was commonly defined as ”Getting things done through people.” Over last ten years or so, I’ve noticed a definite shift, particularly in the expectations that top executives demand from mid-level managers. I now believe that the commonly held definition of management, at least for that middle level, is more akin to either simply, ”Getting things done”, “Getting things done yourself” or worse, “Getting things done in spite of people.” Enter the micromanager. While micromanagers may be the bane of their co-workers and direct reports, the top echelons of corporations can’t seem to get enough of them.

I do not claim to be an industrial psychologist (or any other kind for that matter) but will simply offer my observations and opinions as to what makes micromanagers tick and why they have become so highly prized and in demand. Micromanagement is a broad term encompassing a wide range and degree of such behaviors. I will only focus on one type of micromanager here, as I am more familiar with this particular incarnation.

These micromanagers are usually intelligent individuals with what we used to call type “A” personalities. In some circles they might even be described as being obsessive/compulsive. Such traits result in these individuals often being rigid, anxiety-filled, single minded, overly demanding and fixated on the most miniscule of details. They are very good at performing the tasks to which they are assigned, particularly when left alone to their own resources. That is why many individuals exhibiting these characteristics are culled out of the workforce and promoted into positions that oversee the work of others. Their excellent work habits and capacity to take on more and more tasks are viewed as the perfect role models for companies to use in order to whip workgroups into shape.

Tethered to the company with latest electronic devices (named after a variety of fruits and animals), micromanagers will work endless hours checking up on things. Because they have already performed much of the work assigned to their group, they can fill-in for absent staff members and oftentimes even retain many of their old tasks. These individuals are a great “fit” in today’s cost conscious and bottom line driven companies.

The downside to these personality types is that they generally lack good or even any people skills. Outside of the workplace (the few times you’ll see them out of it anyway) they’ll appear as normal folks but I would venture to say that many of these types of micromanagers exhibit nearly anti-social behaviors in workplace situations. It matters not that they drive their staff’s crazy by acting as overbearing task masters with an incessant drive for perfection and having things done “their way.” They become extremely and openly frustrated with their staffs when things are not done in the precise manner that they have dictated. They will doggedly pursue any nonconformance and churn through employees seeking only those that will think and work like they do. These attributes are perfect for today’s corporate cultures that are driven by precise metrics and tight deadlines.

People skills are no longer important. Only getting the job done is. Since the socio-corporate status of non-management employees has reverted back to being nothing more than fodder for the corporate gristmills, human relations skills in these managers have taken a back seat to delivering results. Workers, even highly educated technical types such as engineers and accountants, are considered to be a dime a dozen. It’s just too bad if they can’t get along with or emulate their micromanaging boss. In fact, many executives would love an entire workforce of micromanagers. It’s extremely shortsighted thinking on the part of those that decide to promote or hire these individuals. But then what top management team is in it for the long haul anyway?

Many of these micromanagers have a very difficult time working with peers in cross-functional situations. Their single mindedness obscures larger issues. The very traits and characteristics that make them micromanagers cause discord with peers. They seem to have a great deal of difficulty understanding why everyone else does not think like they do. It’s a bad situation that often requires a lot of time wasting refereeing. It’s quite interesting to watch two micromanagers go at it over an issue. But not to worry; the benefits to company far outweigh the costs.

The real shame of it all is that the negative traits, characteristics and behaviors of these micromanagers have been validated and even rewarded through promotions into positions of power over others who might not share the fanatical zeal of their new masters and might have different if not better ideas on how to get the job done.

Excuses and apologies abound for the behaviors of these types:

Their single (or even closed) minded obsessions have been redefined as “passion.”

Their incessant attention to even the goofiest of details is excused as “driving for excellence.”

Of course we all know that the anxieties causing them to work tremendous hours without rest are heralded as “selfless dedication.”

Because of this reinforcement, these micromanagers soon develop a “Be like me” attitude with their subordinates. They become “My way or the Highway” types that cannot tolerate even the slightest deviation from their notion of how things should be done.

But even these micromanagers are not mechanical robots with an unlimited capacity. Life changing events may occur that cause them to refocus their energies away from work even temporarily. They may simply wear out both physically and mentally. When that occurs, the view of top management is often that they have lost their edge and now need replacement. It’s all part of what I call the “Expectations Theory” of management. I’ll write more about that in another post. Once these micromanagers become burnt out or no longer useful, they are simply discarded and others are selected to lead the charge. The aftermath can be devastating to this type of individual. They feel betrayed and become cynical and jaded. They are usually not allowed to go back to what they did best all along. An excellent worker has been lost and another bad manager has been created

One validation of this trend is apparent in recent help wanted Ads that I’ve seen for supervisors and managers as well as my own debriefings of individuals who have recently interviewed for such positions. It would appear that prospective candidates are now only being asked in passing if they have experience in supervising groups. Rather than manage, it is now seems more important that they personally know how to perform the function or tasks at hand. “Hands-on” is the new code word for “Do it yourself and/or micromanage others.”

The search for micromanagers goes on.

Unleashing the Power of “Followership”

I must admit that I am suffering from “leadership” fatigue. Over the last few weeks, I have read at least a dozen articles recounting either the five or the seven or the ten (or God knows how many) traits and characteristics of successful leaders. Opinions offered by ex-government and military officials, authors, CEO’s, consultants, academicians etc. are extolled and posted everywhere. I’m surprised that no one has published the views of Madonna, Ringo Starr or Sean Penn.

All of these articles seem to have one common theme; they all focus on the traits and characteristics of either the rich, successful, or powerful. Many were written by the already rich, successful and powerful themselves. It is as if we should all aspire to behave in these manners in order to enjoy the fruits of prestige, wealth and celebrity that these fortunate individuals have attained. That’s OK as long as the articles are only meant to inspire. It’s pretty obvious to me that barring some miracle, nothing we do will ever gain us this Nirvana. There is an incredible amount of “luck” involved here.

Anyway, It was on the last “list” that I reviewed, this one excerpted from a new book, that I began to notice something – many if not all of these traits can be found in ordinary folks. This started me thinking about how us ordinary folks view our business leaders in general and workplace leaders in particular. These are the people that most of us working stiffs confront on a day-to-day basis. If the “leaders” can share their views with the rest of us about the traits and characteristics of other leaders and if we all share many of the same traits and characteristics, then not much really separates us. We just haven’t been as lucky. Since the leaders themselves rarely attribute their success to luck, our views should be just as valid.

Leaders cannot lead without “followers.” Everyone has a boss to one extent or another. Just think about it. We are all followers of someone. Even if one happens to be self-employed there are those to look to for affirmation and direction. Yet, although we the “followers” are obviously in the majority here, no one seems to care about how we view leaders and leadership. Sure, you can go to various websites where employees tell stories, complain and vent about bad leaders. Many business pundits and intellectual types, though, routinely dismiss these comments as the rants of the “unwashed” and disgruntled employees. These are complaints and criticisms. They are not being offered as inspiration.

It is a fact they we cannot always choose our bosses and the workplace is certainly NO democracy. Yet in our politically sensitive world, pressure groups often hold some sway with the movers and shakers. So I’m going to invent a new term – Followership: the state of being a follower or being disposed to be a follower. Having officially defined a new status for us ordinary folk, perhaps all of us followers can now exert some pressure on our leaders or on those who appoint and anoint them. Perhaps we can inspire them.

As a certified follower myself (since I have many bosses), I feel it incumbent to share my own views of what I look for in a leader. Here are some characteristics (just four) of the type of individual that I’d like to “lead” me through the working world:

The ability to communicate clearly – Good leaders provide clear direction. They ensure that they are understood both verbally and in writing. They use unambiguous language and request feedback to ensure a meeting of the minds.

The ability to accept responsibility – Everyone makes mistakes. It takes a true leader to admit when they have made one or done something wrong.

The ability to provide support – One cannot perform a job without the proper tools. Good leaders ensure that their followers are adequately supplied, equipped and trained. They make that their business. They do not leave their followers to fend for themselves.

The ability to recognize that a leader is also part of the team – A leader is not separate from those than follow them. Although they have a different and unique role, they must identify with the group being lead and become part of it. Their self-interest can be no more important than that of their followers. If it is, they are no more than cattle herders or slave drivers.

The reward that I offer a leader is not wealth, success or power. It is much more important that than. It is my recognition of them as a leader out of respect rather than for their titles, power or celebrity.

I personally could care less about their “passion” for the business or their pithy slogans and sayings. Arrogance, pomposity and self-promotion have nothing to do with leadership. Most, if not all followers already recognize this.

So what do you think? What do you look for in a leader? Perhaps we can get a trend going here. It’s worth a shot. Help me conduct my own unscientific survey of the “Followership.” Post some comments below. Maybe Madonna, Ringo Starr or Sean Penn will even chime in! Thanks.

Kneeling at the Altar of the Latest Management Fad

When will they learn that all management fads have a limited life? There are no “silver bullets” and no substitutes for good smart work. Worse yet is when some consultant tries to evangelize the workforce into believing in some “new religion” replete with its own rituals, icons, and Bibles. It’s all intended to convince the masses that their attitudes about pay cuts, grueling schedules and idiot managers are wrongminded. God forbid (the real one) that anyone ever gets on the wrong side of one of these “prophets” by having an original thought or daring to question the doctrine. Remember the Spanish inquisition? What an insult to the intelligence of employees and good managers.

Successful organizations innovate. They are honest with their workforce and respect divergent opinions. They do not need to use goofy gimmicks and play games with employees’ psyches.

In fact, there is really only one thing that all successful organizations have in common – they are successful.

Why I Became the Corporate Cynic

Someone once said that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. So it is in corporate America. The plans, programs and policies employed by even the most honest and forthright companies to promote a healthy organizational climate very often fail to produce the intended results. Despite the best of intentions, the plans are soon abandoned and forgotten. The programs fail and the policies appear to be worth no more than the paper they were written on. The organization becomes infected with cynicism and frustration. Morale suffers. There may even be a myriad of casualties (usually some innocent employees) strewn along the way. Everyone begins to look for answers. New plans are developed. New programs and policies are rolled out and the process repeats itself again and again.

An in-depth investigation into these failures, however, would reveal that the original plans were sound. The programs and polices were intelligently crafted and well intended. What else could account for this phenomenon? Sad to say, but history will continue to repeat itself because of the one item most frequently overlooked during the postmortem: management.

Management is that group of individuals charged with the execution of these plans, programs and policies. I will include all levels from vice president down to foremen in my definition of this group. Since these managers run the company, it is here where the attention should be focused. In my opinion, the telltale sign that an organization has serious management problems occurs when and employee, usually at the water cooler or over a cup of coffee, is overhead to say, “Had I been in charge, I would have done things 180 degrees differently.”

During my now thirty years in midlevel management at small, medium and large companies, I’ve often felt that way myself. Whenever I think that I’ve seen it all, I’m surprised again. But in spite of the fact that I am the consummate corporate cynic, I have always given the company at least “20 degrees” for having good intentions. So while I myself might have not have done things 180 degrees differently, I certainly would have by 160.

About five years ago and probably out of pure frustration with the “system”, I wrote a book about those 160 degrees of deviation that needed correcting. After recalling all of my observations and personal experiences, I decided to offer my opinions on how those deviations could be identified and fixed. A review of my finished work revealed a distinctly cynical view of the corporate world. I guess that was to be expected. And so be it! I titled by book, “160 Degrees of Deviation: The Case for Corporate Cynic.” I am by no means an expert on organizational culture but I sure am a product of it!

Jerome Alexander MBA CPA