This is an interesting and pertinent topic to me, as many of my clients – some aware, some not – suffer from
the micro-managing malady. Are you micro-managing??
It’s been my experience that micro-managers do so from perceived need. At least in their minds, they feel they have a need for acute attention to detail in one or more functions, or with one or more (or all) members of their staffs.
From my experience, the underlying reasons driving this perceived need come from
real or perceived lack of competency of employee(s)
real or perceived lack of trust, and/or
an overdeveloped personal ego/sense of self-worth.
Realize that most people want to achieve the same results with fewer efforts, and micro-managing takes more effort, not less. The dangers to me are straightforward: in times of economic scrutiny, we need employees to be thinking more, not less.
So, how can we tell if we’ve crossed that line into micro-managing? What do we look for, and what can we do? Some indicators (and suggestions):
You frequently get questions about problems without recommended solutions. Employees–even really good ones–tire of doing the legwork for a micro-manager, so will simply ask questions instead of problem-solving. “What do you want me to do?” is a typical question, and they are essentially absolving themselves of all ownership and accountability. You decide, you own. They screw it up, you own it.
You regularly ask successful employees for status updates. Stop it. They didn’t get there by being an idiot, and you frustrating them isn’t helping. Set priorities and deadlines, and then allow employees room to do as you asked. Status updates, particularly those without major project milestones, are simply a display of distrust.
You’re questioning others’ good decisions. Usually because you would have “done it differently,” or are uncomfortable you weren’t involved in the decision. How about just saying “Good work, thanks…?” Learn to shut up; diarrhea of the mouth is a career limiter anyway…
Eradicating micro-managing is the responsibility of both parties–the staffer being micro-managed, and the manager “doing” the micro-managing.
In my upcoming (tomorrow) newsletter, “At C-Level,” I address this topic in some detail. I’d like to cover some additional points, and since this is my forum, I figured I’d just use this… From leadership and performance perspectives, mediocre performance — particularly among managers or key positions — is certainly a critical situation.
There are three real problems with accepting mediocrity:
First, it slows organizational performance. We know that intuitively, though we frequently feel we can “get past that.” We make processes, even hire people, based on some mediocre log-jam that we seem to accept for no rational reason.
Second, mediocrity breeds mediocrity. In other words, if the prevailing culture accepts substandard efforts (in fact, REWARDS those efforts), then those efforts will continue. A basic tenet of compensation: “That which is rewarded is repeated.” In other words, if bad things don’t come to bad people, you can bet their steadily value-sucking performance will continue.
And third, we cannot even KNOW our capabilities or potential when mediocrity is pervasive in the organization. What we view as a challenge – a ‘stretch goal” – may be child’s play for a high-performing organization, yet we’ve accepted that degree of difficulty as a DIRECT result of our culture of marginal performance. Shame on us — we don’t even have a full grasp of where we could be or how high we could go, merely because we allow mediocrity to add weight to performance scales.
Additionally, mediocrity points to two obvious shortcomings with us in senior leadership:
First, the organization cannot be performing at a significant level with mediocre performers. The financial and productive results, then, are obviously less than the potential. Given today’s scarcity of resources, shame on the organization’s leaders for wasting them this way.
More importantly, the leadership team has proven unable or unwilling to manage performance correctly and effectively for the organization to truly realize its success. We have to ask ourselves, if some members of the leadership team are incapable of eradicating pervasively lackluster performance, what else are they “not” doing? What other gaps do we have, that we may not even realize? How much money has flown through the door unchecked?
Mediocrity, either in terms of absolute performance or at least acquiescence/acceptance, begins at the top.
To borrow from some other cause’s tagline: We can eradicate mediocrity in our lifetimes.
Disclaimer: The identities of the characters in the story below have been changed to protect the innocent from possible repercussions by her moronic boss(es).
The military has an acronym for almost everything… and for the rest, it has initialisms. Today’s acronym is BLUF (pronounced bluff) – Bottom Line Up Front. Often in military briefings, you give the boss the BLUF, so they don’t have to pay attention to the rest of what you say.
Today’s BLUF is: You don’t have to spend money to piss people off; weak leaders can do it for free.
When I was talking to someone I really care about (she’s the innocent I mentioned earlier), she told me about a token of appreciation she’d received at work that day. I asked her if everyone received the same token and if it made her feel appreciated.
Her answer was not surprising: Yes and no, respectively.
The token was, incredibly, a pair of socks with the company logo on them. Maybe not incredible to you, but I was certainly incredulous. I couldn’t help but share my initial impression of the token:
“Who the hell thought this was a good idea?”
I guess as God rains on the good and evil alike, so the boss gave socks to the high performers and the slackers alike. Heavy sigh.
Of the people I shared my initial impression with, only my friends in Corporate America agreed with me. Those in local government positions scolded me and told me it was the thought that counted, while those in federal government service made it clear they didn’t have the budget for tokens of appreciation. Why was I not surprised (again)?
Somewhere there was a chain of events that led enough people in this organization to convince the Emperor he would look splendid in a company logo-emblazoned pair of socks. And then they began to believe that after 18 months of working in the h—–care industry during a global pandemic, their employees deserved a pair of socks and would appreciate them because the Emperor already had a pair.
I’m a little disappointed for her that not once during the previous 18 months had anyone up the food chain expressed their appreciation to that someone I really care about for working in an environment with a high risk of exposure to COVID-19 – not even providing them with company logo N-95 masks – but they thought giving them a pair of socks was a good idea.
I must be missing something. Now of all times, leaders need to make their employees know they’re appreciated for the effort they’ve made over the last year and a half to keep the company up and running successfully. What follows are some nuggets I thought were intuitive but clearly aren’t to everyone.
If we want to know what makes our teams feel appreciated, we have to have heart-to-heart conversations with them and actively listen to discern the answer… or we can ask them directly. There are ways to do both more effectively than guess, and it takes time, trust and approachability or we’ll never get the answer.
If we give the same token of appreciation to everyone, it’s not a token of appreciation, unless we’re just thankful that people still choose to work for us. It’s one thing to give everyone the same kind of shirt with a logo to wear at work or elsewhere (that’s called marketing and brand recognition), but socks? Give me a break.
If we have money to spend on worthless trinkets for everyone, we have money to give something meaningful to a few (hopefully our top performers).
Just because our boss (that’s the moron I mentioned earlier) thinks it’s a good idea – or even just an okay idea – we don’t have to hold our tongues and embolden them to convince the Emperor he/she will look good in their new socks.
Bottom line: You don’t have to spend money to piss people off. I suspect someone I really care about will put the socks in the company logo backpack they gave her a couple of years ago, and I’ll never see them again.
Do you know what makes your team feel appreciated?
Being normal is an overrated concept. No one actually fits the definition, since we all have our own, so no one is really normal. We’re all just somewhere on the continuum of abnormality. Some of you are much higher on the spectrum than others (you know who you are), but we’re all in this crazy, non-normal environment together.
And that was even true before the apocalypse. Look at us now… normal is such a distant memory, I’m not sure we’d know it if we could touch it. And since we can’t, there’s no since in lamenting its loss.
Since, even when things were normal… they actually weren’t. Follow me here, I promise I’m going somewhere.
There’s lots of talk these days about “returning to normal,” and “getting back to normal,” and “I can’t wait until it’s normal again.”
Therein lies the problem – it was never normal to begin with.
By that, I mean that if normal is (according to Webster) an adjective, then:
nor·mal | \ ˈnȯr-məl \ Conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern:
characterized by that which is considered usual, typical, or routine; “normal
working hours” “under normal circumstances” “It was just a normal, average
day.” “He had a normal childhood.”
“Conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern.” Actually, we’ve never had much of that, if you really think about it. The organizations we serve, well, they’re always trying to grow and improve – to get better. All of that requires change, which by definition, doesn’t fit the description of “normal.”
According to that definition above:
Change isn’t normal.
Growth isn’t normal.
Our families aren’t normal (Welcome to the dysfunctional zone).
Our hobbies aren’t normal. (Ever hit the exact same golf shot twice? On purpose?)
All in all, “normal” is something of a myth; a bill of goods we’ve bought into so we can complain when things start changing and we have little control over the change.
Ahh, now it’s starting to make sense. We’re ok with change that we can easily predict and/or control – that seems normal to us. We’re ok with change that provides us a benefit, even if we didn’t see it coming – that seems normal also.
What we don’t like, and what we view as total out of the normal, is change that we neither control nor benefit from, especially when it’s taking us to places unknown. That intense discomfort we feel inside, that absolute lack of control or expectation, has us wishing for the “good old days” when we could see that predictable, expected, beneficial change coming down the highway.
Well, I hate to be the bearer of the obvious, but this apocalypse took us so far from our comfort zone that we long for the days of old – the days of comfort – not really the days of “normal.”
So, when we find ourselves pining away for “back to normal,” realize what we’re really asking for: constant, never-ending change that we either can control, reasonably expect, or personally benefit from. You know, the stuff we used to have.
This is significant for leadership. From our perspective, things were normal before March 2020. Lots of changes – some good, some bad; some expected, some “what the hell…!?” But it was our normal. Then.
The apocalypse hit – now we had new normal. Masks, physical distancing, hospitalizations, elbow-bumps, vaccines, handwashing (does it bother anyone but me that handwashing was a new thing for so many?). These things became our regular pattern; things that were considered usual, typical, or routine. You know… normal.
Today, and going forward, we have normal again. It’s the Now Normal. Different from the pre-Covid normal, which wasn’t really; different from the pandemic operations normal, which wasn’t really. We have our Now Normal, which isn’t all that normal. But it’s a more comfortable set of changes… a more expected routine or set of activities.
And we seem to be pleased it’s coming our way, though I’d caution that all normal, including this Now Normal, have their share of “oh shit” experiences.
I don’t know how. I don’t think the boss said/meant that.
The list is endless. The bottom line… It’s not my fault!
And therein lies the crux of the problem: Accountability isn’t about blame, it’s about ownership.
We recently conducted a workshop on Leadership Accountability. Powerful, uncomfortable stuff. People squirming in chairs, eyes shifting around, not making eye contact… even being accountable for understanding accountability was difficult.
Damn. How’d we get here?
First, let’s discuss what Accountability is in the leadership context, what it isn’t, and what it looks like when worn correctly.
(These are my definitions, so just bear with me. If you want to use your definitions, write your own article.)
“Leadership Accountability is being responsible for the results of your decisions or actions without demand or force and prepared to explain them when you are asked.
Think OWNERSHIP.
Like owning a car. No one blames you for owning a car (well, some of you may push that a bit), you just own it. If it’s clean, that’s on you. If it runs well, that’s on you. If the oil isn’t changed regularly (you know who you are), that’s on you as well.
In other words, you’re completely accountable for that car. You aren’t to blame for the car, you’re simply accountable.
So, think ownership.
We keep using “responsibility” when discussing Accountability… are they the same thing?
No. Here’s something to chew on to distinguish between Responsibility and Accountability:
Responsibility is taking ownership of activities. A person who completes the tasks required for their job or role is responsible.
Accountability is taking ownership of results. A person who knows what needs to be accomplished and does what it takes to get the right results is accountable.
We’re responsible for tasks, accountable for results. No, that’s not just a play on words, either. It brings us to another point: Accountability is one-deep.
Many people can own responsibilities, but…
Accountability is one-deep
Many managers can be responsible for submitting their numbers to a Director. That director, however, is accountable for that report. If one of those managers doesn’t do their job, that director is still accountable for the report.
Only one person is ultimately accountable for any result, though many may have a responsibility to assist.
Now, just to mess with your head… that same manager may have had an accountability to submit that report, but it’s only an accountability for that manager – the director still has overall accountability for the report.
Things that make you go “hmmmm…”
To further unpack this, we must understand that Accountability doesn’t mean punishment. Accountability is a willingness to accept responsibility for our own actions. We too often use Accountability and “holding someone accountable” as negative events. They aren’t, when done correctly.
First, you own accountability yourself. No one can “hold” you accountable for anything. They can force, coerce or threaten you to get you to do something, our even punish you when you don’t; but remember our definition, being forced doesn’t count.
What we can do, however, is assist others and ask for help ourselves.
We can help others with their accountability by doing what we’re supposed to do, respectfully reminding, and helping out wherever we can.
We can also ask others to help us with our accountabilities. Give people permission to be our eyes, ears, Jiminy Cricket or whatever floats your boat to help us remember and follow through. It’s not forced if you asked for help – it’s simply smart and resourceful.
So, how do we foster better accountability within our hallowed halls? It’s not hard, if we can get past the blaming game…
Clear communications. People know what’s expected and why it’s necessary.
Meaningful Consequences. Focus on positive consequences, negative/punishment is indicative of a failure somewhere. (this will be another article – it’s a big deal)
Model accountability. Leaders set the tone. Speak accountability; demonstrate accountability. “Do as I say, not as I do” simply will not work here.
The “Model Accountability” deserves more info… we model Accountability when we accept and embrace our own Accountability. Words like “I was wrong,” “I made a mistake,” “That’s on me,” and other similar statements imply accountability.
Think about it – openly accepting accountability is generally a positive thing and has a constructive impact on others.
And be prepared to explain why, because that’s how we learn. Use reasons, not excuses. I could write a boring treatise on the difference, but I’ll use my simple mind’s clarification:
Reasons include my action or inaction as the center of the failure,
Excuses use another person, inanimate object or intangible as the center/cause of failure.
Give reasons, not excuses. We all learn, grow, and improve when doing so.
I’ve crammed four workshop hours into this brief article, and those four hours could easily have been two days. Accountability, though simple, has the constant complexity of people’s emotions and fear. Makes for some heady stuff but hoped to give you a brief overview here.
Happy to share more if you like, just ask, comment or complain and we can discuss. As always, you can reach me at kevinb@triangleperformance.com.
And Be Brazen, remembering that Grace and Accountability can coexist.
Leaders need to engage periodically in some serious introspection and decide whether or not their decision-making style or the culture they’ve created is mortally wounding organizational performance.
I learned that lesson as a by-product of a traumatic experience over three decades ago. Early in my flying career, in close proximity to another airplane also traveling at 400+ mph, I heard a magical phrase from my instructor that’s stuck with me ever since: indecision kills.
First, though, he said, “I have the stick.”
That meant he was going be in control of the airplane for a few minutes while giving me instruction and advice, and in this case, saving my life. It was clear to him (but not to me) that if I didn’t hurry and decide which course correction to make, my indecision would result in a catastrophic mid-air collision.
While not normally fatal in the corporate world, leadership and management indecision still kills. Among other things, it kills employee morale and motivation, productivity and project momentum, and causes our customers to lose confidence that we can be responsive to their needs.
Indecisiveness is caused by a number of factors, primarily fear of failure. Much has been written about decision-making processes and steps that those who have trouble being decisive can take. But I’ve yet to find a magic pill that managers can take that makes them less hesitant to make a “good enough” decision in an environment where imperfect decisions are frowned upon.
I have the stick for a minute.
Several years ago, our director called his senior managers together and boldly announced, “We take too long to make decisions. We’re going to start making decisions faster so we can make more decisions, and if we make a bad decision, at least we’ll have time to make a better one.” Heresy in a bureaucratic institution with an entrenched, hierarchical decision making process. But he was a leader, and we did start making better decisions without getting bogged down in staff morass.
I’m not suggesting all decisions need to be made quickly and neither was he. What I am suggesting is that leaders need to continually evaluate the effect their decision-making style is having on the organization, and the decision-making culture they’ve created for their managers. When leaders create an environment where employees feel empowered and decision-making has been appropriately delegated, managers are more willing to make timely, good decisions without waiting for perfect information.
And that reduces the mortality rate for employee morale, keeps promising projects from getting bogged down, and increases customer responsiveness.
Leadership is an activity, not a position. That activity includes making sure you foster an environment where the decision-making process doesn’t paralyze the organization and mistakes aren’t always professionally fatal.
an accountability to submit that report, but it’s only an accountability for that manager – the director still has overall accountability for the report.
