Today's Managers & Micromanagement

Today's managers must understand that they must constantly assess and improve their workplace processes and mechanisms. They need to understand that accountability is much more than putting in time and swiping the attendance card. They shoould not insist on telling their employees how to do something because often the employee knows more about what they are doing than the manager. Todays managers must realise that employees can not only solve workplace problems but also can create and innovate. Beacause the employees that create and innovate do not appreciate being treated like the assembly line workers of the past,they feel micromanagers do not appreciate their contributions.

Micromanaging was a process that worked reasonably well when the work was simple. The bottom line was there. With the increase in complexity of work, micromanaging has lost its effectiveness. In today's workplace, micromanaging affects adversely. Micromanagement has led to bad bottom lines, poor performances and bankruptcies.

In today's fast-paced, highly competitive business environment micromangers are faced with fewer options. And even though micromanagers work harder and harder the brutal marketplace will continue to erode their bottom lines.

So micro guys wake up!!

Photo courtesy cote

Micro management

Micromanaging is a hot buzzword. Almost everyone in the corporate cirlcle seems to be using it or should I say opposing it. But I feel its time to define and understand the concept in a more better way.

Micromanaging is usually synonymous with the 'old way of doing things'. 'Dinosaur' managers use the micromanagement approach. The term essentially means to supervise every small step in the workflow process -- hence 'micro.' This method worked fairly well in the 'old' production days when,
* Factory workers were uneducated and unskilled.
* Workers normally did one routine step and that was it.
* They made few or no decisions.
* They had a minimum production quota.
* Their breaks were monitored, their lunches were monitored and of course the time clock was the tracker.
* Time was viewed as what was 'bought' by the company.
*Close supervision or micromanaging ensured that production levels were met.

Management literally had to tell employees what to do and watch them to make sure they did it.

This system worked well when workflow was simple. As the business world became more complex, micromanaging became less effective. Time was not what the company bought and the worker sold. Productivity became the key. As processes became more complex, workers were required to gain greater skills. Skilled workers became more in demand and could go elsewhere if they were not treated properly. Skilled workers eventually found micromanagers offensive and crude.

In the '80's and 90's
The companies became more results oriented.
* Time became a very less of a factor in the results equation.
* Motivation and innovation began to be understood as real forces in production results.
* Workers became employees and then associates and today team members.
* Employees began to be viewed as assets and not just expenses.
* Employers began to understand that employees could provide the greatest competitive advantage as well as the number one management headache.

In short, employees could make or break the company.

Emergence of a new management Style:
Managers began to understand that good management meant maximizing employee productivity. And that this can no longer be accomplished by micromanaging. Managers began to understand that knowing their people and helping them do their best was the best way to reach superior production levels. Instead of being an obstacle, managers began to understand it was their job to remove obstacles. Time constraint was one of the last obstacles to fall.

Photo courtesy Paul Worthington

The "I" in the "Team"

Till yesterday, if you would have ever asked me, I would have emphasized the word “we” while discussing group or team performance. I used to so strongly say,"There is no 'I' in the word "Team”. I had a great contempt for the “I did this” and “I did that" statements and the ones who referred others as "my people".
Because such egotistical statements till now, always conflicted directly with my belief -- that it is the teamwork, that helps organizations realize their goals.

It’s true that the amount of useful change organizations can bring about depends upon the contributions of two or groups of hundreds and thousands. But a meaningful change can be accomplished only by individuals taking responsibility for their own competency and own character. That’s why it proves that I was wrong till date, and that there is an "I" in the word “Team".
In fact, the "I" in the team, the individual and the amount of responsibility he takes for personal & organizational progress is the single most important factor.

I strongly feel, that more important for a company, is to maximize its "I"s, establish a foundation on which the ”I"s can work together, promote synergy & built a practical & useful process for managing change.

Integrating the individuals’ needs with organizations needs is the key. It will encourage each of us to focus on ourselves objectively. When we trust & respect each other we promote empowerment & leadership that in turn helps us fulfill our individual vision, thus creating a successful future for the organization too.

Its the special breed of “I”s who never settle for anything less than the best will make the whole difference.

Photo courtesy zebrastripes