The Benefits of Micromanagement

As I made my way from a field EMS provider to a supervisor and up to my current position, the term micromanager has been bandied about as though it was something negative, or something that those who manage would never aspire to be.  This has included images of managers always looking over your shoulder, always questioning what you have or haven’t done and managers typically insisting that things have to be done their way. This negative imagery was borne out of conversations with co-workers, various journal articles and texts regarding managerial techniques.  

Defining Micromanagement

As commonly used, micromanagement refers to inappropriately close observation and control of a subordinate's work by a manager. This interpretation derives chiefly from the prefix micro, which means "small" in Greek. In this context small refers to overemphasis on the minute details of employees' work at the expense of the bigger picture. Micromanagers are seen as having too much unhelpful contact with employees and using that contact in the wrong way. I believe micromanagement has received a bad rap over the years because it conjures up the image of a big boss breathing down the neck of a hard-working subordinate. In reality, that’s only one side of micromanagement and is only the case when it isn’t properly executed.

But could micromanagement ever be a good thing? Is there a method of micromanaging where managers can manage from a distance and get more involved when necessary? I believe there is, and I hypothesize that by taking certain variables into account, all managers can incorporate healthy and positive micromanagement into their managerial lexicon and use it to create a more productive workplace.

It’s time to rethink the opinion that all micromanagement smothers people and decreases their abilities to perform optimally. Is there a secret to micromanaging that can make it productive? Are there specific times when, in order to effectively manage, one must micromanage? How should we invent or reinterpret the notion of micromanaging?

Understanding Organizational Realities

First, each agency has goals, objectives and deliverables associated with those goals and objectives—keeping those in mind, managers should be suitably precise, rather than too detailed or stifling. Managers need to know which projects need more attention, which ones are time sensitive and which ones need less attention.

Understanding Employee Strengths and Weaknesses

Managers need to understand each employee has their own specific personal need for occasional support, guidance and information.  It is up to you as a manager to understand this balance as it relates to each employee and adjust accordingly. I have managed employees who want me to check on their work more frequently and those who appreciate it less frequently.

Also, a key difference between being a hands-on manager and a micromanager is trust. If we trust our team, then we’re comfortable jumping into their processes and helping out. In fact, we might learn a better way to do things.

Special Circumstances

There are also specific times when micromanagement is more than acceptable and should be encouraged.  These can include:

• When your EMS agency is taking on a new, game-changing initiative. In my experience, this is a time when every move is exceptionally important, flexibility is key and there is a great deal of unknown, so an added element of management could be a positive.
• When there is a new employee or employees that just aren’t getting the job done.
• When there has been a series of customer complaints about the same person. This could be a cry for help from an employee who needs additional training or additional managerial support.
• A project isn’t going the way you want it to, and standard managerial techniques just don’t seem to work. There are many critical areas in your EMS agency where results are paramount. If they aren’t as expected week after week, a leader must ask those responsible for more information about why. Perhaps even more important, you must ask what is being done to turn around the situation. If a turnaround doesn’t occur within a reasonable time, you should delve in further to see what changes can be made.

Conclusion

I am a micromanager. There, I said it. I suspected this quality in my management style for a while and realized it recently when I came into my office and began asking an employee very direct questions about a deadline for a project she had been tasked with. Even though she reassured me she had some progress with an assignment, I had yet to see that progress.

Many managers won’t admit this fact, but I am ok with it. I consider myself a positive micromanager. Positive micromanagement, for lack of a better term, focuses on what people want and need from managers rather than what managers must do to feel in charge. Avoiding micromanagement by drawing back and adopting a laissez faire approach is the wrong response. The right response is to remain supportive and available but away from center stage, or in some cases, not hovering over an employee’s shoulders as they try to get things done (yes, I have done this. I am not proud).

Employees are the main actors in the workplace drama; managers should remain in the wings, offering advice and direction when employees say they need it. Under this redefined form of micromanagement, an able manager attends to the right small things so that self-directed employees can take charge of the big ones.