Why Micromanage
To micromanage is a syndrome that is becoming more and more prevalent in the corporate world. Well it is established and widely acknowledged that micro – managing has its perils and limitations. I wonder why bosses tend to micro manage.
It is important and prudent to delegate. Just that you have to diligently choose the right person for the right job, which could be onerous at times and of course very critical. Having done that, it is important to delegate, trust the judgment of the operational manager and give them space to exercise discretion and operate.
Today, because of the various conveniently available tools of communication, un-imaginative mangers are encouraged to relinquish their own briefs and minutely chase the progress of their direct reports or those even a step lower. They are completely deprived of new ideas and thus find chasing their manger a task more simply accomplished than creating value at a higher plane or making an action plan for a change of orbit.
I think, one of the most successful empires of the world was the Roman Empire. It was clearly upon the King to look for talent who could govern in his name, following the basic tenets or principles set by the King himself, but nothing beyond. How that value system that the King espoused was to be translated into governance was left to the good judgment of the Governor.
Having chosen the right, dependable and loyal candidate, all that the King would do is to watch his caravan disappear into the dust kicked up by the horse chariots round the corner of the hill.
Selukas Nikator was left behind by the Greek general Alakshendra or Alexander.
Ayodhya was left to Bharat, who governed in the name of Ram ensuring that the values that his elder brother stood for were upheld and the people were safe and happy. Chandragupta ruled upto Taskent of course not by micro-managing.
But e mails, faxes, telephones and above all, video conferences, have your bosses continuously breathing down your necks and always making suggestions which are more like directions.
No micromanagement is also one of the reasons, why companies hived off the parent invariably do better than they were doing as a part of the group, because they become owners of their own destiny. Lucent technologies being hived off from AT&T is a stellar example.
To micromanage is a syndrome that is becoming more and more prevalent in the corporate world. Well it is established and widely acknowledged that micro – managing has its perils and limitations. I wonder why bosses tend to micro manage.
It is important and prudent to delegate. Just that you have to diligently choose the right person for the right job, which could be onerous at times and of course very critical. Having done that, it is important to delegate, trust the judgment of the operational manager and give them space to exercise discretion and operate.
Today, because of the various conveniently available tools of communication, un-imaginative mangers are encouraged to relinquish their own briefs and minutely chase the progress of their direct reports or those even a step lower. They are completely deprived of new ideas and thus find chasing their manger a task more simply accomplished than creating value at a higher plane or making an action plan for a change of orbit.
I think, one of the most successful empires of the world was the Roman Empire. It was clearly upon the King to look for talent who could govern in his name, following the basic tenets or principles set by the King himself, but nothing beyond. How that value system that the King espoused was to be translated into governance was left to the good judgment of the Governor.
Having chosen the right, dependable and loyal candidate, all that the King would do is to watch his caravan disappear into the dust kicked up by the horse chariots round the corner of the hill.
Selukas Nikator was left behind by the Greek general Alakshendra or Alexander.
Ayodhya was left to Bharat, who governed in the name of Ram ensuring that the values that his elder brother stood for were upheld and the people were safe and happy. Chandragupta ruled upto Taskent of course not by micro-managing.
But e mails, faxes, telephones and above all, video conferences, have your bosses continuously breathing down your necks and always making suggestions which are more like directions.
No micromanagement is also one of the reasons, why companies hived off the parent invariably do better than they were doing as a part of the group, because they become owners of their own destiny. Lucent technologies being hived off from AT&T is a stellar example.
No comments:
Post a Comment