Dear Cheryl: A Micromanager asks...

Dear Cheryl, I am a Micromanager. It’s hard to even write those words. My team hates it, and I can tell. Every instruction I give I feel like I’m offending someone. Sometimes I feel like saying: look, it’s true, I DON’T trust you! But that would be terrible. I might be unfair not to trust them, I don’t know. I have high expectations of myself and them and I think it’s best to be clear on how I want things done. My coach told me to focus on the outcomes and let them get to the outcomes their own way, but their ways take too long and it DOES matter how it’s done! I don’t like the tension on my team, but I want things done right. Can you help? Micromanager Boss From Hell

Dear MBFH,

Naming a problem begins its solution. Your discomfort means you are not oblivious. You are already thinking about the instructions and feedback you give, how it is received, and how deep you need to go versus how autonomous your team members feel. This is the path to stay on.

One problem you face is this: at their fundamental core, humans long to be creative.

You want it done your way. They want to find their own way. If the outcome is the same, it doesn’t matter which way it’s done. I hear you saying, “yes it does!” so I ask, “why?” The answers to that question identify the aspects of the task that you haven’t helped your team members to understand as part of the goal.

First, give yourself some slack around trust. It’s not up to you to trust someone who doesn’t earn your trust, and it’s not up to them to earn your trust through anything but showing you who they are and what they can do, then learning from what you teach. Trust is something you build together, over time. Trust doesn’t mean that you know a person will do it your way, but that you know that person well enough to predict that the way they choose will be within your parameters of success.

Trust is a buffer for you. It lets you push levels of daily detail away from yourself so that you can be a strategically-focused manager rather than an overseer of tasks. I see it as a field of energy that we need to actively feed and strengthen, so that we can do our job and other people can do theirs.

We build the Trust Field individually with each person, and with the team as a whole. Individual trust relationships remove emotion-based barriers to communication. It’s like a safe-space that surrounds you all, and can expand out into the organization to grease the wheels and make every task more enjoyable.

But what does “trust” mean to you? To your team? Does it mean you just throw them tasks and “trust” they will be done? I wouldn’t.

A first step is examining what trust means to you in relation to your team. Does it mean you trust them to do exactly what you would do, or that you trust that whatever they do, you will be able to back them up with integrity? Does it mean you trust that their output will be as good and fast as yours would be, or that you trust that the output will meet the goals of the organization?

We can ask ourselves: what do I expect from people now, in relation to how the job would be done if I were doing it myself? Do I expect less, because they are junior, or the same, because they are capable, or more, because they are more capable than me at their job? When I hand over a task or responsibility, what am I trusting them to do? Then, we can evaluate whether we can trust them to do that.

The more we micro-manage, the less trust we have in the person’s capabilities. And ironically, the less trust we have, the less supported people feel, and the less trustworthy they become. They become dependent on the leader to do half their thinking, and then they stop thinking, maybe even get upset when it’s expected. That’s a natural human response to power and control.

Trust takes years to build. In the meantime, what’s a Micromanager to do?

To identify your “trust zone” may I suggest one of the following thought-play?

THOUGHT PLAY EXERCISE IN TRUST: 

What Could Go Wrong?

For each of your team members (or a selection of one or more) choose a specific project or outcome, past or present, that you would normally hand off to that person with lots of very specific direction and instructions.

Write down a quick list of all the things that could go wrong if you just told your team member to achieve the outcome, and gave no other instruction. Name every little thing you can think of. For example, they might not order a part on time, might forget to inform someone of a decision, might fail to get an approval, might upset a leader with a question or comment, etc. Make a list for each specific team member, not just the whole team in general. Personality, maturity and strengths-types make a big difference to how much you can trust a person. Soon you will see where people fall on your “continuum of trust.”

“Affinitize” or group the lists into common subject areas. For example, Causes Delay, Upsets Someone, Breaches Process, Shuts Down Plant, Causes Mass Disruption, etc. See if there are common themes among all the team members, or if you see patterns that can be addressed.

The common subject areas give you names for your “Orbiting Goals” – goals that silently orbit around your Outcome like moons around a planet. Your trust zone buffer will only include people who understand how these surrounding goals matter. There’s only one way to improve your team’s understanding, and that’s to communicate what those surrounding goals are. Sometimes that’s easy, and other times, it’s easier said than done.

For example, if internal politics are a factor, you’ll want to help your team understand that, but not judge it. It’s a tightrope. An organization is a system of information and activity flow, with particular log-jams and boulders to avoid. They need to know what they are, but they don’t need to hold any resentment or derision about the fact that they exist. They don’t need to blame. That’s a tone you can set by talking about the challenges without any personalization or attribution of intent.

Another example might be that a leader your team interacts with has particular bugaboos, agendas, weak spots, blind spots or other tendencies that you aren’t comfortable discussing with your team. These personal factors of the leader absolutely gets in the way of your ability to trust your team to navigate the organization on your behalf. Maybe you’ve avoided letting your team take on interactions or deliver to these leaders, rather than point out what must not be spoken. Maybe you’ve even been a shield for your team. It’s hard to trust someone you are shielding.

You can alert your team to dangers with fact-based lines like, “She/He expects it to be this way,” and “She/He tends towards this priority over that.” Why’s are irrelevant, beyond our control. You don’t have to apologize or condemn, just point out your observations about what the other leader expects. This knowledge is invaluable to your team’s ability to operate on your behalf.

Your orbiting goals represent your hopes to influence decisions within the organization, your desire to maintain particular relationships, your preference for particular forms of order or input/output of work, etc. They are the kinds of goals that rarely get qualified through expressive language, or acknowledged and explained to teams. They are the opportunity for strengthening and expanding your trust zone. If you can help your team members understand and support the orbiting goals, to apply their perspective to whatever outcome they are working on, your team will be well-equipped to begin operating in a way you can learn to trust.

Letting go of micro-management is a little like putting down a potential explosive – you don’t just let go and let it fall. It takes time, careful attention to movement, and a solid foundation on which to carefully place your trust. Just asking the question places you solidly on the path. Stay with it!

Warm Regards,

Cheryl