Micromanagement Leadership Style - Essay Example

? Leadership Case: Micromanagement inserts his/her s Introduction The case revolves around the problematic relationship between George Latour who is the CEO of a successful software engineering firm called Retornics and Shelly Stern (Fryer, 2004). This is because of George’s tight supervision on Shelly due to disproportionate use of micromanagement. Such a leadership style is not apt for someone holding an experienced position of Marketing Director. In fact, such a management style is often used on the factory floor or at lower levels of organizational hierarchy (Davenport, 2010). The following entails a discussion of the problem along with suggestions for dealing with micromanagement leadership style. Discussion Stern demonstrated strong creativity skills in her job pertaining to marketing of products. At the same time, she lacked the skills required for management of production and formulation and negotiation of strategies. To this end it is important to note that the creativity in marketing (including public relations and design) that she possesses were difficult to harness and manage from a leader’s point of view. The nature of the job makes it hard to structure the work as various ideas can arise spontaneously which are beyond the supervisor’s control; in other words, micromanagement stifles creativity (Lavinsky, 2012). George could certainly not ask Stern to generate ideas as and when required simply because these ideas would flow in irrespective of time and need. Hence, this job required a greater level of diplomacy on George’s part to supervise Stern. It was crucial to give Stern the authority and autonomy with which she could feel a sense of belonging with the company and have the chance of contributing to the same through her creative ideas. However, George was doing much the opposite. Rather than empowering Stern, he was constraining her which was not conducive to her creativity. In situations where such difficult situations arise, it is the management’s job not to throttle creativity by destructive criticism but by reiterating and reinforcing the vision which provides a direction to work. It is then the task of the creative staff to come up with novel ways of and fulfilling that vision. The case depicts instances where George did not trust Shelly’s decisions and tried to influence them by bringing in ‘his’ version of things (Fryer, 2004). It seems that George wasn’t willing to let go of things; in other words, he was not delegating at all which was hindering Stern’s creative abilities. Instances where George would abuse press releases or alleging Stern to make sales calls despite her position as the Marketing “Director” all point to George’s inefficiency as CEO (Fryer, 2004). It is surprising how (with such a mindset) was George able to rise up to this level in the organizational hierarchy. Perhaps, it was his technical skills or software skills that led him to this level. He was certainly not capable of managing the creative side of software project management. Another major issue with George is his preoccupation with and interference in employees’ activities that are insignificant. There are various examples of such trivial issues. Firstly, he was adamant at having managers incorporate his idea during the allocation of advertisements to the company’s products (Fryer, 2004). Secondly, he went as far as suggesting his subordinates to correct their sentences (Fryer, 2004). This is certainly not expected from someone at the CEO level. George’s focus it seems was not on strategic issues but on operational and tactical issues which kept his mind preoccupied and prevented him from focusing on the bigger picture. This is one of the biggest issues of micromanagement- it does not allow managers time to focus on critical issues that desire the supervisor’s attention (Nadine Mockler, 2002). Recommendations Although Stern is easily offended by criticism, George ought to find a solution in order to control the funds that the company has allocated to Stern’s creative abilities and adjust his management style along those lines. In light of the analysis, it is recommended that George should have adopted a situational leadership style. In this regard, the CEO must have the ability to exercise cross-functional management skills (regardless of his area of expertise) so that diverse management styles are applied depending on the situation in hand (Northouse, 2010). The micromanagement style used by George would seem appropriate for other technical areas in the software development firm. This style, however, needs to be softened for managing creative departments such as that of Stern. In other words, the management style to be adopted must be very flexible and situation based as opposed to being structured and rigid. Furthermore, it is suggested that George engage in the ‘norming’ stage of group development as far as managing Stern is concerned. He ought to get rid of his habit of going into precision and details too early. Rather, a slow and steady approach to managing Stern ought to be adopted. George lacks relationship building skills. In other words, he must first take out time to get to know Stern and adopt a management style accordingly rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. Every individual is different, and therefore, must be handled differently (Plessis, 2012). Although it is difficult to achieve synchrony and progressiveness in creative work, George could achieve this if he flexed his management style and allowed Stern time to adjust. On the other hand, knowing George’s nature of closely supervising everything, Stern must ensure that she informs George about her progress ahead of time as much as possible. She must not wait for George to ask her about the information. Not only will this assure George that Stern is on the right track but also help harness the trust that is lacking at present. Such communication is necessary because it eliminates confusion and misunderstandings. The subordinate must communicate the project’s timelines, show awareness to and reassure the micromanager regarding the project’s priorities (Chambers, 2005). This helps reduce the feelings of inertia that most commonly surround the micromanager (Chambers, 2005). Furthermore, it is highly likely that there may be more than one priority at a given time and in that case it would be necessary for subordinates like Stern to renegotiate on the priorities by clearly identifying them, thus reducing ambiguity. Micromanagers such as George hate procrastination; hence, subordinates such as Stern must come up with straightforward ways to resolve issues as soon as possible. Related to this is the issue of negotiating deadlines. George seems to be one such micromanager who is very particular about setting and adhering to deadlines. He might not understand that the creative nature of Stern’s work makes it impossible to set strict deadlines; however, Stern is aware of this fact and so she must communicate with George as to when she can complete a given task. It is highly recommended that subordinates do not fight back against the supervisor’s micromanagement style as this will only reiterate the existing lack of trust on the supervisor’s part (Gallo, 2011). Rather than attempting to change the micromanager’s attitude and mindset, the subordinate must positively influence his/her behavior (Chambers, 2005). In other words, subordinates must attempt to diffuse the disruptive behaviors of their micromanagers (Chambers, 2005). It is important for Stern to understand the reasons why George is behaving the way he is. It could be that George is under a lot of pressure (and rightly so as he is the CEO) or that the company culture promotes such tight control of employees. In either case, knowing the reason will enable Stern to figure out strategies to appropriately respond to the situation at hand. Considering that George lacks trust in Stern, she must find out ways to foster trust by doing things that George is particular about. Running away from the things that George asks for (for instance, the right font size etc.) will do no good. Taking personal responsibility and initiative is the key to success when working with a micromanager (Yarberry, 2007). Hence, Stern must earn his trust by asking George how she could play her role in relieving his stress. At the end of the day, however, Stern must realize that it is not possible to control or change everything. In other words, employees must learn to let go of things that do not matter and focus their energy on things that will pay them off. Prioritization is another key ingredient to success in this case. It is even more important for the supervisor to prioritize his agenda so that micromanagement does not lead him into becoming stressed out (Korponai, 2009). Also, Stern must learn from those employees who are able to create a good impression of George and try to incorporate their secrets of success in order to go along with him. Conclusion To conclude, the case has clearly demonstrated how micromanagement may not be the best management style available especially for work environments that demand creativity and autonomy. At the same time, however, it may not always be possible to change the manager’s leadership style which is why the responsibility of the subordinate increases in adopting appropriate strategies to cope with such a manager. It may not always be a win-win situation; however, the chances of the project’s failure and the subordinate getting kicked out are substantially reduced. This does not, however, relieve the micromanager from his/her duties to change the management style depending on the situation at hand. As suggested, both the manager and subordinate require allocating substantial time and dedication before fruitful results of the recommended strategies can be seen. References Chambers, H. E. (2005). Surviving the Micromanager. How to succeed with a my way boss. Canadian Manager, 24-25. Davenport, T. O. (2010, July 06). Who Says Micromanagement Is Bad? Retrieved from Bloomberg Businessweek: Companies and Industries: http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/jul2010/ca2010072_957042.htm Fryer, B. (2004). The Micromanager. Harvard Business Review, 31-39. Gallo, A. (2011, October 25). This is How to Deal With a Micromanaging Boss. Retrieved from Business Insider: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-25/strategy/30319203_1_micromanagers-boss-behavior Korponai, D. (2009). Solving Management's Puzzle: The Art of Managing People. Tennessee: Trafford International. Lavinsky, D. (2012). Start at the End: How Companies Can Grow Bigger and Faster by Reversing their Business Plan. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Nadine Mockler, A. M. (2002). The End of Work: As We Know It. Nebraska: iUniverse, Inc. Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership: theory and practice. California: Sage Publications. Plessis, S. D. (2012). Marketing Moves and Management Madness. Singapore: Trafford Publishing. Yarberry, G. D. (2007). Managing In The Real World: You Must Be Fundamentally Sound. Bloomington: Author House. Read More