The 1 Task You Don't Want to Take Away From Your Staff if You Want to Avoid de facto Micromanagement

Saying "yes" when you have more authority but less of a clue about what is going on is de facto micromanagement.

This is a reminder to myself. A mea culpa of sorts. An invitation for accountability. A confession of one of the insidious ways I found myself unintentionally micromanaging my team over the last few months. Once I spotted the pitfall in myself, I found a behavior that was incredibly common, even among well regarded and well intentioned leaders.

That behavior: taking over the gatekeeper role.

Leadership Styles

There are many different leadership styles, but the fight between the caustic micromanager and the effective macromanager is the fight between our inner democratic leader and our inner autocratic leader. The last year of the pandemic tested the mettle of the staunchest democratic leaders, requiring many of us who prefer to use this mode style to use it a little less, and to use an autocratic approach a little more. Each style has its benefits and purposes and nearly every effective leader flexes their leadership style to meet the needs of the moment.

Need buy in for an inconvenient space renovation or hoping to get your team dreaming of the same future during strategic planning? You better start by talking to all those with a vested interest in the outcome of the project so you can work towards some sort of consensus. That's democratic leadership, a style and methodology that depends on hearing many voices and using that chorus to build better solutions. It's not about what idea gets the most votes. It is about discourse, transparency, inclusion, and refinement by committee.

Already know exactly what you need in your next hire, exactly how a new business process must go, or exactly what the next big product your team is going to make is? Then it's time to own that decision from start to finish, to reallocate resources without much consultation, and to take charge of clearing hurdles. That's autocratic leadership, an approach marked by a leader's singular decisiveness and conviction and the expectation that everyone else will fall into line to advance that objective. It is the quintessential top down management mentality.

For all the shortcomings of autocratic leadership--one of those shortcomings being that leaders who default to an autocratic style need to be right 100% of the time lest they start to lose credibility among their teams--it is often useful in a crisis. Let's imagine, hypothetically, that a global pandemic forces your botanic garden to quickly learn to navigate a new suite of federal, state, local, and institutional guidelines for building occupancy, social distancing, and remote work. It is essential that these guidelines are adhered to strictly and implemented quickly. In that case, what needs to happen is that those at the top need to take the reigns and say exactly what needs to happen and how it is going to happen. There may still be room for input and there should certainly be time for questions, but any input needs to fit into a clear chain of command and staff will likely have fewer options than usual when it comes to enacting the new directives.

The Gatekeeper Role

Over the last few months, I've intentionally exercised my autocratic leadership muscle for lots of good reasons and far more than I ever hope to again. Implementing new Covid-19 control measures. Reallocating job responsibilities to address a bigger emphasis on virtual engagements and social media outputs. Unilaterally shelving some strategic projects like that long planned demographic survey of visitors. Each of these decisions meant my staff were taking on new responsibilities, learning new skills, and reprioritizing their work while navigating their own uncertainty and that of their direct reports.

Understandably, they began asking for help in relieving some of the pressure. There were too many new requests--to help others, to do new things on top of the old things, to follow new protocols (each a new demand on time), to communicate a new batch of updates with their teams and with the public. In response I pitched that I would help to protect their time a bit more by triaging more requests myself. I decided (autocratically) to take on the gatekeeper role for more of my team's work.

The Gatekeeper

What is the gatekeeper role, you ask? In simple terms, gatekeeping is the act of saying "yes" or "no" to something: a new program, a committee assignment, a special event, or really any commitment or allocation of resources. The gatekeeper role is so critical to team work that we can easily stop seeing it as a discrete responsibility at all. It takes many forms and permutations and every member of your team plays gatekeeper to something. It can be as simple as gatekeeping one's own schedule or as complex as committing a million dollars worth of capital and staff time to a new initiative.

De facto Micromanagement

In hindsight, taking the gatekeeper role away from my staff was the wrong move. I wasn't saving them any time because I still needed to consult them on most of my decisions given that they were in the best position to know what they could and could not handle. What was and was not a priority for their programs. I could tell my team that "All requests to use our classrooms now go to me," but I still needed to consult my building manager to see if the room was already booked, if the group was too big for our occupancy limits, or if we had conflicting building maintenance scheduled for the same time.

In one instance, a great opportunity to host an exciting interdisciplinary, multi-site, multimedia exhibit about place and identity came to me from a faculty member. Would the Botanic Garden be interested in hosting part of the installation? It was an exhibit that I thought was on mission and that satiated a long standing craving to collaborate with our close partners in our college's art museum. I said "yes" and "keep us posted about how we can help," when what I should have said was, "it sounds great, but I need to pass it off to my Manager of Education who can really tell you if we have capacity to partner and if the project is on mission." When the faculty member got back to me weeks after I initially signaled interest, they came with a full blown grant proposal. A quick consultation with my Manager of Education revealed the project would not work for us because our gallery was already booked and the project seemed interesting, but mission-adjacent. I had to sheepishly back out of the partnership.

Even though my hope was to make things easier for my team, taking the gatekeeper role was the wrong task to take away from my team members. Instead of protecting my team I was making them work harder, introducing even more uncertainty, and stressing them out. I was de facto micromanaging by overcommitting them when I said "yes". I came to realize I was also undercutting their authority and expertise when I stepped in to say "no" given so many conversations that so many of these inquiries often signal the start of a longer term relationship. By stepping in as the gatekeeper I turned these inquiries into transactions. I was creating an even bigger future problem for all of us.

It took a while, but eventually it dawned on me that I had misdiagnosed the problem. The problem wasn't that my team was overwhelmed (though they were rightfully overwhelmed), the problem was that they didn't feel like they could say "no." They didn't trust me to back them up if they said "no." They didn't trust that I would agree with their decision, they feared I would overrule their choice. In the instance of the multimedia exhibit I validated my Manager of Education's concern. I realized that there are many ways I can help my team, but I cannot gatekeep their commitments autocratically.

The Fix

With this new perspective I've made five big changes to overcome my de facto micromanagement, changes that will work for any leader facing the same challenge.

First, I doubled down on my commitment to empowering and re-enforcing staff as the experts they are by making sure that I delegate gatekeeping to the right person on my team before there is any commitment to the project, even when those requests land on my desk. And even when I know my teams are struggling with the amount of email in their inboxes and demands on their time. I see now that taking away the gatekeeper role is the wrong task for me to take off their plates.

Second, I made a concerted effort to make sure staff really did feel empowered to say "no" to requests. I might ask, "how does that fit around your other priorities?" or "do you need to give something else important up to make this work right now?" The goal being to help us both remember all that we have already committed to and to be more deliberate about investing our time in the most impactful ways possible.

Third, to make saying "no" palatable I began working with my staff to articulate to partners what they would need in the future for a "no" to become a "yes." This might be longer lead times, filling a staff vacancy to free up some time, receiving a written proposal with clear responsibilities and outcomes, or redesigning a project to better align with our mission. As I mentioned, some already saw inquiries as the start of a long term professional relationship rather than a one-off request for resources. It tried to adopt the same outlook.

Fourth, I re-oriented my conversations with staff away from day-to-day operations and back towards mission, vision, strategic priorities, and collaboration. The stuff that makes gatekeeping easier for them.

Fifth, I put my inner autocratic on notice: You have served me well over the last year, Benevolent Overload. But I need you to take a back seat again so my team and I can get back to the work we really want to do and the way we want to do that work: democratically.