Micromanagement and poor self-control

Forty years on, Ridley Scott ’s Superbowl advertisement for the Apple Macintosh 128K computer is remarkable. Evoking George Orwell ’s 1984, it creates a gray, Sovietesque world where Big Brother —an oblique reference to IBM, the giant corporation Apple was taking on—addresses a docile workforce assembled in a vast auditorium via a giant screen: “Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death, and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!".

Suddenly, in color, an attractive, young female athlete dressed in white and carrying a sledge hammer, runs into the auditorium, pursued by the police. She stops, and then hurls the hammer at the screen, which explodes, and in full color, we see the new ?Macintosh model, while a friendly American voice tells us: “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like “1984”.

Little wonder the spot is still discussed on business school marketing courses. Orwell's novel described a dystopia where not only behavior was controlled, but also “thoughtcrime ”. Big Brother official O'Brien explains that thoughtcrimes can be hidden for some time, but are eventually identified. It is a system ripe for false allegations, torture and arbitrary arrests, resulting in coerced confessions. O'Brien adds that it is not enough to have the population’s obedience, they must be kept in a state of perpetual travail, which is the only way to make sure they never pursue their own interests. This is a system run by control freaks who remain in power only by permeating every aspect of society and the individual.

Steve Jobs , then CEO of Apple, possibly had a hand in the ad's narrative, and certainly considered it a milestone. Regardless of its hyperbolic style, the ad's message identified the dangers of what has become known as Big Tech. How ironic that Apple now finds itself accused of similar monopolistic, anti-competitive practices.

Jobs has often been described as a control freak, managing every detail of a product, sending it back to the design or production department if it did not meet his expectations. His authorized biographer, Walter Isaacson, noted: “(he) was famously impatient, petulant, and tough with the people around him. But his treatment of people, though not laudable, emanated from his passion for perfection and his desire to work with only the best.” Steve Wozniak , Apple co-founder and former friend of Jobs, added that “Steve's contributions could have been made without so many stories about him terrorizing folks. I like being more patient and not having so many conflicts. I think a company can be a good family.”

In my Competitive Strategy course, we discuss the leadership styles of different CEOs, and in the case of Apple, comparing Jobs with Tim Cook , his successor, who according to various analyses takes a very different approach. I like to ask my students who they would prefer to work with: a demanding boss, critical, direct to the point of rudeness, or with a diplomatic leader, who took a more measured approach. The answers vary, although most recognize that, sometimes, working with geniuses pays off even if it may hurt one’s sensibilities. Then I explain that, in my experience, we learn more from a stinging, but truthful comment than from praise or flattery.

You may have worked with a control freak , or even consider yourself one. Another term is Micromanagement , manifested as an obsession with detail, excessive supervision of subordinates, and generally by people with little managerial experience, typically due to a lack of self-confidence. Micromanagement is also an expression of greed for power, a behavior opposed to the generosity that should be practiced in management positions.

Dr. Julia DiGangi, an expert in PTSD , and founder of NeuroHealth Partners , proposes a triple test to self-diagnose one’s own tendency to micromanagement. Do you ask many questions to those who report to you? Do you check things too often? Do you give too much advice to your subordinates? And if you are in doubt, perhaps you’ve?already engaged in some form of micromanagement.

Research shows, and intuition confirms, that micromanagement restricts initiative and stifles innovation, while genuine empowerment and critical thinking generate creativity and promotes improvement and transformation. However, we often see situations in which leaders proclaim the delegation inherent in the culture of their companies and, contradictorily, establish strict and abundant checks and balances. DiGangi adds that micromanagement generates anxiety in subordinates, and is perceived as a lack of trust that spreads to the department or even the entire organisation. “The human brain is wired for independence”, not only in the professional environment, but also in personal relationships and in the family environment. That is why, she explains, control freaks often behave similarly at work and at home.

The roots of micromanagement are mainly perfectionism and lack of self-confidence. It is often explained that, as you move up in a company, you become increasingly unaware of the activity of the departments reporting down the line. This is the phenomenon known as managing black boxes, the challenge of knowing what is going on down the line in large or diversified organizations. Black boxes are the tick boxes on a company’s organigram. Although they appear white on the screen, our relative ignorance of what goes on in the system makes them grayish. Scorecard management and a good big data management system provide transparency in real time, and can help us to whiten those boxes. In any case, the modeling of information systems and the feeding of data also depend on subordinates, and their technical configuration is not always understood. Moreover, it would be illusory to think that these systems will provide us with complete and reliable information on all the available knowledge of a company. Think of the infinite number of nuances that occur in the interrelationship with all the stakeholders of your organization, which is impossible to encapsulate in data.

One way to avoid micromanagement is to learn to live with the reality of gray and sometimes black boxes, to be comfortable with uncertainty and partial knowledge of the issues. It is much more efficient to cultivate trust with the people who manage the departments that depend on you than to try to control all the information and details. The commitment to empowerment is compatible with periodically knowing the evolution of the activity, but it is preferable to agree on general objectives and let the managers identify how to achieve them, rather than rigidly indicating how to proceed.

As Julia Milner, an expert in leadership, explains, in a company with a culture of empowerment, there is usually no prior control over the making of many decisions, excluding those that are strictly strategic. Therefore, in these contexts, agile decision-making is the best approach, avoiding the need to wait for committees or permissions, and if a subordinate makes a decision that should have been collegial, rather than censure, it is preferable to say: “well done for the speed, but consult me next time”.

Needless to say, it’s good practice to be aware of signs of micromanagement in one's own behavior as well as in of other colleagues. One of the most frequent reasons for enrolling CEOs in a coaching program is precisely so that they learn to delegate, focus more on corporate strategy and avoid being a control freak. The second most frequent reason is to learn how to relate to the Chair and the members of the Board of the Company.

An additional tip provided by Julia Milner is to encourage feedback in both directions, which is rare, especially when there is a lack of trust. If practiced, the crucial thing is to value that feedback and, of course, not to overreact negatively, which is common when we hear comments we don't like. Greed for power often manifests itself through micromanagement, which is why the best reason to avoid it is to understand that if you are determined to do your subordinates’ work for them, perhaps you should not be leading them in the first place.

Photo above: https://www.aconsciousrethink.com/5942/types-controlling-people/

--------------------

You may visit my INSTAGRAM account here