When monitoring becomes micromanaging

For many team leaders and managers of all levels, their worth is locked in the productivity of their team. And to some extent, they're right - their professional contributions can certainly be in part down to how well their teams perform, as well as their interaction with that team.

And many feel that being a hands-on team leader or boss is great... getting involved means not only monitoring progress, it also means being able to be a part of the effort that creates it.

But when does monitoring become micromanaging? How does checking on someone and wanting to hear more become poking holes in their confidence and the cause of their furtive looks over the shoulder in case the boogeyman (or woman) is in fact following them like a B-movie stalker?

The chief difference is in approach. And while approach has nuances, often culture based, one thing that cannot be shifted is the warmth of this approach, and the respect for the people involved.

There is nothing wrong with being a hands-on boss. I, for one, tend to be a hands-on everything; I mentor in a hands-on approach that bases on being friendly with the mentee, I consult in the same way, I am hands-on with our pets and I'm a hands-on aunt as far as checking on the kids goes. If I had children of my own, I would probably be a hands-on mom. Being hands-on positively means getting involved actively before you are called. In other words : it means that you call your team member that is working at home and ask them how they're doing and how work is going today rather than wait for them to contact you; you stroll down to the team working on a project and ask how things are going; you pop by your cat struggling to get onto the sofa (our cats are mostly old by now) and lend a hand, quite literally; you ask the children and other people in your life if they need help or inquire what or how they are doing without needing to be prompted.

The problem with hands-on approach is that you can do this as a friend, or as a busybody. The difference is in being able to take rejection : when your employee asks if you could call later because there is an important thing they are just doing and they don't want to break concentration; when the team is in the midst of planning and can't include you; when your cat gives you a weird look and saunters off; when kids or other people in your life just want to do something on their own. This rejection shouldn't smart, and it shouldn't feel like your whole life and identity depends on it. (Tip : never create your self solely around something like work. You are more than that.) Being able to say, hey, I'm very happy to have your attention but not right now can feel like you have been side-lined, but in reality, it is just part of everyday life. We all sometimes say, even to our best of friends, I can't go out today, I feel beat... Let's reschedule.

This is where approach becomes key, one that is broken by hierarchies. It is always easy to tell who has a genuine connection with people and who does not, simply by observing whether people feel comfortable saying no to them.

Picture this : you are observing a senior manager walking in on a team meeting discussing a new project. The team pauses and goes quiet. The manager demands, in very friendly terms, to be let in on the brainstorming. The team makes an obvious effort to do so, but the conversation doesn't flow, and the assertions of facts are half-hearted. The manager listens and interrupts frequently; he/she becomes more and more cold, more and more demanding, until he/she is telling people exactly what to do and rejecting all other ideas as poorly developed.

Alternatively, a manager walks in on the meeting and demands, in very friendly terms, to be let in on the brainstorming. The team welcomes them enthusiastically, but explains that they're in the middle of things. They would feel better if they could figure things out themselves first, and then they'll call the manager over to hash it out with them. The manager agrees and says they're looking forward to seeing the end result.

In both cases, the manager seems friendly. But the overall hushed response of the team and the way they quietly melt away in the presence of their manager suggests that they have been instructed in no uncertain terms that there is a huge hierarchical gap between them. The second manager genuinely has an interest in the project, and may have useful thoughts about it when the time comes to interact. He/she is happy to let the team tinker until then, trusting that they will do a good job and ask for help and insight if they need it. This manager is secure as a person, and as a part of the workplace.

The first manager, however, is a micromanager. Even when the team should be fine working on their own, because they are all capable, experienced adults, he/she treats them as if they weren't, and as if they are in fact massively inferior to him/her. He/she is not interested in their results, but in introduction of their will into the project that presumably did not need anything but their end input. In this situation, trust does not exist, nor can it be fostered.

We often mistake monitoring with the need for control. Many managers and team leaders behave, without good cause, as if their underlings (and even same-level colleagues) were in fact unreliable children that need to be constantly prodded and pushed for any result, let alone a good one, to be achieved; in fact, many feel more comfortable forcing everyone to scrap their work and dutifully do whatever the boss demanded, even if it is in fact inferior to what the team had put together initially.

The truth is that vast majority of people do not need constant watching. There is, of course, a layer of friendly interest that can be very useful... it's nice, after all, if someone comes and genuinely takes an interest in how things are going, rather than looks like a bad teacher trying to catch someone out for not studying enough. But it's also important to read the room (including a virtual one). An anxious, introverted team member will not welcome interest the same way as an extrovert will. That doesn't mean that they dislike you, or that they are no good at what they do, but simply that their interactions are at odds with yours. If you are an extrovert, or simply more extroverted, chances are it is easier for you to adapt, not for them, and adapting is worth it, as it helps foster a meaningful relationship between all parties. If monitoring is part of genuine asking for the range of things from how the person is doing and how the work is going, it should be possible to do so while not stressing anyone out. Monitoring is about forging and keeping a connection. Micromanaging is talking down to all while enforcing one's own ideas as the sole truth there is.