The battle between MICROMANAGING vs BEING IN THE DETAILS.
I've often heard executives say, "my job is strategy, not being in the weeds." While it's great to avoid micromanagement, a leader who isn't familiar with the details offers limited value to their organization.
Is there a difference between "being in the details" and "micromanaging"? Absolutely.
🔍 BEING IN THE DETAILS
Motivation is rooted in high trust, strategic alignment, quality assessment, and coaching.
Behaviors include stepping in to help as needed, facilitating detailed problem-solving discussions, and frequently delegating tasks.
Examples:
* Asking thoughtful questions to ensure goals are aligned.
* Providing constructive feedback while giving autonomy in execution.
* Clarifying expectations and outcomes without dictating every step.
* Being available for support and coaching when needed.
⚠️ MICROMANAGING
Motivation often stems from a need for control or a lack of trust.
Behaviors include constantly checking on status, giving rigid instructions with little room for creativity, and hesitating to delegate.
Examples:
* Requiring frequent, unnecessary status reports.
* Reworking tasks already completed by team members.
* Providing step-by-step instructions for simple tasks.
* Requesting to be cc'd on every email and attending all meetings.
When a manager succumbs to micromanagement, it strips away the team's sense of ownership, saps their motivation, and fosters an unhealthy dependence on the manager for every decision. The manager might feel good that they're in control, but they sacrifice the total output and talent of the team.
A good manager needs to be "in the details" to course-correct early, offer coaching, assess work quality, and maintain alignment across teams. The team will feel both ownership and support from their manager.
So, ask yourself: Are you "in the details" enough, or are you micromanaging?
Tag your boss if they need to see this 😂
#Management #DetailsMatter #WorkCulture
Certified Customer Success Leader | Global Marketing | Strategic Management
2yExcellent visual representation as usual 'nuffsaid! Chris Hicken it would seem to me that Classic and Revenue CCOs are more common, because the criterias (need, appetite for change management, org. + product maturity, financial models) are determinant factors here. I advocate for CCO 2.0, (where one builds + evolves the CX team after a hub and spoke model, where it is at the heart of the business and influences brand equity, and long tail strategy) but find that while it is conceptually meaningful, it's not very appetizing for some given that it appears to be more of a 'general management' role and/or in parts replaces CSOs, CROs. Thoughts?