Micromanaging or meddling?

by. Dan Berger

We’ve all heard it from our employees: No one likes a micromanaging boss. While I’ll admit that micromanaging can often have negative effects on morale, productivity and possibly even an organization’s bottom line, some circumstances warrant the practice.

Forbes gives some examples:

– An evolving or changing strategy. When a strategy or major operation undergoes change, leaders should provide direction and supervision.
– The enterprise is taking on a new endeavor. When introducing new products and services, closer supervision is often needed.
– An employee or leader fails to execute, or a project continues to linger. Remember, time is money, and a leader can’t wait too long for things to happen.
– A customer registers a serious complaint. A leader might need to look into the issue to prevent a recurrence.

We all know how easy it can be to get involved beyond these critical areas, so how do you find that balance between necessary micromanaging and meddling?

Entrepreneur lists some ways to hold employees accountable without micromanaging them:

– hire the right people;
– make people accountable to each other;
– clearly and frequently articulate expectations; and
– give employees decision-making power.