Bad Boss Behavior #1: Micromanaging Your Team
The moment you feel the need to tightly manage someone, you’ve made a hiring mistake. The best people don’t need to be managed. Guided, taught, led–yes. But not tightly managed. ~ Jim Collins
Micromanagement is a common problem in organizations across a wide variety of industries. Unfortunately, from our experience working with schools and districts around the country, it’s rampant in education. One primary reason that it’s so prevalent for educational leaders to be micromanagers is because we are altruistic by nature. We entered the field because we want to help others, and we often end up micromanaging for that same reason.
That doesn’t make it okay. If you’re managing people and projects that are below your scope of reporting or that simply belong at another level, you’re demonstrating bad boss behaviors. In fact, micromanagement, although a common problem, is the worst BBB that you can have. There are several clear signs that you’ve fallen into this trap:
- You’re doing work that others should be doing to serve the organization. You might even be at a meeting that someone else should have attended for you. Worse yet, you called a meeting with an outside group, and you didn’t invite the people who need to be at the table. Sign number one.
- You consistently feel the need to be in-the-know on everything, even minor details. You take control of the work even after it’s underway, change directions after decisions have been made, and insert yourself just enough that no one else can really take the lead. Sign number two.
- You reach past your direct reports and sometimes past their direct reports to get clarity on an issue or to manage something new. The best example of this that we’ve seen recently is a principal of a large high school who micromanaged something in the counseling department when an assistant principal had that as her scope of work. And she didn’t even know about the priority until a counselor told her about it. Sign number three.
Micromanagement stems from insecurity, a lack of trust, and insufficient communication regarding the vision. People who are insecure about the value that they add are more likely to jump around in the chain of command to try to be of value wherever they can instead of focusing on the value they should add in their role. Micromanagers lack trust that others will perform a task the way that they would do it. And, leaders with a crystal clear vision for how they want a project to turn out–those who know how to paint done as we’ve learned from Brene Brown–don’t micromanage at all.
The problem is that not only is it unproductive, it causes apathy, humiliation, and even embarrassment to your staff. When you micromanage people, they shut down completely, doing even less work than what you’re managing them to do. They become humiliated that you’re constantly doing their work or meeting with people that should be reporting to them. And, worse yet, you’re embarrassing them by communicating that you don’t think they’re capable of the work you’ve essentially stolen from them.
The Micromanagement Remedy
If you know you are a micromanager and you want to end this behavior, do the following:
Ask yourself, and ultimately answer, these three simple questions every time you need action on something, especially prior to a meeting you’re about to schedule:
- Whose role in the organization fits this work best?
- Who should I assign to this task?
- When should it be completed?
Empowering leaders assign work and then follow up. They’re very rarely around when the work is getting done. That’s not the role of a visionary.
Bad Boss Behavior #2: Withholding Information from Others
Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship. ~ Bruce Coville
Of course, the bad boss behavior we are discussing here is not withholding information on purpose. That would make them a horrible boss like the ones in the movie. It’s also worth noting that displaying one or two bad boss behaviors here-and-there doesn’t make someone a terrible boss to have. However, when leaders are not actively working on the remedies–whether they recognize themselves in the bad behaviors or not–they just might be a bad boss (if you’re reading this blog, it’s because you care about leading better and growing faster so that’s a good thing and a reminder to yourself that you want to be better in your role).
Back to the problem: bosses who withhold information. If you’re withholding information from your subordinates, and you’re not doing it on purpose, it’s likely that you have a systems problem. In other words, you’re going about your day, learning all kinds of new things about the organization’s moving parts, but you don’t have a forum to share what you’re learning with the people who are supposed to be managing those parts. We call this The Information Bottleneck Syndrome. It’s when information is being funneled to a source (usually a person) who doesn’t have the capacity to disseminate it.
The problem is that any bottleneck, especially in the case of information, slows the organization down, rendering it incapable of meeting its goals. In The Goal, Goldratt explains the Theory of Constraints. Organizations simply cannot move toward their goals until the natural and imposed constraints are removed. Worse yet, if you, as the leader, are the one introducing a constraint into the organization, you’re likely not going to remove it without help and no one else is likely going to say something to you (because you’re the boss and rarely does a subordinate point out our bad behavior to us). The good news is that there is help, and it comes in the form of a strategic remedy.
The Information Bottleneck Syndrome Remedy
To remedy the problem of the information bottleneck that results from leaders who consistently gain access to information but then don’t share it with the rest of the chain of command, we find the need for a new communication method or tool. And it really is a new communication method or tool, not a meeting or structure or document (or some other administrivia that we might think to introduce when information-sharing has become a problem). The simplest of tools is text or email; we like Voxer, Slack, and other more sophisticated technologies, but the key is the immediacy of the use. In other words, at the moment you learn of a new problem, process, procedure, or another piece of information, you communicate it right away.
It looks like this: you’re walking down the hall and someone from one of the departments in your organization says, “did you know that…” You find out that the science curriculum isn’t going to arrive on time or maybe you find out that a teacher won an award. Right at that moment, you have to assemble in your mind anyone else who might not have that information (maybe they do but assume they don’t) and would want to know it (and would want to know that you know it).
At that point in time, as the person who just told you moves down the hall, you send a Voxer–or another strategy using your new communication method–to all the people who should know: “Hey, just heard that the science curriculum is late. John told me as we were passing in the hall here in Stern School Elementary as I was doing my rounds. Thought you should know if you didn’t already. I’ll look to you for an update about that. Thanks.”
You want to be deliberate about your communication to include a four-part message: 1. what the information is, 2. how you found out about it, 3. why you know before the person who should know before you (the one receiving the message), and 4. that they’re back in charge of whatever it is. The last part is to get it back off of your plate and to empower the people under you. If you don’t do all four parts, especially part four, they’ll assume that you’re taking control of the problem and that it’s actually off of their plate now.
Bad Boss Behavior #3: Stealing Great Ideas
One can steal ideas, but no one can steal execution or passion. ~ Tim Ferriss
Here, again, we’re not accusing a leader of overtly being an idea thief. That’s not “bad,” it’s mean. But we’re all in meetings all day where ideas are being presented. We jump from one meeting to the next, and they often blend together in terms of who says what. They also tend to overlap in terms of the organization’s overall goals. This means that one idea in one meeting might be a good solution to a problem presented in a different meeting. Because leaders are the glue, appearing at the cross-section of every major issue and initiative, we hear all of the great ideas that can be shared across the organization.
The problem is that as ideas spread, their owner is often lost, which leaves the last person to share the idea as the assumed originator of that idea.
We call this The Idea Propagation Problem. As ideas spread, with the leader being a natural conduit of information, the owner of the idea loses credit. Not that people are actively looking for some sort of credit, but they are definitely not looking to be robbed of it. People genuinely want to contribute to the team, and when we steal their ideas–even when we’re just looking to solve a problem using something we heard in another meeting–it strips away trust and loyalty as well.
Over time, this diminishes our ability to solve organizational problems at all because people quit volunteering their best thoughts. Instead of advancing the organization through high quality brainstorming sessions, we end up with cooler talk that sounds like this: “I could have told her that this wouldn’t work but then that would have been her idea too.”
The Idea Propagation Problem Remedy
Look to give credit to what people say and think. Too often, credit is reserved for actions and outcomes. The remedy is to honor words and ideas. Eventually, what you want to build is a learning culture. Organizational learning is a concept that leaders don’t initiate often enough. In a learning culture, people are more apt to work together to solve problems because they like new problems better than persistent ones. For this to happen, leaders have to give credit to innovative thinking, out-of-the-box idea sharing, and risk-taking. Instead of focusing on achievement, we have to put our attention on the process.