Decent developer does not need a micromanaging boss any more than a decent plumber or dentist does. Tech managers should limit themselves to technical issues, and avoid creepy one-on-one sessions. Also anyone managing less than 20 people is an overhead.
Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
101–110 of 110 posts
Re: Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The truth is probably that I should have gotten into more serious talks with those employees instead. Did you take the micromanaging approach because you didn't open a channel for feedback between you and the team? Micromanagement is one thing: a lack of trust. You micromanage because you don't trust, or maybe they don't trust either. So, what do you do to build up trust? You talk. Note that this is different to ac…
Sometimes you end up with someone who can’t do the job that they were hired for, or won’t, without constant direction. Sometimes they come into the job this way, sometimes factors outside of your control put them here. Sometimes you can have a Frank discussion about it, or regular ‘adult’ type discussion, and there is something that can be done that fixes it, and it can be fixed. That is not always the case. Sometime…
Your last example sounds like a complete failure of leadership. And the accountability buck stops with them for enabling that situation.
Accountability isn't easier said than done; it exists everywhere, but you choose how to apply it and when and you use your bias to decide how hard to apply the discipline.
If you feel you need to micromanage someone, then you've lost your leadership too.
Re: Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes you end up with someone who can’t do the job that they were hired for, or won’t, without constant direction. Sometimes they come into the job this way, sometimes factors outside of your control put them here. Sometimes you can have a Frank discussion about it, or regular ‘adult’ type discussion, and there is something that can be done that fixes it, and it can be fixed. That is not always the case. Sometime…
Your last example sounds like a complete failure of leadership. And the accountability buck stops with them for enabling that situation. Accountability isn't easier said than done; it exists everywhere, but you choose how to apply it and when and you use your bias to decide how hard to apply the discipline. If you feel you need to micromanage someone, then you've lost your leadership too.
Easy to say, but pretty useless on the ground. Which leadership is failing? Who holds whom accountable?
If you, as a leader, will get fired for holding someone accountable to the job (and firing them) and stopping a toxic environment from happening on the team, what then? What if the reason for that is some meta PR corporate reason that makes sense for corporate maybe but not for you and your team?
What if your job includes not causing those larger corporate issues and following the rules of the larger org?
It’s a failure of a large organization, and part of that failure is often making sure there is no one to actually hold accountable in a real way. It sucks. It happens.
Re: Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you find you get a lot of negative feedback or churn during that period? Seems like it would be an awful first impression, but maybe not if you communicate things well.
You mean during the intro / "more hands on period"? I've not heard any negative feedback, but I think it requires a 'fine touch' - or you risk drowning people in information / tedium. If they get things the first time, I won't be prone to checking up on them as much.
Ya, that's what I meant. If I started at a company and my manager micromanaged me—especially with no clear reason why—I'd feel like this company isn't for me. No negative feedback isn't terribly surprising given that I don't know anyone besides myself inclined to actually say anything about an issue. Out of curiosity though, have you ever received negative feedback about anything, or given it yourself explicity before being more "hands-on"?
Re: Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
#105This article, written by a career engineer/non-manager it should be noted, attributes pretty incorrect intent to the micromanagers the author has apparently worked for. It’s pretty easy to solve this, and it can be summarized as “manage upwards.” Every micromanager does it out of a lack of trust. Not so much not trusting the specific employee, but more not trusting the specific process that generate the information a…
Good points and I agree that they can help in a lot of cases. However, I would argue that, if you're an engineer and the best use of your time is to report 2 times a day, for things to be "working", it might be that you're just empowering a flawed manager / process / organization that way.
Hm perhaps, but look at it this way assuming a job/team change isn’t possible.
If you can condense a winding conversation with your manager at whatever time they decide to intrude with this behavior into a timeline and format that you control, but also works for their needs, that IMO is a significantly better outcome.
The other side of this is this tends to sort of heal micromanagers as a pleasant side effect. Managing upwards usually really tunes down the behavior to ab entirely manageable level, in most situations except the “time to leave the job” types.
Re: Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
#106> The boss doesn't listen, even when the subordinate is an expert in the field in question, and the boss is not. I've seen way too many cases of the opposite. The subordinate thinks he's the expert, when his boss has 20 years of experience. Fire time.
A lot of bosses have 20 years of the same year of experience, or 20 years of being groomed for management
Re: Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
#107This article, written by a career engineer/non-manager it should be noted, attributes pretty incorrect intent to the micromanagers the author has apparently worked for. It’s pretty easy to solve this, and it can be summarized as “manage upwards.” Every micromanager does it out of a lack of trust. Not so much not trusting the specific employee, but more not trusting the specific process that generate the information a…
Great points. One of the major roles of effective managers is to provide context on what they need to do, such that you can identify what you need to help solve their problems. If they don't provide this context, "managing up" is effectively soliciting this context such that you can help them do their job. At the end of the day they just want their problems solved, and if you can do this for them - with or without th…
Yeah great point! I usually phrase “context” as “intent” but yeah that’s the idea.
Re: Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
#108One advice I've read back in the day for how to deal with a micromanaging boss was "Overwhelm them with updates" and it anecdotally always worked for me. Lucky for me there was only a couple occasions I had to deal with a boss like that.
Re: Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean during the intro / "more hands on period"? I've not heard any negative feedback, but I think it requires a 'fine touch' - or you risk drowning people in information / tedium. If they get things the first time, I won't be prone to checking up on them as much.
Ya, that's what I meant. If I started at a company and my manager micromanaged me—especially with no clear reason why—I'd feel like this company isn't for me. No negative feedback isn't terribly surprising given that I don't know anyone besides myself inclined to actually say anything about an issue. Out of curiosity though, have you ever received negative feedback about anything, or given it yourself explicity befor…
I totally get where you are coming from. I should clarify that historically, all of my new hires were pretty much fresh out of school, or transitioning to software dev from other roles.
If I hired a dev with significant experience, I don't think I would use the same process, aside from knowledge gaps.
I definitely have received negative feedback on processes that are in place, and I welcome that, because if something can be done better, or more efficiently - then we should change it. Flexibility is key.
Re: Way to Deal with a Micromanaging Boss
#110Ok, I am going to be brutally honest here. Some may not like it. Micromanaging is complicated. When I was in a leadership position I was the happiest boss when I could let people just do their thing and come back with great results and we'd be all happy. And that's how I loved working with my bosses before as well. But then again, I had some employees I had to micromanage. I really, really abhorred it. But there was…
I read a good book about management recently that pretty much defined the need for micromanagement as either lack of training, and/or lack of clear expectations and appropriate resolution when those expectations are broken. The sum of it is an employee that knows the right way, and is given the freedom to do that will make the correct choices, if they fail occasionally that's ok. If they can't be trained, or refused…
Thank you for the book recommendation :)