Being the newly appointed CEO of a struggling company that was planning for an IPO, George had to deliver results fairly quickly. He felt responsible for it, and rightly so. The board wouldn't be kind to him if he didn't show results. They had kicked out the former (founder) CEO and George was brought in with lot of expectations. Clearly, George was under pressure. He needed a strong team behind him. And he needed that team to contribute flawlessly towards the goals laid out for the company.
Shelly was brought in by the board because of exceptional credentials in Marketing in her previous stint. While her past experience was in an industry that was somewhat different (hardware earlier vs software now), the learning curve wasn't expected to be much of a challenge. The company had to project to the market a strong image as it headed towards an IPO.
George was very quick at forming a negative view about Shelly's capabilities after looking at some of the first assignments she delivered. And that's when he started pestering Shelly with his constant remarks, pointing mistakes, accusing her of being careless and inefficient.
George's behavior started affecting Shelly's confidence. She descended into a vicious spiral of underperformance and frustration because of not feeling trusted. She couldn't tap into her own abilities and couldn't deliver the quality that used to be cakewalk for her. The constant pressure hampered her creativity. She felt scared to face George and just wanted to run away from there.
George, on the other hand, thought he was offering constant mentorship and support to Shelly. He hoped it would help her get up to speed sooner and contribute at her full potential - which was much needed for the organization, as marketing had to be top notch without compromise.
Who do you relate with more here?
Anyone who sees this picture and thinks about it for a while would naturally start relating to it. And in my observation, majority would relate with Shelly. Why do you think that happens?
The hierarchical nature of organizations along with the way we climb this professional ladder starting from the very bottom is part of the reason for this kind of association. We are managed from the moment we start working till the time we retire. Even a CEO like George is constantly monitored and subjected to tremendous amount of pressure. In fact, in a more general sense, we are managed by different people all our lives. And being 'told' what to do is never pleasant. Add to that the imposition of control over why, what and how - the means, and the burden of meeting expectations on the outcome - the end - the relationship between a manager and his/her reports is bound to be strained.
On the other hand, 'telling' someone what to do would never hurt so bad, although one may not be qualified to do so, and may even feel wrong about it deep down. The dynamic of the relationship is such that the manager gives and the receiver takes. For someone who is both a manager and a subordinate to different people, it's being the latter which is associated with more discomfort and therefore the empathy from that person would always be directed towards Shelly, the frustrated subordinate.
Modern organizations are designed as top-down pyramidal chains of managers / bosses and their reports / subordinates. The directionality of power, control, communication, expectations, pressure and feedback is predominantly all top-down in practice. One is supposed to adjust to the nature of his/her boss. Make the boss happy. At the same time, it's rare to meet someone without a list, usually long, of grievances concerning their bosses. So much so that being a boss seems synonymous to being insensitive, emotionless and self-centered.
It's important to acknowledge that Bosses / managers are human, and have personalities. Being a micromanager, like George, springs more from personality / behavioral traits than from a cultivated style of management. Micromanagers find it hard to trust team members to eventually deliver. When managers don't trust their reports, it is hard for the latter to feel excited to perform. They don't feel free. It hampers their creativity. They force themselves to be creative as managers want them to be, or at least say so. When creativity is an expectation it would only come out as stereotypical "crazy" for whatever qualifies. We can perhaps call it Generative Intelligence.
A common suggestion to resolve the situation between George and Shelly involves open communication, and George cutting Shelly some slack by trusting her more and interfering less in whatever she does. I find both of them hard to achieve.
Communication between bosses and subordinates is inherently constrained by the unequal nature of their relationship. While it is common for a boss to find flaws with a subordinate, the latter can't ever point boss's issues, howsoever damaging they may be to his/her mental well-being and ability to perform well. If he/she ever tries, it would most likely hurt the boss's ego, feel disrespectful to him/her and damage their relationship.
Trust more is not a natural to expect from George. Firstly, he would not be made aware by anybody how he is sabotaging productivity of his own team. If by some rare model of counselling an organization is able to develop that kind of an awareness, can George alter his natural inclinations significantly? I think the chances are slim in the short-term, but a sustained counseling and deliberate effort can generate long-term changes in his behavior.
But companies aren't in business of fixing imperfect humans. They exist to generate outcomes including, and not necessarily limited to, making money.
It's also ironic that most micromanagers are high performers in companies, and often make path-breaking business contributions. Everyone tolerates them coz they are capable of making things happen. They become assets to companies, while being pain in the asses of many who works for them. And invariably, there are also a few who would even enjoy working for them. It's strange how compatibility finds itself.
My view about this case was that people like Shelly end up leaving organizations because such strained relationships are hard to turn around in the near term, especially in an unequal relationship like a manager and his report. In the long-term, however, micromanagers can design more optimized behavioral templates for themselves so that they are able to generate the best outcomes from their teams.
What's your take?
