Can we overcome our micromanaging personalities?

In the previous blog we discussed why some managers are sometimes overly controlling because of fears and insecurities that they carry. In this blog we will try and discuss how we can overcome any desire we may have to micromanage.

I have always been a fan of the book, "Getting to Yes" by Fisher and Ury, the definitive book on the subject of negotiation. However, I became excited by its concepts for a different reason than just negotiating contracts or outcomes. When watching couples having difficulty in their relationship, I was amazed to see how often there was a case where one member of the couple was trying to control the other member. As we discussed earlier, this desire to control appears to come out of a lack of trust, that the other partner might not take care of their feelings and their interests. The attempt to control the other person was a safety mechanism of self-protection.

As I looked for applications in the business world, I began to equate the controlling partner and the controlling micromanager with the hard negotiator who was more concerned with maintaining their stance and was hard on all parties concerned. What I enjoyed seeing in therapy sessions was that when we worked together to get the couple to focus on finding solutions to the problems rather than focussing on the people, the fears and lack of trust subsided. The most vital part of this process was in generating options or finding a plurality of possible solutions to resolve problems. I wanted to explore this further. Why was the mere generation of potential solutions and prioritizing those options so powerful in disarming a controller?

The following is my theory on this:
1. When people see things in terms of black and white, or in terms of a singular solution then a great deal is riding on its success. It is either success or failure.
2. When people think in this rigid fashion then they tend to personalize the result. It is not the problem that has not been solved but that "I am at fault if this does not succeed."
3. This significant pressure to succeed in this singular solution engenders genuine fear that failure is a real possibility.
4. Once options are generated and alternative solutions are possible as back ups to the most prioritized solution there is a reduction in the pressure (i.e. if the first method or solution chosen does not work then there is a plan B, C and D that is possible to pursue.)
5. If all parties are involved in generating these possible solutions then the pressure is off the single manager. Everyone concerned has buy-in and all parties are focussed on advancing solutions rather than on the personalities involved.
6. Being hard on the problem and soft on the people involved once again takes the pressure off the relationships themselves and allows all concerned to concentrate on succeeding with the task.

And so my underpinning theory is that micromanagers are often very rigid thinkers who are focussing on themselves and their power and are hard on people and not the problem. When they give into fear they are focussing on their own needs and not on a future outcome. They have difficulty in generating options. This latter is a skill that does not come naturally to some people but can be taught. There is a catch to getting a micromanager to think in these terms.

There is a really revealing story that illustrates the problem. In the dead of night, a man falls over a cliff and as he falls he prays to God to save him. He is relieved when his fall is broken by a branch that he clings to very tightly. A voice then comes from God to the man, "Do you want to be saved?" The man replies in the affirmative. The voice then adds, "Then let go the branch!" Terrified, the man carries on clinging to the branch for his life. The following morning, the man is found dead, still clinging to the branch. In the light of day it becomes clear that the ground is a mere few feet below and had he let go of the branch then he would have been saved.

While this is obviously a mere story it illustrates the mentality that is often found with the micromanager. They cling furiously to what is familiar, to what they already have in hand. Change is something very difficult for the micromanager because change includes the possibility of losing control and the fear of the unknown result. If you as the micromanager can analyze each situation "in the light of day" or with real data and clear information, you will more likely allow yourself to see the range of options that are possible.  "Letting go" is a key characteristic of a good manager.