Direction is not micromanagement: know when to lead from the front
In some of our previous articles, we have explored the concept of micromanagement and why it is usually far removed from effective people management.
There is, however, an important distinction to make: giving direction is not the same as micromanaging.
In fact, setting a clear direction is one of the fundamental responsibilities of a manager.
In Ken Blanchard’s Situational Leadership II model, the leadership style associated with an individual who is enthusiastic but still developing competence is highly directive. The leader provides clear guidance to help build competence while maintaining the level of support needed to sustain commitment.
This is where things can become complicated.
For some managers, a directive style becomes a comfortable refuge. They continue telling people what to do long after those people have developed the competence to operate independently.
Others move too quickly in the opposite direction. They strongly prefer delegation and avoid giving detailed direction because they associate it with micromanagement. Often, this comes from personal experience: at some point in their careers, they were closely managed when they were already perfectly capable of doing the job themselves.
But the problem is not the method.
The problem is using the right leadership style in the wrong context.
With experience, you discover that a directive approach can be extremely effective when someone lacks competence in a particular task or objective but is highly motivated and confident about achieving it.
There is another important condition, however: the person must understand that there is something they still need to learn. Otherwise, even appropriate direction can easily be perceived as micromanagement.
Five Ways to Give Direction Without Micromanaging
When a more directive leadership style is appropriate, there are five principles worth remembering.
1. Be clear and specific about the objective.
Explain exactly what needs to be achieved, what good performance looks like and, where appropriate, how the task should be approached.
2. Create an agreement around the level of direction.
Rather than simply imposing guidance, explain why you believe it may be useful.
You might say:
“Since you haven’t done this before, would it be helpful if I provided some guidance to help you get started?”
3. Adapt your guidance to the individual.
People learn differently.
Some people want examples. Others want to observe someone first. Some prefer detailed instructions; others simply need a framework and the freedom to experiment.
Within reasonable limits, adapt your approach to the person rather than expecting every person to adapt to you.
4. Check progress and provide feedback.
Giving someone direction at the beginning and then disappearing is not effective leadership.
Check in. Observe progress. Recognise what is working. Correct what needs correcting.
The objective is not to control every step. It is to make sure that the individual is building the competence required to become increasingly independent.
5. Reduce direction as competence grows.
This may be the most important point.
A directive style should never become permanent.
As people demonstrate competence, the leader must progressively step back. Detailed direction should become guidance; guidance should become support; and eventually, support should become delegation.
Good leadership evolves with the person.
What If They Disagree?
Sometimes the person does not believe they need direction.
They may feel perfectly capable of performing the task independently.
When that happens, there are several things a manager can do.
First, clarify the objective or task. The disagreement may simply come from a different understanding of what is required. Explain the scope more precisely and establish a clear standard for success.
Second, ask about their previous experience.
Be genuinely open to the possibility that they know something you do not. They may have experience or skills you have simply never had the opportunity to observe.
Leadership also requires the humility to revise your assessment.
Third, compare their previous experience with the level of performance required for the task.
Finally, when reasonable, allow them to demonstrate their competence.
If, for example, you ask someone to lead a project team but have never seen them demonstrate project-management skills, and they believe they are ready, give them ownership of the first meaningful step.
Ask them to develop the project plan independently.
Then review the result.
You will learn far more about their actual level of competence from that exercise than from an argument about whether they are competent.
Direction Should Have an Expiry Date
There is one final distinction worth remembering.
A directive leadership style involves high direction and appropriate support. It does not mean the absence of support.
Without support, direction can quickly become command and control.
And I believe that, at some point in our careers, most of us have experienced a manager who crossed that line.
Very few of us remember the experience fondly.
The purpose of direction is not to make people dependent on the manager. It is exactly the opposite.
The best direction makes itself progressively unnecessary.
A good leader provides enough structure to help someone succeed today while developing enough competence for that person to need less structure tomorrow.
That is not micromanagement.
That is leadership.
