While I was coordinating the leadership development at a Fortune 200 firm, one of the strongest worded and frequently heard complaints from lower level managers was that they were being micromanaged.  When asked what that looked like, the common element was the loss of autonomy of action and discretionary control over what they did.  Sometimes they had very legitimate concerns.  In those cases, they were not learning and having fun because their boss was setting the goals and direction as well as dictating exactly how they should execute to achieve those goals.  They felt they were there just to grind out work as it was laid out by their boss.

And yet, there were many cases where the accusation of being a micromanager was used to cover anything the junior manager did not like, especially stuff that included elements of accountability and priority of focus.  We all want to be good managers, which to most means we set direction, provide support and ensure successful achievement of the goals.  Sometimes that requires us to lean-in closer and provide support in ways that those reporting to us might not prefer.

There is a vital difference between ensuring the subordinate is on track to successfully achieve the goals and micromanaging.  There is a vital difference between calibrating the skills and capabilities of a subordinate and micromanaging.  There is a vital difference between holding an employee accountable and micromanaging.  There is a vital difference between executing good managerial skills and micromanaging.

So how does a senior manager reply to the accusation of, “You’re being a micromanager!”?  The best antidote may be a refresher on what it is good managers do.  The core pool of things good managers do includes:

• setting clear goals and expectations,
• ensuring the necessary skills and resources to meet those,
• scanning for obstacles in the pathway and,
• holding their employees accountable for timely and professional delivery.

There is room for compassion for this situation.   By the time an employee reaches the junior management ranks, some may think they have a lot figured out and know how management should work.  Others may think that higher degrees of autonomy and discretionary action come with the title.  And still others feel like they have paid their dues and now the perk of being a manager is freedom of action.  Alas, the higher one goes in an organization, the less freedom really does exist.

The conversation with the junior manager can be a great way to discuss what being a good manager means to them, how they want to be treated by their manager and how they elect to treat the supervisors and others who report to them.  There may need to be a few reality checks in this process.  These would address any missing elements from their formulation of what it means to be a good manager, e.g., holding people accountable, etc.   Some questions I have heard include moving from generalizations to specifics.  The following example is around accountability, but it could easily have been around prioritization of tasks and resources.

• What are your views on whether managers should hold their direct reports accountable?
• What should that look like?
• How do you hold your direct reports accountable?  How is that working?
• How would you like me to hold you accountable?
• What specifically would you like me to change?
• How will demonstrate you are capable of greater autonomy?