In this interview, the speakers explore the concept of micromanagement, clarifying common misconceptions and distinguishing it from legitimate accountability. They argue that micromanagement stems from a lack of trust and an excessive need to control how work is done, rather than focusing on the desired outcomes. The discussion emphasizes that effective leadership requires delegating authority, allowing team members to determine their own methods as long as they meet key performance criteria—on‑time delivery, staying within budget, and maintaining high quality. The speakers also highlight the importance of recognizing each individual's strengths, assigning tasks that align with those strengths, and hiring complementary talent for gaps. Using Vision Advertising as an example, they describe a training philosophy that cares about the destination (the final result) rather than dictating the exact journey, encouraging employees to find their own paths to success. A practical litmus test is offered: managers should ask whether they truly need control over the process or simply need the outcome, reinforcing a trust‑based, outcome‑focused leadership style.
Chapters
You used the term micromanaging a few times, more than once. That's what jumped out at me. And I get asked a lot, like, am I really a micromanager? People, they're confused. Managers are often confused when they're called a micromanager as to what that actually means. So can you help them to really see, you know, what, what may or may not be behavior that looks like micromanaging?
Yeah, this is a great question. I think partially because micromanaging as a term is really like a hot term right now. You could say it's like toxic or like quiet quitting or like, uh, trauma or triggering, right? Any of these terms that are kind of hot in how we talk about corporate America. But that doesn't mean that what everybody's saying about it is what it is, right? So a toxic work environment, what somebody says is, isn't necessarily, and maybe there are toxic work environments that people don't realize are toxic. So micromanaging is very similar. So sometimes people will say, oh, you're micromanaging me, but really they're just being held accountable, which is very different. Whereas sometimes people will be told they're micromanaging and they really are. So when I think about micromanaging, I think about really not trusting the person to do the job. So it really comes from a place of like, do you trust them to do this? And you have to give up a certain amount of control to know that like, the goal is that they do it on time and they do it to the highest quality, not that they necessarily do it the way that you would do it, right? So oftentimes with micromanaging, it's staying way too on top of people and telling them to do it exactly your way. You have to remember as a supervisor, as a leader, that you have to give up a certain amount of control. Because the end result just needs to be high quality. It doesn't need to be exactly how you would do it. And micromanaging is often, you know, when you're saying, well, like, yes, this is the correct way of doing it, but I would do it this way and I want you to do it exactly how I would do it. That's not teaching somebody how to be their best version. It goes back to that whole teach a man to fish versus give a man a fish. If you invest the time to teach somebody how to do something correctly and they figure out the best way to do it for them, and that gets them to the correct place and on time, then that's better than you saying, do it this exact way.
Which is key. Get on time. And maybe there's a, a budget number there is more, much more important than the fact that one style of individual. May need to do it and process it very differently than the other, but the end result is exactly what it is that you want.
Correct. And I always say that people are— everybody's good at something, and that means that they're also not good at something. So embrace the things they're really good at and understand that and lean into that and help them work around the things they're not good at. I'm not good at like making things pretty, but I'm really good at finding the bugs in a system or creating a new operational system. So I lean into what I'm good for and then I hire people to deal with the things I'm not good at. What we always talk about at Vision Advertising that, so when I'm training people, I say, I care about the destination, I don't care about the journey. And what I mean by that is I want you to get to the correct place on budget, on time, and to the highest quality, but you get there your own way and that's okay. You can do it differently than me. At the end of the day, I care about the destination, not how you get there, as long as it works for you.
Right. And I think that's a good— another tool you're saying? Is a good litmus test for a manager would be ask yourself, you know, if it's critical that they get there on time, on budget, and that's the most critical, or are you so concerned or controlling that it's important that you also have control over how they're getting there. And you would hope that they come to the conclusion that no, to your point, it's actually the destination and not the process or how they got there.
Right. And that's not me saying the journey doesn't matter. Of course it matters. But what I'm saying is I don't need you to follow the map how I drew the map. I just need you to get to the right place and however you get there, that works for you is great. We love it.
