What is micromanagement?

At one level, micromanagement in the boardroom is an irritating pattern of behaviour by one or more board members, evident in their constant querying of managers’ advice, actions or decisions. Whether well intentioned or not, those who make such queries invite being labelled as control freaks or dinosaurs holding to outdated and discredited management styles. Micromanagers may also invite speculation and suspicion about undisclosed agendas. Some micromanaging directors simply seem unable to restrain themselves from constantly demonstrating their imagined
superiority.

These behaviours grate as much on fellow board members as on management. Many board members find it particularly frustrating that these interventions are often distractions with little materiality or relevance to the board’s priorities.

When this tendency is persistent and uncontrolled—and relates to matters properly delegated to executives—it goes beyond being an annoying distraction. It can generate a toxic work environment and do tremendous harm to the board/management relationship. We’ve even seen one board use micromanagement as a deliberate tactic to disempower and force the resignation of a chief executive who was no longer wanted.

Micromanagement is problematic for many reasons, but mostly because those being micromanaged tend to be less productive. Executives face the constant implication that they are not living up to the board’s (or at least individual directors’) expectations. The feeling of being controlled and corrected can also create a lack of psychological safety. These result in reduced motivation. Executives affected by micromanagement will question the point of putting in any effort and will be less inclined to innovate or take any kind of risk.

Another problem is that micromanagement is, in effect, a form of upward delegation. As directors’ micromanagement undermines staff confidence, it increasingly invites them to ask the board to make decisions for them. When this occurs, the board is left ‘holding the baby’ rather than the managers who should be accountable.

Micromanagement also has a spreading and compounding impact within a board. For example, when the kind of frustration that originates with micromanagement leads to a dysfunctional relationship between board members, it can also contribute to the premature loss of the board’s most effective members.

But there are also other ways of looking at micromanagement and its consequences.

Micromanagement by executive invitation

Ironically, chief executives must consider whether what they complain of is a direct consequence of their own actions. This applies particularly to complaints that they have board members who are constantly ‘in the weeds’.

When asked to help deal with this kind of problem, our first reaction is to ask for access to a sample of board meeting packs. We usually find the chief executive and his or her team are feeding the board a constant and attention-dominating description of management activity. The raw material the board is given to work on is thus a direct invitation to engage in a critique of management activity.

One of our favourite anecdotes stems from observation of a primary sector board dominated by farmer directors. A second-tier executive’s report referred to field staff having been issued with new wet weather gear. It led to a lengthy and heated debate among several of the farmer directors (as subject matter experts on outdoor clothing) about whether management had purchased the right brand!

Closely related to this problem is the way executives respond to micromanagement-type questions. Defensive responses are often treated by board members (and not just the micromanagers) as a signal that the board is ‘onto something’. This, of course, invites even greater scrutiny and second- guessing of management. Not surprisingly, some chief executives take great offence and respond aggressively. Such a response is understandable if they feel constantly under attack or if their patience has simply run out. Unfortunately, however, this kind of pushback from the chief executive forces other board members—who may have been just as frustrated by the micromanager—to side with their colleague.

Micromanagement as a red flag

Rather than seething about an unwelcome intrusion into their management prerogatives, chief executives should consider whether micromanagement is a red flag signalling that their board may have lost trust or confidence in them. This often occurs, for example, when a board thinks it has been deliberately misled or has had too many unwelcome surprises.

But it may also reflect a general concern about the chief executive’s or other key managers’ effectiveness. Boards concerned about executive performance are drawn inexorably into closer scrutiny of executive judgement. Is this progressive disempowerment? Perhaps, but it is an almost instinctive and inevitable move to protect the organisation.

Micromanagement because of inadequate board leadership

If micromanagement results from directors who don’t know their job, are obsessed with inconsequential detail, or who are (or appear to be) pursuing personal agendas, it is up to the chair to get them back on track. We would encourage other directors to contribute to the necessary discipline, but it is ultimately the chair’s responsibility to ensure directors are on task and that the board/management working relationship is functioning as it should.

One thing board chairs must insist on is respect for the board’s delegation to management. This does not mean that directors should not question management closely, but they are not entitled to impose any personal expectations inconsistent with the authority and decision-making rights the board has delegated. Only the board speaking with one voice can shift the goalposts for the chief executive.

For the sake of completeness, we should acknowledge that management dissatisfaction—while attributed to micromanagement—may stem from a simple dislike of being questioned. Senior executives need to accept that being accountable to the board is part of the job, and chairs need to coach them accordingly. But chairs must deal decisively with unproductive, timewasting, irrelevant (even vexatious) querying. If not, it can become normalised behaviour that is bad for board and management alike.

Fixing the micromanagement problem: some suggestions

Micromanagement is not inevitable and need not be tolerated. A wide range of mitigations include the following:

1. Recruit board members who understand where the board should add value. Where that is not always possible (e.g. when board members are elected), provide induction and ongoing training that improves understanding and contribution.

2. Ensure that performance expectations for directors (and chairs) are transparent and preferably codified. The best place to do this is in a board charter that, among other things, includes a code of conduct and a framework for conducting the board/executive working relationship.

3. Pay careful attention to developing, maintaining and applying governance policy, including the delegation of authority to the chief executive. Is it clear what results the chief executive and her team are expected to achieve and the situations and circumstances they must avoid? Ensure that the necessary limits to their authority (powers reserved to the board) are also spelled out.

4. Ensure that the board has a clear plan (e.g. annual agenda or board work plan) that schedules the matters to which it needs to direct its scarce time and attention. This reference point helps the chair to get recalcitrant micromanagers’ attention back to the areas on which the board needs to focus.

5. Require directors to accept that the holder of a delegation is entitled to a reasonable interpretation of that delegation. Individually directors have no right to assume that an executive delegate (or for that matter a board office holder or board committee) will do things exactly as they would personally if they were holding the same responsibility.

6. Provide feedback to the chair if micromanagement is sneaking in. Ideally there should be at least one member of the board who has a watching brief on this. The chair may also need training or coaching (see also board and director evaluation, #10).

7. In the spirit of continuous improvement, conduct regular post-meeting debriefs. These are a wonderful opportunity to reflect on instances during a meeting when the board as a whole or individual members may have strayed into territory that legitimately belongs to management. For that reason, some boards prefer to have these sessions without management present. Board feedback to management is also important but it can come a little later via, say, a regular meeting between chair and chief executive.

8. Invest in executive training and coaching. Investment in board and director training is seldom questioned. However, far too little attention is paid to training and coaching that ensures executives and other staff who regularly engage with the board understand the board’s job and how to support it effectively. Part of the executive skills development process should address ways in which executives can deal with micromanagement when they encounter it. For example, encourage management to respectfully inquire as to the governance issue at the heart of a micromanagement-type query (“It would help me to be able to [answer your query/respond to your comment] if I understood the governance issue behind it.”). This is an indirect way of nudging board members back up to the level at which they should be operating and remind them that they should be focused on the priorities the board has set for its time and attention.

9. For directors with an outsize desire to know what is going on—and where and when in the operational realm (a situation common to governing bodies whose members represent a constituency of electors)—executives need to find some way outside board meetings of keeping them briefed on matters that matter to their constituency.

10. Conduct formal board and director evaluation. Nothing is more powerful in dealing with micromanagement than direct feedback from peers that these tendencies are detracting from their effectiveness as a director.