1.1. WHAT IS MICROMANAGEMENT ?

What micromanaging really is and what puts you at risk of doing it.
Why Is Micromanagement So Infectious?

It’s not just a personality or leadership trait that can be blamed on genetic makeup or
bad training, as some arguments say. It’s a breakdown in the fundamentals of delegation.
When a manager delegates a goal to an employee effectively, she bestows ownership
of what we call a “brief,” a set of outcomes subject to deadlines and other constraints.
The owner’s job is figuring out how to deliver on that brief while operating within the
specified constraints, which can range from “stay within this budget” to “follow these
policies” to “get my approval on this type of decision.”
The manager, who assumes the role of a sponsor, can change the brief, change the
owner, or change the context in which the owner does his work. But if she dictates the tasks
to be done or directs how to do the work, she ceases to be a sponsor and becomes a
micromanager.
Micromanagement has a way of spreading in organizations, where goals and
accountability are intricately nested.
- What your people deliver affects what you deliver, and so on up the chain of
command — so the pressure is on everywhere to make sure everyone comes
through.
- The boundaries around sponsorship and ownership are simple to understand in
theory but difficult to observe in the fog of real business. When clarity is hard to
achieve, we would rather just “dive in.” We start off trusting, but verifying, that
people are clear about the desired outcomes and capable of delivering on them.
- But we’ve become so great at verifying, thanks to our “smart,” all-seeing
workplaces, that the sponsor can observe the owner’s every move.
- If an office bathroom’s RFID-enabled hand soap dispenser can micromanage
people by telling them, by name, to wash their hands before they return to work,
think of the possibilities for micromanagement by sponsors.
- It’s just so tempting to watch...and then so tempting to comment...and before you
know it, you’re micromanaging. It’s too easy.

How do you avoid falling into micromanagement?

 By making sure you have the following elements in the briefs you delegate. Otherwise,
you may start to zoom in too aggressively on concrete tasks in an effort to control
something, anything, within reach.
Do you have:
Clear targets?
- Delegation works poorly when the owner doesn’t have a clear picture of the
outcomes needed.
+ Perhaps standards are fuzzy (for instance, client satisfaction is understood
to be a goal, but no one really knows what “good” looks like).
+ Or maybe a relevant outcome hasn’t been specified (you’ve established
financial targets but nothing that measures client experience).
+ Sadly, leaders often “manage” by vaguely saying that a team member is
responsible for a certain kind of thing — as in, “He does ‘marketing’” —
without defining outcomes.
- In the absence of clear targets, people start picking apart tasks.
Sufficient (but not stifling) constraints?
- Artful management specifies where constraints are needed and which kinds make
sense.
+ If you don’t have enough constraints, you aren’t defining expectations
clearly enough, which leads employees to flail and managers, in turn, to
hover.
+ Too many constraints, and you’re tying people’s hands. Telling the general
counsel simply to “get the contract in place” and handing him the term
sheet on a napkin is likely to work only for a routine transaction or a very
special counsel. But saying “I’ll need to approve all edits in each step of the
negotiation” will waste time.
+ Either way, by understepping or overstepping, you end up failing as a
sponsor.
A shared understanding?
- Though a brief can be written down (and often should be), its essence is shared,
iterative understanding.
- Delegation is derailed when sponsor and owner don’t have a meeting of minds.
+ For example, they may have different ideas about what an outcome or
constraint will look like in practice. Sponsors try to close the gap by
specifying “make it look this way — and do it like this.”
Effective oversight?
 - Delegating responsibility for a goal doesn’t magically create the capability or
even the drive to achieve that goal.
- Oversight is effective when the sponsor can rationally expect, not just hope, that
the brief will be fulfilled.
- Oversight is easy when the owner is clearly on track.
+ When the going is difficult, the sponsor earns her keep, wrestling with
whether to evolve the brief, offer advice, shift something about the context,
change the owner, or stay the course.
- Effective sponsors may see lots of data but constrain their impulses to dive in
whenever they spot an anomaly
=> This restraint prevents oversight from sliding into micromanagement — but
restraint becomes harder and rarer in an all-seeing workplace.

Given how easily just one flaw in the delegation process can give rise to micromanagement,
it’s critical to put the right conditions in place for effective delegation.
- For starters, keep it real. Never let people think they’re owners if you aren’t willing to
let them own.
- If you’re the real owner, say so, make clear that the team member’s role is to help you,
and explain what kind of help you need.
When you take the sponsor role, be explicit about which hat you’re wearing as you engage
with the owner.
- Are you clarifying the brief? Assessing progress? Offering feedback? Just
brainstorming? It’s important to advise with care. By all means, make suggestions. But
it is the owner’s role to decide whether and how to take them.
- Of course a sponsor can be valuable “on the field,” advancing a particular piece of work
based on expertise, relationships, or credibility, but when you step onto the field, be
accountable to the owner leading the team.

The power of these fundamental concepts — the sponsor, the owner, and the brief — is
that
- They help people make reasonable, effective choices when it isn’t clear what’s best to
do. In that way, they’re a lot like the rules of engagement in holacracy and other forms
of self-managing organizations.
- It may seem strange to compare this approach with self-management, since the
sponsor-owner construct is hierarchical. But both ways of managing create autonomy
where it is needed to spark creativity and productivity.
 Micromanagement is constitutionally forbidden in holacracy. (It’s merely inadvisable in
organizations with traditional structures.) But changing organizational design alone won’t
build the capabilities needed to navigate hard questions and reach big goals. Managers at all
levels, in organizations of any design, face the everyday choice between fostering
ownership and micromanaging, and they have the power — if they can develop the skill to
consistently choose well.
__________________________________________

1.2. WHY PEOPLE MICROMANAGE ?

Managers worry about being disconnected.

- As managers rise through the ranks, they often become concerned that theyʼve lost
touch with the actual work of the organization. Because they have less direct contact
with the shop floor or customers, they start to feel isolated.
- One way of reducing this anxiety is to seek information in as many ways as possible —
through reports, meetings, and one- on-one conversations.
=> But since this attempt to stay connected is largely unplanned and driven by
idiosyncratic anxiety, the result is that managers at different levels and functions end up
looking at the same basic data in many different ways.

Managers stay in familiar operational territory.

- Many managers are unable to let go of their old job or their old ways of doing their job.
Itʼs the well-worn saying: “What got you here wonʼt get you there.” Many managers are
promoted based on their ability to achieve operational goals, manage budgets, control
their numbers, and solve problems.
- However, at higher levels managers usually need to dial down their operational focus
and learn how to be more strategic.
- To do so, managers have to trust their people to manage day-to-day operations and
coach them as needed, rather than trying to do it for them.
=> For many managers this is a difficult transition and they unconsciously continue to
spend time in the more comfortable operational realm of their subordinates.

When the unconscious need for more direct information converges with a managerʼs
tendency towards operational focus, micromanagement is often the result. And when many
managers operate this way, we end up with the complex micromanagement culture described
above.
 The good news is that once you discover these unconscious patterns, itʼs possible to do
something about them. The divisional manufacturing meeting that I attended is a good
example.
- During the discussion, managers began to confront their patterns — both individually
and as a team — and agreed to eliminate or modify certain reports and reviews.
- They also agreed to continue holding regular meetings to recalibrate their information
appetite.

The message here is that with every promotion, managers need to learn a little more about
how to lead using an “instrument panel” instead of direct observation. In doing this,
managers need to work together to standardize the cockpits — so that the instruments and
information not only make sense to them, but donʼt become overwhelming for everyone else.

Whatʼs your experience with micromanagement?

_____________________________________________

2.1. SIGNS THAT YOU’RE A MICROMANAGER

If you’re like most micromanagers, you probably don’t even know that you’re doing it. Yet
the signs are clear:

● You’re never quite satisfied with deliverables.

● You often feel frustrated because you would’ve gone about the task differently.
● You laser in on the details and take great pride and /or pain in making corrections.
● You constantly want to know where all your team members are and what they’re
working on.
● You ask for frequent updates on where things stand.
● You prefer to be cc’d on emails.

Let’s face it.

- Paying attention to details and making sure the work is getting done are important. So
it’s easy to chalk all of the above up to a necessary part of managing. But they aren’t
necessary all the time.
- The problem with micromanagers is that they apply the same level of intensity, scrutiny
and in-your-face approach to every task, whether warranted or not. The bottom line is:
you need to stop. It’s harming your team’s morale and – ultimately – their productivity.
 While micromanaging may get you short-term results, over time it negatively impacts your
team, your organization, and yourself.
- You dilute your own productivity and you run out of capacity to get important things
done.
- You stunt your team members’ development and demoralize them.
- You create an organizational vulnerability when your team isn’t used to functioning
without your presence and heavy involvement.

So what do you do if you want to stop micromanaging? Here are four strategies to help:

1. Get over yourself.

- We can all rationalize why we do what we do and the same holds true for
micromanagers. Here are some common excuses that chronic micromanagers give, and
what they really mean:

- These excuses lead to a disempowered, demoralized team. Instead of finding all the
reasons why you should micromanage, consider why you shouldn’t.

2. Let it go.
 - The difference between managing and micromanaging is the focus on the “micro.” At
the core of moving away from micromanaging is letting go of the minutia.
- This can be hard, but the key is to do it a little at a time.
+ Start by looking at your to-do list to determine what low hanging fruit you can
pass on to a team member.
+ Engage in explicit discussions with your direct reports about what level of detail
you will engage in and where they will need to pull you in.
+ You should also highlight the priorities on your list — the big ticket items where
you truly add value — and make sure that is where you are spending most of your
energy.

3. Give the “what,” not the “how.”

- There is nothing wrong with having an expectation about a deliverable. But there’s a
difference between sharing that expectation and dictating how to get to that result.
- Your job as a manager is to clearly set the conditions of satisfaction for any task you
assign.
+ Articulate what you envision the final outcome to look like, but don’t give
blow-by-blow instructions on how to get there.
+ When in doubt, share the “what” and ask (rather than tell) your team member
about how they plan to get there. You might be surprised that their approach,
while different, may yield excellent results.

4. Expect to win (most of the time).

- Underlying your need to micromanage is a fear of failure.
=> By magnifying the risk of failure, your employees engage in “learned helplessness”
where they start believing that the only way they can perform is if you micromanage
them. It’s a vicious cycle.
- Instead, focus on setting your direct reports up for success.
+ Be clear on what success looks like.
+ Provide the resources, information, and support needed to meet those conditions.
+ Give credit where credit is due.
=> Over time, you’ll realize that a loss every now and then helps build a strong track
record in the long run.

Just as no one wants to be micromanaged, no one wants to be the much-abhorred

micromanager. But with a commitment to focus on the big picture and on motivating your
employees, you can redirect your efforts to be the most effective manager you can be.
 _______________________________________

2.2. YOU’RE PROBABLY A MICROMANAGER

While many people complain about being micromanaged, very few think of themselves as
micromanagers. But if nobody is a micromanager, then who is doing all the micromanaging?

The point is that all managers fall into these patterns at some point:
- Often driven by anxiety and insecurity, either from lack of subject matter knowledge,
inadequate training, or insufficient experience.
- In addition, the people they manage all have different skills, abilities, and experiences
and need varying degrees and types of attention.
=> These people also have different expectations about what they want from a manager,
so helpful support to one person could easily be perceived as controlling
micromanagement to another.

Unfortunately most of these patterns are invisible to us.

- Even when we are aware of them, certain situations can trigger them anyway.
- At the same time, none of us like to think of ourselves as micromanagers.
=> So we rationalize the behavior (as I did) and continue to do what is most
comfortable.
- It’s a vicious cycle: Our anxiety drives us to behave unproductively, and the
preservation of our self-image gives us justification to do it again.

=> So that’s why many people believe that they work for micromanagers, but few people
think that they are micromanagers themselves.

It is possible to tone down this vicious cycle and make it less dysfunctional.
- The starting point is to admit to yourself that there is a possibility — even a slim one —
that some of your subordinates view you as a micromanager.
- If you accept that notion, then ask your people to give you some feedback:
+ Are there controls that you could loosen?
+ Are there “checking” activities that you could stop doing?
+ Are there different ways that you could stay on top of things without getting into
unnecessary details?
- You might be surprised by the answers.
 - And if you follow through on your team’s suggestions, not only will it help you to grow
as a manager, but you will also give them the confidence to speak up about additional
patterns.

Let’s face it: Most of us micromanage in some way, at least in the eyes of our people.

_______________________________

3.1. LETTER FROM RUSSIA: WHY MICROMANAGEMENT IS THE WRONG

RESPONSE TO CRISIS

This executive is a strong, well educated, and experienced leader. She sees the bubble that kept
prices too high has burst and that itʼs time to live, and manage, in a new reality. As a general
manager of a group of ironware factories, her list of serious challenges is growing.

She would like to concentrate on that list, but headquarters keeps diverting her attention away
permanently, asking for new reports, requesting new plans and, sometimes it seems,
demanding she work miracles.

Everybody knows that in a recession, controls must be stricter and decisions more detailed, but
often executives, in any region, use the bad economy and need for control as an excuse to
micromanage. That can be counterproductive.

The same micromanagement kicked in about a year ago at the Russian branch of a global
software company, after quarterly sales seriously missed the mark. The supervisor responsible
for European business started besieging the Russian general manager with small-minded
controls and his own advice. He demanded that the Russian manager fire half of his local
salesmen and immediately organize training for those who were left.

Ultimately he came to Moscow and dressed down to the local team himself. Never mind the
Russian office had been a top performer in the group for several years before this one dip.

The net of the micromanagement was disastrous. Several of the best sales managers decided to
leave the company. In Russia, thereʼs a severe lack of good sales managers and companies
compete like crazy for them (even now, during the crisis).
No manager will come out and say that micromanagement is a good approach in any time, but
that anxiety pushes people to act this way. To control this destructive anxiety in rough time,
consultants from Moscow office of Boston Consulting Group recommend Russian companies
engage in more contingency planning. Work out two or three plans for emergency situations
with clear, detailed instructions about the quick reaction that must automatically triggered if
certain indicators show itʼs a critical time for the business.

So with the contingency planning every head of business unit knows what to do in dangerous
circumstances, the situation is getting controlled, so executives can concentrate on the truly
important tasks like optimization of the business, revisiting strategy, and focusing on
motivation.

With regards to optimization, itʼs clear now that downturn will last for a while so even good
(but not yet profitable) startups and innovations within companies wonʼt survive. Projects that
were created in a market flooded with stupid money are hopeless in the new reality. So
executives have to decide which projects to preserve.

Revisiting strategy means pinpointing those new directions that can turn into growth after the
downturn. Some of this is luck, and after the downturn, people will celebrate “seers” the
leaders who are so lucky to guess today where the growth will be. But Iʼd argue that involving
more people in revisiting strategy is what will help companies create seers.

The third and the most important executive task during the downturn is motivation. When
everybody is scared and depressed because of this unprecedented crisis and the uncertainty it
creates for them, executives must be virtuosos in motivation. They must not only calm people
but then also inspire them to work hard and work creatively.

So managers have a lot of sophisticated intellectual work to do. They shouldnʼt spend their
energy on micromanagement. Thatʼs not dealing with the crisis, itʼs just making them look
busy while they escape from the really necessary work.

_______________________________________________

3.2. WHY CONTROLLING BOSSES HAVE UNPRODUCTIVE EMPLOYEES

In fact, if your employees consider you a controlling person, even an unconscious thought of
you can have a negative effect on their performance. If, for example, they were to happen to
subliminally see, out of the corner of their eyes, your name flash for 60 milliseconds, you
could expect them to start working less hard. Even if they didnʼt intend to slack off.

Obviously itʼs not too likely that theyʼll see a subliminal flash of your name, but students
participating in a psychological experiment did see such a flash — not of your name (of
course) but of the name of a “significant other” (a boss, a mom, a dad) whom they perceived
as controlling and who wanted them to work hard. Researchers found that the subjects, having
been subliminally exposed to these names, unconsciously did the opposite of work hard.
Specifically, they did relatively poor work on a complex anagram task that they were given.

I say all this to make the point that people deeply value their freedom, so much so that even
an unconscious memory of a controlling person stimulates a behavioral reaction.

The psychological mechanism that connects the love of freedom and the behavioral response
is known as reactance. Itʼs a concept that was described by Jack Brehm back in 1966, and
though it didnʼt get much notice for a few decades, recently it has become an active area of
psychological research with many implications for business.

The study on significant others was done by a team at Duke — Tanya L. Chartrand, Amy N.
Dalton, and Fitzsimons — who wanted to see whether reactance, usually thought of as a
conscious effect, could be unconscious too. Their findings show that indeed it can. The
researchers suggest that in certain circumstances, “reactance becomes automatized.”

Not everyone reacts strongly against perceived autonomy threats. The researchers found that
people with an ingrained sense that others are trying to control them tend to have the
most intense negative reactions to unconscious thoughts of significant others. Not only do
these highly reactant individuals love their freedom, theyʼll also “do anything to protect it,”
Fitzsimons says. In organizations, that gets them into trouble sometimes.

In a 2007 paper, the researchers say that perhaps highly reactant individuals could be helped
by their organizations to “learn to identify the situations that trigger reactance and plan in
advance how to respond.”
Thatʼs a good idea, but donʼt managers also have a responsibility not to become the controlling
significant other in their subordinatesʼ lives? I realize that idea might sound naïve, but itʼs
clear from the Duke study that if youʼre a controlling figure, your direct reports will
respond, to a greater or lesser degree (depending on their inherent reactance levels)
- by letting their performance slip
- by screwing up
- by undermining your efforts
- by doing the opposite of what you want.

Itʼs all too easy, once people become managers, for them to forget how deeply their
employees value freedom and autonomy, and the extent to which some of them, at least,
will react to any infringement of it, even unconsciously.

_______________________________________________

4.1. HOW TO STOP MICROMANAGING & START EMPOWERING

When we think of the controlling boss, we often think of someone yelling at their employees,
telling them they can’t cut it, and creating an all-around hostile work environment. But this is
often not the case. It can be a slippery slope from kindly “wanting to be looped in” to full on
micromanagement. By micromanaging, I mean being overly prescriptive on tasks and
follow ups — to the point of taking learning opportunities away from your team. Yes,
your greatest weakness can be that you care too much.

This can be especially hard for new managers, who are working to make their mark as a
leader while feeling pressure to perform well and prove themselves to their direct reports and
boss. But fear not, here are three ways to break the cycle:

● Talk about the outcome, not the process.

When you ask someone to complete a task, look closely at how you frame it.
- For instance, if you say, “I’d like a workshop organized with A people, on B day,
covering C topics, to get to D resolution,”
=> you’ve figuratively and literally spelled out the whole process for someone.
=> This level of detail and direction makes people feel like you don’t trust them to
figure things out, or that they’re just here to follow marching orders.
Sometimes, marching orders are exactly what a task requires.
- But whenever possible, you should give people the autonomy and space they need to
step up and be leaders.
- This is what great managers do — they allow people to experiment, make mistakes,
learn, and grow, so that they can become stronger performers.

The next time you assign someone a task or project, talk about the outcome you want — not
every step you want them to take along the way. In her book Dare to Lead, Brené Brown
discusses the concept of “painting success.” This means talking with your team about what
“done” looks like and what a “good job” looks like to keep everyone on the same page.

In the example above, the outcome you’re looking for is “D resolution.” So, start there. Do a
detailed problem analysis, and then say to your team members, “I’m looking to achieve this
outcome. How would you approach it?” Let them share. Even if you don’t agree with their
proposal, you’ve showed them that you
- trust them
- interested in their ideas
- value their contributions.

● Set expectations around feedback.

If you’ve read to the end of the first section, you may be thinking, “But what if my team’s plan
won’t get me the outcome I’m looking for?”

To protect yourself from this problem, discuss when and how you’ll be giving your team
members constructive feedback at the start of each new project.
- Basically, set boundaries, but also give people space to breathe, experiment, and make
mistakes within those boundaries.
- Creativity, after all, thrives under constraints.

When you’re setting expectations around how you’ll give feedback, you should discuss the
type of feedback you’ll be sharing. Will you want to line-edit their proposal, or just give
directional feedback on the content? In these moments, try to stay objective, and check
yourself for any micromanaging tendencies.

For example, if you’re eager to line-edit, ask yourself why. Who is the audience you’re trying
to impress? If the proposal is for an internal team meeting, do you really need to fix every
slightly long sentence? Probably not. If the proposal is going out to the press or senior
stakeholders — fine, open the flood gates.

Your feedback should match the consequences, and when the stakes are low and the
feedback is overly detailed, it can make someone feel like they’re being picked on. And when
someone feels picked on, they’re not in a headspace to learn.

● Manage up when possible.

Now you might be thinking, “But the work of my direct reports reflects on me. If it isn’t
perfect, it looks like I did a bad job.” Well... not necessarily, and certainly not if you’ve done a
good job of managing up. Your role as a people manager is
- to develop your people
- to help them build a thriving career
- to train them to be your predecessors one day
=> In doing this, you have to give people the space to grow and make their own unique
mark on a team.

In conversations with your own manager, talk about your team members — areas you’re
helping them stretch and grow, places they’re stepping up and shining, and what your plan is
for the team long term. This gives you an opportunity to show your manager “I’ve got this”
when something isn’t quite perfect.

If you feel squeezed by your manager, it’s likely you’ll direct some of that back to your team,
even if you really try not to. By talking to your manager about the very same things you talk to
your team members about — what success looks like on a project and when/how you’ll share
feedback, you have an opportunity to gut check:
1) if they agree on your definition of success
2) the ways and moments they can share feedback if they’d like to chime in as well.

Managing teams is hard. It’s even harder when we care. And, it’s even even harder when our
team members don’t do things in the exact same ways we do. But this diversity of thought is
what results in growth, creativity, and innovation.

The last thing you want to do is wear someone down into working exactly like you and your
own management chain. ‘
- Celebrate the different ways of solving problems, of reaching successful outcomes
 - Create opportunities for people across your team to learn from each other.
=> The more people feel like their ideas and ways of working are recognized and
valued, the better work they do, and the longer they’ll want to stay on your team.

____________________________________________________

4.2. HOW TO STOP MICROMANAGING YOUR TEAM

What the Experts Say

- “Micromanaging dents your teamʼs morale by establishing a tone of mistrust—and it
limits your teamʼs capacity to grow,”.
- It also hampers your ability to focus on whatʼs really important.
- “If your mind is filled with the micro-level details of a number of jobs, thereʼs no room
for big picture thoughts,”

“There may be a few failures as your team learns to step up, but ultimately they will perform
much, much better with greater accountability and less interference.” Here are some
pointers:

● Reflect on your behavior

The first step is to develop an awareness of why you micromanage.

- “Most likely itʼs because of some insecurity—youʼre afraid it will reflect badly on you
if your team doesnʼt do something exactly the way you would do it
- You're worried youʼll look out of touch if you're not immersed in the details, so you
overcompensate,” she says.

Asking yourself: what excuses am I using to micromanage?

- Will save time if I do it myself
- Too much is at stake to allow this to go wrong

Focusing on “the reasons why you should not micromanage”

- Itʼs bad for your team as they donʼt learn and grow
- The benefits youʼd derive if you stopped (chiefly more time to do your own job).

● Get feedback
“Often there is a significant disconnect between what leaders intend and what the team is
actually experiencing,”
You may merely suspect you have a problem while your team members are already annoyed
by your constant hovering “Feedback is essential”
- To see how significant the issue is
- To get a handle on what your direct reports really think and whether it lines up with
your intentions
“undertaking a cross-evaluation assessment”
- Gather confidential data from your people or Have a third party do it
- Aggregate those results so employees know you canʼt find out exactly who said what.

What you hear may be sobering but itʼs critical to understanding the broader patterns and
reactions and the impact [your micromanaging has] on your team

● Prioritize what matters—and what doesnʼt

“A good manager trains and delegates,” and you canʼt do that if you're taking on
everything—regardless of how important the task is—yourself.

- Start by determining
+ what work is critical for you to be involved in (e.g. strategic planning)
+ what items are less important (e.g. proofreading the presentation).
- Looking at your to-do list “to determine which low-hanging fruit you can pass on to a
team member.”
- You should also highlight the priorities on your list, meaning “the big ticket items where
you truly add value,” and ensure you are “spending most of your energy” on those

Remember “Micromanaging displaces the real work of leaders, which is developing and
articulating a compelling and strategically relevant vision for your team.”

● Talk to your team

Once youʼve determined your priorities, the next step is communicating them to your team:
- “Have a conversation about the things that really matter to you—the things that theyʼll
need to seek your guidance and approval on—so your direct reports can get ahead of
your anxiety,”
 - Tell them how youʼd like to be kept in the loop and how often they should provide
status updates.
“Be explicit with your direct reports about the level of detail you will engage in,”

At the same time, enlist their help in making sure you donʼt fall back into your old
micromanaging ways.
- “Tell them you are trying to work on this”
- Ask targeted questions such as:
+ How can I help you best?
+ Are there things I can do differently?
+ Are our overall objectives clear to you and do you feel you have the support and
resources to accomplish them?

● Step back slowly

Fighting your micromanaging impulses might be hard at first so pull back slowly. You need to
get comfortable, too.

- The acid test of leadership, “is how well the team does when you're gone.”
+ Do a test run on a project that is a bit less urgent and give your team full
accountability and see how it goes
+ Recognize that your way is not the only, or even necessarily, the best way.

- Another way to ease out of micromanaging is to discreetly seek feedback from other
coworkers about how your team is operating
+ Ask a colleague you trust: ‘Howʼs that project going?ʼ
=> The answer will provide valuable information
+ You may feel better knowing that everything is fine, or you may realize you
pulled back too much
=> In the latter case, you need to “find a way [to support the work] that doesnʼt involve
peering over your employeesʼ shoulders.”

● Build trust
Because your team members are used to you not trusting them, they may want to come to you
for approval before taking charge of a project.
- “Acknowledge this is a growth opportunity for the person and say that you know in your
heart of hearts he or she will rise to the challenge,”
=> You're in effect “giving your employee the psychological power to lead.”

Making sure your team members know you trust them and have faith in their abilities is
actually “very simple,”
- Tell them so. Say, ‘I fully trust you can make this decision.ʼ
- Donʼt excessively scrutinize.
- Donʼt insist on being ccʼd on every email.
- Donʼt renege on your vote of confidence.
- “Let them do it and donʼt back pedal and change everything they did.”

And if things donʼt go exactly as youʼd like, try your hardest not to overact.
- Take a breath; go for a walk; do whatever you need to do to come “back from that
agitated micro-managerial moment,”
- After all, does it really matter if the memo isnʼt formatted exactly to your liking? “For
most things, nothing is so bad it canʼt be corrected.”

● Know your employeesʼ limitations

Some people will over-correct by pulling away too much; but itʼs smart to give appropriate
support
- Talk about how you will help them solve problems and how you'll support them even if
you're not deeply involved in a particular project or task.
- At the same time, keeping a closer eye on certain projects or certain employees is
sometimes warranted.
+ If “your report is junior,” or “not yet ready to be trusted,” you will need to keep
close tabs on her work.
+ Similarly, when the deliverable is urgent and high stakes, it may make sense to
intervene or ask to be kept regularly apprised of things.
=> In this case, itʼs helpful if you explain to the person why you are being so hands on.

You should also give feedback to the employee and coach them, so they can complete the task
on their own over time.

Principles to Remember

★ Do:
● Ask yourself why you micromanage and reflect on your need for control
 ● Refine your to do list by prioritizing the tasks and projects that matter most to you
● Talk to your team about how youʼd like to be kept apprised of their progress

★ Donʼt:
● Renege on your vote of confidence—tell your reports you trust them and let them do
their jobs
● Overact when things donʼt go exactly as youʼd like them to— take a breath and figure
out a way to correct the situation if itʼs truly necessary
● Go too far—you donʼt want to become a hands-off boss

Case Study #1: Clarify your priorities

Jordan Fliegel, the founder and CEO, of CoachUp—the Boston- based startup that connects
athletes with private coaches, learned to deal with his micromanaging tendencies after a bad
experience early in the life of his company.

It was fall 2013—CoachUpʼs second year of business. The companyʼs summer interns had
completed a big blogging project, and CoachUpʼs content team was responsible for editing the
posts and tagging them for maximal search engine optimization. Given that the company was
experimenting with blogs for the first time and the fact that Jordan is a formidable writer in his
own right, he says he “felt attached to the project.”

The content team, however, was not moving fast enough on the project. He figured it would be
easier and faster if he did it himself. “It took me three weekends to finish the work.”

When he presented the completed product to his team, his employees responded with a
mixture of annoyance and puzzlement.

“Their reaction was, was this really the most important or high- impact thing you could have
been doing with your time? And, if you really thought this project was that important you
should have told us,” he recalls.

Jordan understood that by completing the project he had, in effect, been doing other
peopleʼs jobs—which is a sure way to “undermine their creativity and drive,” he says.

He now knows to be more explicit about his reasons when heʼs delegating certain tasks. “I
realize that if I want something to get done, I need to explain the context and the return
on investment to the team,” he says. “If thereʼs pushback—meaning that the team disagrees
that it should be a priority—there can be a debate. But I shouldnʼt shy away from saying what
I think needs to get done.’’

He attributes his earlier meddling to his newbie CEO status. “I hadnʼt had a lot of experience
managing people at that point,” he says. “And as the founder, I was used to doing everything
myself. It was hard to let go. When itʼs your business—your baby—you want to be involved.”

Today, Jordan is much more hands-off and tries to focus on “working on the business and not
in it.”

Case Study #2: Explain why youʼre being hands on

Mike Faith, the founder and CEO of Headsets.com, the San Francisco-based headset supplier,
says that sometimes micromanaging can be a necessary part of leadership—especially when
it comes to training new hires. “I've come to the conclusion based on experience that I need to
stay close to new employees early on to give encouragement, correction, and learning,” he
says. “I canʼt let the fear of being called a micromanager prevent me from staying close at
first.”

Mike is explicit about his management style with new recruits. “Itʼs important that they know
what to expect. I tell them ‘I am going to check in with you early and oftenʼ and then I follow
through and do just that. Once they reach a level of confidence and competence, I am more
comfortable pulling back.”

This policy occasionally applies to longtime executives, too. Recently, Mike and his VP of
Marketing embarked on a big new project related to how Headsets.com handles online
advertising. His VP will handle the day-to-day operations of the project, but Mike has a keen
interest in its progress. “I told him that for now, we're going to stay close to each other and
learn as we go. I will be checking in with him daily, and I want him to be checking in with
me,” he says.

Mike told his VP that the constant need for status updates wouldnʼt be required forever. “I told
him that once we get the hang of it and we're hitting our numbers, we'll check in with each
other monthly or just as needed. There is no perfect recipe or perfect formula,” he says.
Mike also offered his support. “I told him that I had confidence he can do it,” he says. “I said:
‘We are going to try our damndest, and Iʼve got your back.”

_______________________________________

5. GOOGLE, DON’T CHOOSE MICROMANAGEMENT

Since the beginning, Google has had a great culture of innovation. Googleʼs founders knew
before they launched that they were entering a highly competitive market segment. At that
time (which feels like another era) AltaVista, Yahoo and others all had well-
known, viable search products. The founders could have assumed that having a smarter search
algorithm would provide an adequate sustainable advantage, but they didnʼt. They knew that
they were entering a fast-paced space where todayʼs king of the hill can be tomorrowʼs
roadkill. How would they be able to innovate faster and better than all of the other firms out
there? Not just the big (and now stodgy) internet firms already out there, but all those up-and-
comers led by a zillion next-gen baby Einsteins? Would they be able to micromanage the vast
tidal wave of creativity that they needed to unleash? No. So how would they keep that
innovation on track? Well, they decided to bet big on a bold new approach. Google decided to
make open information flow a key attribute of their firm.

They treat their talented, principled, creative people like talented, principled, creative
people... not like morons who canʼt be trusted. Google reveals their direction to everyone
who works there. Strategy and priorities are not just available to everyone; everyone is
expected to know what matters to the company. These were published and regularly updated
— with comments and questions just as visible. It is, as I understand it, still available live on
their intranet to every employee regardless of level.

And guess what: In that context, people can be expected to truly know how their
project/product is tied to the strategy. This gives Google a strategic advantage in a two-fold
way:
- First, this expectation that everyone must know the strategy helps them recruit
exceptionally talented technologists and business people. Visionary doers go where they
will have an impact.
- The second advantage comes because open strategy allows decisions to be owned where
they need to be owned. Besides lending clarity, the open strategy culture ups the ante on
all sides to own the commons. When you arm people with clarity and accountability,
alignment naturally happens.
So over the years, talented people came to Google because they had clarity and the power to
create. That led to great innovation that was highly aligned and produced amazing results.
But doing that with 25,000 employees has other challenges. Nowadays, the #1 gripe people
have about Google is that many projects do many things but rarely do they make a dent in the
business itself. Instead, Google is at risk of becoming a modern-day Xerox Parc where the
innovation starts there but goes elsewhere to make money. Thatʼs gotta change. As Rita
McGrath points out in her book on discovery-driven growth, left to their own devices,
employees of most companies will come up with incremental, rather than breakthrough ideas.

In an effort to get his arms around this issue of fostering breakthrough ideas, Mr. Page has
apparently asked for all managers to send in 60-word descriptions of projects. Now, the idea
must be to get clearer about all that is going on, which seems hard to argue with. Perhaps heʼll
even winnow the “thousand flowers blooming” strategy down to create the energy to produce
a small bouquet of jumbo Amaryllis.

This impulse is instinctive. Know more. Make tough trade-offs. Decide things. Thatʼs all stuff
CEOs are expected to do. It shows a certain decisiveness that Wall Street admires. So seeking
more information is just part and parcel of that message.

But itʼs also wrong. Itʼs what a 20th century manager would do. To ask for information to flow
up and down a hierarchical chain of command slows things down. Itʼs old school. As soon as
Larry Page does this, he is putting himself in a position as “Chief of Answers,” a term I used
in my first book to describe leaders who work on being the smartest guy in the room. The
problem with the “Chief of Answers” concept is just this: it makes everyone else the “Tribe
of Doing Things.” It disables rather than enables people to co-create. It moves power away
from the people and towards titled leadership.

And itʼs contra-indicated. Itʼs not the Google Way. Google has hired smart people who can
understand things. Rather than saying “I need to know more,” the 21st century leader says
“hereʼs what you need to know so you can make more decisions.”

Building a culture that invites innovation through distributed decisions and ownership
would look like this:

1. Have a set of criteria for what kind of innovation you want.

The most often used model is one of financial returns (you want to see potential ideas to
penetrate $2B markets) but it can also be about specific markets you want to target, or regions
you want to serve. This will allow people to not only generate ideas, but to kill off many that
donʼt meet criteria.

2. Create a method of investment that lets new ideas ferment and progress, while
steadily getting new resources if milestones are met.

Remember that all early stage innovations need more advice than accountability — but
accountability and scarcity of resources is still crucial in innovation. It forces trade-offs and
progress.

3. Let people ask each other the tough questions by creating bake-off sessions.

Create forums for people to present notions to one another and let them vote on which ideas
are bigger opportunities than others. Let them group together many projects, to make them
bigger. Let your organization get smarter and co-own the outcomes.

________________________________________

6. STOP BEING MICROMANAGED

No one likes a boss who excessively scrutinizes work and constantly checks in. Not only is
this micromanaging behavior annoying, it can stunt your professional growth. If you have a
controlling boss, you donʼt have to suffer. By assuaging a micromanagerʼs stress, you may be
able to secure the autonomy you need to get your work done and advance your career.

What the Experts Say

Micromanagers abound in todayʼs organizations but typically, it has nothing to do with

performance. “Itʼs more about your bossesʼ level of internal anxiety and need to control
situations than anything about you,” The bad news is fighting back wonʼt work. If you rebel
against it, you will just get more of it

You canʼt change the way your boss leads, but you can change the way you follow using the
these tactics:

● Evaluate the behavior: All controlling bosses are not cut from the same cloth.
 - On one end of the spectrum you have managers who have very high standards who like
some degree of control.
+ They may regularly send you back to rework something that doesnʼt measure up.
+ They pay a great deal of attention to detail and exercise some degree of control
but they donʼt stifle those who work for them.
+ In fact, you may be able to learn a great deal from them.

- At the other end of the spectrum are people describes as “pathological micromanagers
who need to make it clear to themselves and others that they are in charge.”
+ These are the bosses that give you little to no autonomy, insist they be involved
in every detail of your work, and are more concerned about specifics, such as
font size, rather than the big picture.
+ Micromanagers are obsessed with control. You know you are working with one
if he or she gets involved in a level of detail that is way below his or her pay
grade

● Donʼt fight it
- Itʼs counterproductive to rail against micromanagement. If you push back in one way or
another — passively or aggressively — your manager may conclude you canʼt be trusted and
get more involved.
- It may be tempting to complain but it is not advisable.

- Instead, try to understand what is causing your bossʼs behavior:

+ Is he under immense pressure?
+ Is this his intuitive way of managing?
+ Does the company culture encourage and reward this kind of behavior?
=> By recognizing the underlying reasons, you can figure out how to respond.

● Increase trust:
Micromanagement is usually “based on a general view that the worldʼs standards are not up to
what they should be.”
- You therefore need to make a conscious and honest effort to earn your managerʼs trust
by succeeding in the dimensions that he cares about.
- You absolutely, positively must deliver and deliver in a way that doesnʼt increase your
bossʼs stress. In fact, identify things that reduce your bossʼs stress

● Make upfront agreements

Another tactic is to talk to your boss — before a project starts — about how she will be
involved. “Try to agree on standards and basic approach,”
- Explain what you think the ideal plan of action is and then ask for her input.
+ “Be sure you understand upfront what the guiding principles are for the work —
not just the tactical elements.
+ These principles are what you should be discussing with your boss
- For example, if you are working on an internal marketing campaign
+ Be sure to talk about the message you want to send, not the font you should use.
+ If the discussion becomes overly focused on detail, try to bring it back to the
principles and approach you agreed on. Flattery can also work.
+ Remind your boss that she is better off not getting involved in the minutiae
because her time and effort are more valuable to the big picture.

● Keep your boss in the loop

Remember that micromanagers are often motivated by anxiety.“They are nervous about
anyone else being able to do things as well or in the way they would do them,”
- You can often address that concern by keeping your manager informed of the projectʼs
progress.
+ You can schedule regular check-ins that help her feel part of the process.
+ Or you can send unprompted emails that share important information.
- If she has made it clear that she wants to know about the details, donʼt hesitate to get
specific. While annoying now, it may save you the effort of redoing work later on.
- Most importantly, if you have questions or need clarification, donʼt wait until the last
minute. That will only amplify her worry.

● Give feedback, only if appropriate

Telling a micromanager that you donʼt appreciate his controlling behavior may only trigger
more of it. But some well-meaning managers may be open to hearing your input.
- Try to catch your boss in a moment of openness
- Using the time in a scheduled performance review.
- Try something like, “Look, I like working with you but there is one thing that would
make things better.”
- You can also involve a trusted third party, such as an HR manager, who can help you get
your point across.
Be careful though, if you have a manager who enjoys showing she has the power and you
donʼt, this could backfire.

If none of the above strategies work, ask yourself: Do I really want to work here?
=> If itʼs pathological, you should consider transferring to another part of the company or
finding another job

Principles to Remember
★ Do:
➢ Do everything you can to gain the micromanagerʼs trust
➢ Know what motivates and worries your boss and try to assuage her concerns
➢ Provide regular and detailed updates so your boss is apprised of your progress
★ Don’t :
➢ Label anyone who exercises a degree of control as a micromanager
➢ Defy the micromanager — that often triggers the behavior you are trying to avoid
➢ Try to tell a boss that she is overly controlling unless you know she may be open to
hearing it

Case Study #1: Keep the micromanager informed

Harry Barkley* worked as a fundraiser for an Austin-based non- profit for four and half years
when Sandra came on as his boss. He was considered the office expert when it came to
fundraising and his coworkers regularly turned to him for advice. While he expected some
changes when Sandra took over, he did not anticipate sheʼd be such a micromanager. “She
wanted to see everything I produced and approve it before I moved on to the next task, right
down to the email responses I sent to donors who had questions about what types of in-kind
donations we took,” he says. Sandraʼs second- guessing even extended to issues like the
amount of postage needed for mailings and how to load stationary into the office printer. “No
matter what task I was performing and what my level of experience was with it, I always felt
as if every aspect of my work was considered ‘suspectʼ until it had been verified,” he says.

Harry attempted to keep Sandraʼs behavior at bay by keeping her fully informed. He sent her
regular updates on projects: once a day for high priority items and once a week for ongoing
initiatives. He kept the notes brief, listing the task he had just completed and his proposed next
step, which was always something he could complete before he sent the next update so she
could see clear progress. This approach eased Sandraʼs anxiety.
However, the constant updates added to Harryʼs workload. “The pile-on meant that my work
suffered and that things werenʼt done as fast as Sandra was expecting them to be done,” he
says. He was concerned that Sandra wouldnʼt be open to hearing how her behavior was
affecting his work so he talked with the HR manager, who agreed to host a meeting. As Harry
suspected, Sandra was unreceptive. In fact, she defended her actions.

=> Harry ultimately left the organization.

Case Study #2: Be attentive to her concerns

In 2006, Marcy Berke* worked for an insurance company with offices throughout the US. Her
bossʼs boss was a woman named Barbara*, who was responsible for 10 agencies in her region.
Barbara was passionate about efficiency. At one point, she asked all of the agents in her region
to produce a time report, accounting for the number of minutes each of them spent on various
tasks each day. “She was concerned with keeping her own production figures up, and
burnishing her image with senior management,” Marcy says.

Marcy recognized what mattered most to Barbara. “If I were heading up a project, I would
make certain to email Barbara, early and often, with any questions I might have about what her
expectations were, and give her an outline of what my team was working on and the
anticipated date of completion,” she says. If her team was having difficulty meeting the
deadline for any reason, she would let Barbara know as soon as possible, providing both a
reason and a revised end date. As much as possible, Marcy supplied the information Barbara
needed without being asked first, so that Barbara could learn to trust her.

Since Marcy knew that Barbara was so preoccupied with time, she arrived at least 2 or 3
minutes early for meetings. When Marcy needed to set up a meeting with Barbara she would
make the request by email, clearly stating the reason for the meeting, listing the questions she
would be asking and indicating how long the meeting would last.

Above all else, she tried to keep out of Barbaraʼs line of sight. “As I didnʼt report to Barbara
directly, I took pains to avoid becoming any more visible to her than I needed to be, and
frequently used my direct supervisor to run interference,” she says. This approach worked well
for Marcy.

=> She was able to thrive at the company for four years, despite Barbaraʼs micromanagement,
before she left to start her own firm.
 _____________________________________________

7.1. MACROMANAGEMENT IS JUST AS BAD AS MICROMANAGEMENT

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I wanted to just dive in and start talking about some of the
traps that you described in the book that managers fall into that lead to waste or what you call
in the book, “action without traction.” One of these was macromanagement. And I thought it
would make sense to start there, because we've heard so much about micromanagement. But
whatʼs macromanagement?

TANYA MENON: Yeah, so when we talk in this book about macromanagement– I guess itʼs a
catchy term and all that– but what we were very interested in is that, maybe itʼs for cultural
reasons, we have very much overemphasized micro management. And micro management, as
everybody knows, is the equivalent of a helicopter parent in the workplace. So the manager is
watching your every move, monitoring you. And the research shows that people just despise
this.

And so when we talk about it in the book– thereʼs a lot of cultural reasons for this. As
Americans, one of the things that we say is we want to be free. We want to be independent. We
donʼt want to be watched over by other people. And so then many managers say, well, if
micromanagement is so bad well let me flip over to the other side. And they go a little bit
extreme as they do so. And they find themselves in the macro management trap. And the
macro management trap is being too hands off, delegating, empowering too much.

And one of the things we observed in our teaching, in our research, and in the classroom is that
students have been sold, and managers have been sold, a whole lot of information about
empowerment, and participation, and giving people simply freedom. And it was costing them.
It was frustrating them, because what they ended up with was chaos instead.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So I guess some people would say maybe they worry
about not being hands-on enough with a team thatʼs inexperienced or a team of so-called
B-players. But what if you have really talented people? Iʼve seen a lot of advice out there just
saying, hey, if youʼve hired the best people, you should just stay out of the way.

TANYA MENON: This is exactly the place where we start our chapter on macro management
from. And so with this particular idea, it sounds great. All you do is the interview, hire the
right people, and you're done. Let the magic happen. The brilliant people are just going to
start coming together, coordinating their work almost spontaneously, and you can step back,
relax, do your other things– you have plenty of other stuff to do– and creativity is going to
happen and the groupʼs going to be great. And what we end up starting this chapter with is a
few stories about what they call super groups. And supergroups are exactly the types of groups
that you talk about– superstars. You bring the best of the best together. So the classic example
of this was the Olympic team, the dream team Olympic team–

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: The NBA All-Star Olympic team, yeah.

TANYA MENON: Absolutely, and so some of these dream teams have truly been a dream. So
if you have Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, in 1992 Larry Bird, all of them it was a dream.
But in 2004 in Athens, they had LeBron. They had Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson. And these
were the best of the best in the world. And they lost to very small countries Puerto Rico,
Lithuania, Argentina. And these were supposedly the best in the world. How could this
happen? And so one of the things we talk about in the book is that this is something that
happens over, and over, and over again. And so you bring together superstar musicians, you
bring together superstars in the world of finance. The long-term capital story by Roger
Lowenstein documents this in terms of bringing Nobel Laureates together. And what happens
in this situation is, again, they tank. How could this happen? And so thatʼs where we start. And
the answers are really predictable as well.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: What ends up happening?

TANYA MENON: What we talk about in the book is just usual, same old disorganized
committee. And these are so understructured. There is not a single individual oftentimes
whoʼs setting up norms, setting up roles. There may be too many people. I've been on
committees where there were 25 people in the room. Why do you need 25 people in the room
to do anything? And some of them are listening in, some of them I donʼt even know why
they're there. And so we– I donʼt even know who they are.

We look at all of this waste. So the wasting of time occurs so much more egregiously, very
often, than the wasting of money. And when we use the analogy in the book, you bring
together a whole bunch of musical instruments and say, now play. Youʼre going to get noise.
Youʼre going to get chaos. Itʼs going to be cacophonous. And thatʼs what you end up seeing in
these kinds of environments. And so you have to help people know what is the instrument they
should play, what is the right time to play it, and how they can do all of this. And so these are
just some metaphors and analogies that I think are very helpful, because weʼve been oversold
on this idea of just be free. You can do whatever you want. People are going to create magic
together. And itʼs just not the case. And people at work know this, but sometimes as leaders
we just want to believe in this delegation, and empowerment, and all of this.

*
SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So what might be some signs that you are macro
managing even if you do have a team of good people? What should you be on the lookout for
as a sign that maybe youʼve gone past empowerment to just not doing much as a manager at
all?

TANYA MENON: So the signs are very telltale. And so, for example, people donʼt know their
roles. And so if you bring all the superstars together, thereʼs no supporting cast. So if people
arenʼt clear about who knows what and how everybodyʼs going to be contributing to this team,
you get action with the traction. You get people doing things that they shouldnʼt be doing,
speaking out about areas where they donʼt have expertise. So that would be one sign where
people arenʼt clear about their roles.

Another sign is conflict. You bring a bunch of superstars together in a room and you expect
everybody to get along really well. Well, they all have big egos. And sometimes groups find
themselves in really difficult situations, and they need a leader to help them work through that,
to manage through that.

And the most telltale and obvious sign of macro management is when you think you've been
clear in terms of communicating what you want out of that group or that team and they come
up with a completely different product than what you expected. Very likely they were
floundering around for months not really knowing what to do, how to do it, and werenʼt
getting that direction.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: If you are someone who, then, has heard that and then said
to themselves, OK, well that could be me, how could you as a manager start to turn the ship
around. Because your team is probably used to a lot of freedom at this point. How can you
sort of reset expectations with them or start to introduce more active management?

TANYA MENON: So I think that what you said right there itʼs really hard– if youʼve given
people a lot of freedom and you have to start pulling the reins back in. But that kind of thing
that weʼre talking about here is not necessarily what the micro manager is doing in terms of
watching over people, and monitoring them, and checking up on their work. We are giving
very specific recommendations in terms of how you set up teams.
So in terms of helping people see whoʼs the expert at what, what are the roles, what can I do,
how can I contribute. Helping people figure out basic norms, basic ground rules, even having a
simple conversation in terms of how are we going to get work done together as a group, how
are we going to deal with conflict, when is it appropriate for us to speak out about this
particular situation, and how should we disagree on particular problems. And so those kinds of
questions– sometime is itʼs conversation about these ground rules, basic norms, that we never
did up front and we let people kind of work freely without having that in place.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: What if you're not the manager of this team but you work
on the team. If your boss is a macro manager, are there some ways that you can either
impose order on the team yourself or should you just go to your boss and try to have them be
more involved? What should you do if youʼre on the team?

TANYA MENON:
Yeah, itʼs a great question, because so many of us struggle with managers like this. And I've
talked to so many of my executives and my students, and they struggle with how to deal with
this situation. How do I deal with this person, this problem? And I think thereʼs a couple
approaches that you can do.

I think one is simply clarifying with the boss how they are thinking about the work and maybe
even trying to get templates and all of these ways to impose structure on the work itself.

But the fact is thereʼs certain people who think at a very high level. Theyʼre really not great
with the details. And, in fact, they may even look down on those who are so detail-oriented.
And so they're really good at the big picture. Their strength is talking high level philosophy.
And so one of the things that I think is really important at this point is– you said it– which is
that the order is imposed by the group itself.

And so, oftentimes, there is this structure that emerges in a group where you have a CEO-type
of person, which would be the main boss whoʼs doing the inspiration side of it, and someone
who fills the gap thatʼs left behind as an implementer, whoʼs more like a chief operations
officer, someone whoʼs really good at the details and maybe translating for the boss so that the
structure comes in place. And so thatʼs what happens on good groups and good teams where
people can fill in these roles. But very often nothing like this happens. The structure is this
amorphous thing. And if you havenʼt done the work to create it, people are just going with the
flow. And you donʼt have that kind of a rational fix thatʼs put in place. But thatʼs what we
hope would occur in such a situation.

_______________________________________

7.2. UNDER-MANAGEMENT
IS THE FLIP SIDE OF MICROMANAGEMENT
AND IT’S A PROBLEM TOO

Under-management: weak performance management, a tendency to avoid conflicts with

employees, and generally lackluster accountability.
=> There’s just not quite enough management being done—and results often suffer as a result.
But under-management can often fly under the radar because the managers who have these
tendencies aren’t necessarily incompetent; on the contrary, they often know their business
well, are good collaborators, and are well-liked.

Take Jamie, a product development manager …

There are several intertwined causes behind this phenomenon.

- Too strong a desire to be liked can get in the way of fully productive management
because it can make you reluctant to do the things you need to do.
- Conflict avoidance is a related element of the equation; conflict is inherently stressful
and unpleasant, and it’s easy to think that if one can get by with less of it, so much the
better!

Pushing your people and holding them accountable for strong performance won’t win you any
popularity contests, and it requires some level of comfort with conflict. But while maintaining
positive relationships with your own employees is a good thing, over the long run your priority
is to deliver results.

If you think you might be under-managing, here are three tangible steps to take. Though it
takes practice these are primarily issues of will, rather than ability: you need to commit to
them first.

➢ Don’t be a conflict-avoider. If you’re going to succeed in management, you need to

become more effective in handling conflict. Become highly conscious of conflict and
 not ducking it. Most people don’t like dealing with conflict, but it is a vital part of the
management role

➢ View goal-setting as mission-critical. If you’re not delivering the results you need to,
which is the risk at the heart of under-management, first make sure the goals your
employees need to achieve are well-conceived and clear.
- Most managers don’t spend nearly enough time on goal setting; too often we
approach it as a nettlesome bureaucratic exercise .
- Thoughtful goals that are agreed to by employees can be a manager’s best friend
because you can manage them: they become a roadmap to guide your work with
your team all year.

➢ “Is this work the absolute best you can do?” This is a simple but powerful question.
Asking it when someone hands in an assignment will make them aware that they’re
being held accountable.
- It’s also a good question to ask yourself if you suspect you are under-managing as
an exercise in self- accountability.
+ Is this work the absolute best you can do?
+ Are you doing all you can to set appropriate goals, hold people accountable
to them, and deliver the results you need to?

Ultimately, rising above under-management is the proverbial win-win situation:

better for your organization—and for your career.

_______________________________________

8. 4 REASONS GOOD EMPLOYEES LOSE THEIR MOTIVATION

Motivation — the willingness to get the job done by starting rather than procrastinating,
persisting in the face of distractions, and investing enough mental effort to succeed —
accounts for 40% of the success of team projects. Yet managers are often at a loss as to how to
effectively motivate uninspired employees.

Carefully assessing the nature of the motivational failure — before taking action — is crucial.
Applying the wrong strategy causes motivation to falter further.

Here are the four motivation traps and each targeted strategy to help your employees
escape them:
 ➢ Trap 1: Values Mismatch: I don’t care enough to do this.

- How this trap ensnares employees: When a task doesn’t connect with or contribute to
something workers value, they won’t be motivated to do it.

- How to help an employee out of this trap:

+ Find out what the employee cares about and connect it to the task
+ Engage in probing conversation and perspective-taking to identify what your
employee cares about and how that value links with the task.

There are different types of values which you can draw out:

● Interest value, or how intellectually compelling a task is

=> Find connections between the task and the things that the employee finds
intrinsically interesting.

● Identity value, or how central the skill set demanded by a task is to an employee’s
self-conception.
=> Point out how the job at hand draws on a capacity that they consider an important
part of their identity or role — such as engaging in teamwork, analytical problem
solving or working under pressure.

● Importance value is how important a task is.

=> Identify ways to highlight how crucial the task is to achieve the team’s or company’s
mission.

● Utility value is a measure of the cost of achieving (and avoiding) the task versus the
larger benefits of achieving.
=> Find ways to show how completing this particular task contributes to the employee’s
larger goals and avoids blowback. Making clear to them the future benefit its
completion will yield or the problems it will prevent.

When an employee doesn’t value a task at the outset and the values mismatch may not be
apparent, a manager’s best bet is to try to appeal to multiple values. One or more of them
may resonate with the employee.
 ➢ Trap 2: Lack of Self-Efficacy: I don’t think I’m able to do this.

- How this trap ensnares employees: When workers believe they lack the capacity to
carry out a task, they won’t be motivated to do it.

- How to help an employee out of this trap:

Build the employee’s sense of confidence and competence. This can be done in several ways:

+ Point out times in the past when they’ve surmounted similar challenges.
+ Share examples of others just like them who overcame the same challenges in a
way the employee can do, too.
+ Build their sense of self- efficacy with progressively more difficult challenges, or
by breaking down the current task into manageable chunks.

Often, employees who lack self-efficacy are convinced that succeeding at a particular task will
require the investment of far more time and energy than they can afford.
● Explain that they have the ability to succeed but may have misjudged the effort required
● Urge them to invest more effort while expressing confidence that additional effort will
lead to success.
● Offer some extra support as work gets underway.

Occasionally employees have the opposite motivation trap. They may lack motivation because
they feel, in a sense, overqualified. Employees with inflated self-efficacy pose one of the more
difficult motivational management challenges. Overconfident people often make mistakes,
even as they’re certain they know what they are doing. When they err, they insist that it’s the
criteria for judging success on the task that is flawed, so they take no responsibility for their
failures.
● Avoid challenging their ability or expertise.
● Demonstrate to them that they have misjudged the requirements of the task
● Convince them that it requires a different approach.

➢ Trap 3: Disruptive Emotions: I’m too upset to do this.

- How this trap ensnares employees: When workers are consumed with negative
emotions such as anxiety, anger, or depression, they won’t be motivated to carry out a
task.
 - How to help an employee out of this trap:
+ Begin in a setting where you cannot be overheard.
+ Tell them you want to understand why they are upset and engage in active
listening.
+ Do not agree or disagree. Be nonjudgmental by asking what the employee
believes is causing them to be upset.
+ Briefly summarize what they said back to them and ask if you have understood.
- If they say “no,” apologize and tell them you are listening carefully and to
“please try again.”
- When people feel they have been understood, their negative emotions
soften a bit.
+ It may be useful to tell them that you want to consider what they told you and
schedule a time the next day to discuss => This often helps the person get more
control over their emotions.

Keep in mind that anger is the belief that someone or something external to the person has
caused or will cause them harm.
● Ask an employee feeling angry to try to reframe their belief about the external as
resulting from ignorance or accident, not intention.
● Suggest ways they could invest the effort to eliminate the threat.
Depression sometimes results from employees’ belief that they are internally inadequate in
some way that they cannot control.
● Suggest that they are not “broken” or “inadequate” but only need to invest more effort
in effective strategies.
● Offer your help.
=> Anxious or fearful employees often respond positively to assistance with their
approach to the task as well as to reminders that they are capable and can succeed with
more effort.

If the emotions do not soften with time and effort or if they spring from outside the workplace,
for example, it may be advisable to help the employee access counseling.

➢ Trap 4. Attribution Errors: I don’t know what went wrong with this.
 ➢ How this trap ensnares employees: When employees can’t accurately identify the
reason for their struggles with a task, or when they attribute their struggles to a reason
beyond their control, they won’t be motivated to do it.

➢ How to help an employee out of this trap:

- Help the employee think clearly about the cause of their struggles with a task.
- Attribution errors are often to blame when employees seem to be finding excuses
not to carry out a task (calling in sick, pleading overcommitment or “not enough
time,” trying to foist the task on colleagues).
- Helping the employee identify exactly why the task seems insurmountable can
help them move past such avoidance.
- If they identify a cause that’s out of their control (blaming other people, for
example, or a flaw in themselves that can’t be fixed)
=> suggest other causes that are under their control
+ Adopt a new strategy
+ Apply a greater level of planning.

★ With each of these four motivation traps, the trick is to think more comprehensively about
what stops employees from initiating, persisting, and putting in mental effort. The research
suggests that managers can do more to diagnose the motivation problems of employees.
=> When motivation goes off the rails, identifying exactly which trap has ensnared
your employees — and applying just the right targeted intervention — can get things
moving again.

____________________________________

9.1. HOW COMPANY CULTURE SHAPES EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION

Business leaders believe a strong organizational culture is critical to success, yet culture tends
to feel like some magic force that few know how to control. So most executives manage it
according to their intuition. We’ve found that answering three questions can help transform
culture from a mystery to a science:

How does culture drive performance?

Why we work determines how well we work.

The six main reasons people work are: play, purpose, potential, emotional pressure, economic
pressure, and inertia.
The work of many researchers has found that the first three motives tend to increase
performance, while the latter three hurt it. So the goal is to maximize the good motives,
while minimizing the bad ones.

● Play: is when you are motivated by the work itself. You work because you enjoy it. Play
is our learning instinct, and it’s tied to curiosity, experimentation, and exploring
challenging problems.
● Purpose: is when the direct outcome of the work fits your identity. You work because
you value the work’s impact.
● Potential: is when the outcome of the work benefits your identity. In other words, the
work enhances your potential.

➢ Since these three motives are directly connected to the work itself in some way, you can
think of them as direct motives. They will improve performance to different degrees.
Indirect motives, however, tend to reduce it.

● Emotional pressure: is when you work because some external force threatens your
identity. If you’ve ever used guilt to compel a loved one to do something, you’ve
inflicted emotional pressure. Fear, peer pressure, and shame are all forms of emotional
pressure. When you do something to avoid disappointing yourself or others, you’re
acting on emotional pressure.
=> This motive is completely separate from the work itself.
● Economic pressure: is when an external force makes you work. You work to gain a
reward or avoid a punishment.
=> Now the motive is not only separate from the work itself, it is also separate from
your identity.
● Inertia: is when the motive is so far removed from the work and your identity that you
can’t identify why you’re working. It is still a motive because you’re still actually doing
the activity, you just can’t explain why.

➢ These indirect motives tend to reduce performance because:

- You’re no longer thinking about the work—you’re thinking about the
disappointment, or the reward, or why you’re bothering to do it at all.
- You’re distracted, and you might not even care about the work itself or the quality
of the outcome.
We found that a high-performing culture maximizes the play, purpose, and potential felt by its
people, and minimizes the emotional pressure, economic pressure, and inertia. This is known
as creating total motivation (ToMo).

What is culture worth?

Creating a business case for culture isn’t impossible. While it is difficult to measure whether
someone is being creative, proactive, or resilient in the moment, it’s actually not difficult to
calculate total motivation.

In other words, cultures that inspired more play, purpose, and potential, and less emotional
pressure, economic pressure, and inertia, produced better customer outcomes. And the impact
isn’t limited to customer satisfaction ( performing, sales, ..)

What processes in an organization affect culture?

Culture is the set of processes in an organization that affects the total motivation of its people.
In a high-performing culture, those processes maximize total motivation.

● There is no silver bullet. Many processes affect people’s ToMo at work.

 ● The next most sensitive element is the identity of an organization, which includes its
mission and behavioral code.
- so that employees can see the purpose of their work.
- so the people making decisions can see how their work makes a difference
- to acknowledge how much they can do for their customers, for their community and
society—rather than how much money the company has made.

● The third most sensitive element is the career ladder in an organization.

- Recently, many companies have concluded that their system of evaluating their people,
which drives the promotion process, tends to destroy performance.
- Systems where employees are stack-ranked or rated against each other will increase
emotional and economic pressure, reducing total motivation and thus performance.
=> As a result, companies are moving away from performance review systems that foster
unhealthy competition.

Culture is an ecosystem. The elements of culture interact with and reinforce each other.
- If you don’t believe in what you’re doing, the commission becomes your motive.
=> That’s low- ToMo.
- If you do believe in what you’re doing, the commission is gravy. It may even help you
track your progress, increasing play.
=> That’s high-ToMo.

What leaders can do

Culture is the operating system of an organization.Even without redesigning processes,

however, team leaders can start improving the total motivation of their employees by:

● Holding a reflection huddle with your team once a week:

- Play: What did I learn this week?
- Purpose: What impact did I have this week?
- Potential: What do I want to learn next week?
● Explaining the why behind the work of your team.
- For customers/ community/ society/…
- Not for the company/ the boss/…
● Considering how you’ve designed your team’s roles.
 - Does everyone have a space to play? Think about where people should be free to
experiment and make that clear.
- Ask if everyone has the opportunity to witness the impact of their work, and think
about what might help them build a stronger purpose.
- Find out where each team member would like to be in two years — and come up
with a plan to help their reach their potential.

A great culture is not easy to build — it’s why high performing cultures are such a powerful
competitive advantage. Yet organizations that build great cultures are able to meet the
demands of the fast-paced, customer-centric, digital world we live in. Leaders have to treat
culture building as an engineering discipline, not a magical one.

___________________________________________

9.2. WHAT MASLOW’S HIERARCHY

WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT MOTIVATION

Three universal psychological needs: autonomy, relatedness, and competence.

Autonomy is people’s need to perceive that they have choices, that what they are doing is of
their own volition, and that they are the source of their own actions. To promote autonomy:

● Frame goals and timelines:

- As essential information to assure a person’s success
- Rather than as dictates or ways to hold people accountable.
● Refrain from incentivizing people through competitions and games.
Few people have learned the skill of shifting the reason why they’re competing from an
external one (winning a prize or gaining status) to a higher-quality one (an opportunity
to fulfill a meaningful goal).
● Don’t apply pressure to perform. Sustained peak performance is a result of people
acting because they choose to — not because they feel they have to.

Relatedness is people’s need to care about and be cared about by others, to feel connected to
others without concerns about ulterior motives, and to feel that they are contributing to
something greater than themselves. To deepen relatedness:

● Validate the exploration of feelings in the workplace.

 - Be willing to ask people how they feel about an assigned project or goal and
listen to their response.
- All behavior may not be acceptable, but all feelings are worth exploring.
● Take time to facilitate the development of people’s values at work
- Help them align those values with their goals.
- It is impossible to link work to values if individuals don’t know what their values
are.
● Connect people’s work to a noble purpose.

Competence is people’s need to feel effective at meeting every-day challenges and

opportunities, demonstrating skill over time, and feeling a sense of growth and flourishing. To
develop people’s competence:

● Make resources available for learning.

- What message does it send about values for learning and developing competence
when training budgets are the first casualty of economic cutbacks?
● Set learning goals — not just the traditional results-oriented and outcome goals.
● At the end of each day, instead of asking, “What did you achieve today?” ask
- “What did you learn today?
- How did you grow today in ways that will help you and others tomorrow?”

Unlike Maslow’s needs, these three basic needs are foundational to all human beings and
our ability to flourish.

The exciting message to leaders is that when the three basic psychological needs are satisfied
in the workplace
- People experience the day-to-day high-quality motivation that fuels employee work
passion —
- All the inherent benefits that come from actively engaged individuals at work.
To take advantage of the science requires shifting your leadership focus from:
“What can I give people to motivate them?” to
“How can I facilitate people’s satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness, and competence?”

*An Example:
- Join others who are passionate about reducing their carbon footprint for a fun and
interactive training session on November 15. (Relatedness)
 - Read the attached manifesto and take a quick quiz to see what you learned by November
18. (Competence)
- Send us your story about what you are doing at work to be environmentally responsible
by November 14. (Autonomy, competence, and relatedness)

You can choose any or all three options (Autonomy) Let us know your preference(s) by email
(Autonomy) by October 31 or stop by our table at the all-company Halloween party
(Relatedness). If you choose to opt out of all three choices (Autonomy), please tell us what we
can do to appeal more directly to your values around corporate social responsibility
(Relatedness).

Don’t underestimate your people’s capacity — indeed, their longing — to experience

high-quality motivation at work anytime and anywhere.

______________________________________

10.1. A BETTER WAY TO RECOGNIZE YOUR EMPLOYEES

Recognition is fundamental to the engagement and retention of top talent and the profitability
of our organizations. In addition, employees are more confident, feel better informed, offer
more discretionary effort, and are less likely to quit.

New technique to their management repertoire: Reflective recognition is an inquiry-based

approach where an individual or the group is invited to reflect on and share what they are
proud of and why.

Limitations to typical approaches: We can only recognize what we see, observe, or learn
about from others and our recognition focuses on what we appreciate, which is not always
what others want to be appreciated for.

Many employees want to be acknowledged for all the work they are doing that no one sees.
The long hours, fielding difficult customer calls, navigating complex technical issues, moving
mountains to meet deadlines, and doing it all on top of their lives outside of work.

And then there are the people on our teams that no matter how much they accomplish, how
much we recognize them, they struggle to slow down long enough to celebrate their progress,
often driving them to burnout.
If we want to help our people stay present to progress and make sure our people feel
recognized for the things we don’t see, reflective recognition will help with both.

Putting Reflective Recognition into Action

Reflective recognition
- Gives you, the leader, a window into what matters most to another person
- Helping employees get present to their own progress and accomplishments.
- When employees stop and reflect on their own achievements, how they’ve tackled
challenges, and how they’ve made progress
=> It is great for engagement
Research shows that when we make progress towards goals that matter to us, we feel
motivated to continue. Reflecting on even small wins can motivate employees to get
more done.
- It is extremely simple, requires no preparation, costs nothing, and makes a world of
difference for both parties.

There are three steps in reflective recognition

➢ Invite them to share.

The first step is to empower your employees to share what they are proud of and why
(doesn’t need to happen as a separate, focused meeting).

- We haven’t spoken in a while, what have you been working on recently that you are
proud of?
- What do you want to be acknowledged for?
- What are you working on that’s exciting you?
- What has been the hardest part of your job lately and how have you been navigating it?

Note that the first time you try this with your employee, don’t be surprised if they look
concerned or suspicious of why you are asking. They may be thinking, “Did you just attend
leadership training or something?” But here’s a way to mitigate those reactions. You could
preface your question by saying, “I recently read an article that explained how we often don’t
see most of the work our people do every day and it got me thinking that I would love to learn
more about what you’re proud of that I don’t see.”

( =))) lmao )
After you ask, some people will take your invitation to share and run with it, others might give
you a standard answer or even shy away from saying anything. And this is where the next step
comes in.

➢ Probe positively.

We have a tendency to minimize our accomplishments and maximize our shortcomings 🙁

You can help people dig into their achievements and uncover together what it took for them to
do what they did

- If they respond with “I don’t know” try following up with questions that help them
reflect on what they have done.
- Use positive probing to draw their attention to their own effort and progress.
+ How were you able to do what you did?
+ What did it take to make it happen?
+ What did you learn in the process?

As they are sharing — and they will likely reveal what is most important to them — listen for
the barrier they overcame, the sacrifices they made, the struggles they worked through, to do
all they did.

➢ Reflect back.

It is time to reflect back on what you heard. “Thank you for all you have been doing, I had no
idea you had worked through all that,” or “Thank you for sharing, that is amazing.”

It is important to reflect back in more detail to show them you understand what they have been
working on and amplify what they have done.
“Alia, I knew the training program you put together was amazing, but I had no idea
everything you had been doing behind the scenes to make this happen. From the curriculum
design, to organizing the filming and editing of all the content, to the thought you put into

😈
rolling this out to all our stores is extraordinary. And doing all of this on top of your life
outside of work. Thank you for everything you have been doing.”
★ Reflective recognition is a simple way to empower your people to share what they are
proud of and why. Building it into each of your one-on-ones, and team meetings, people

🥳
will start coming ready to share and, you may just build a culture of recognition and
celebration where good work is validated, and employees feel valued.

_____________________________________________________

10.2. MOTIVATING EMPLOYEES IS NOT ABOUT

CARROTS OR STICKS
( it’s about money)

Leaders are encouraged to rely on the carrot versus stick approach for motivation, where the
carrot is a reward for compliance and the stick is a consequence for noncompliance.

Why not consider another way to motivate employees?

Embraces the key concept that motivation is less about employees doing great work and more
about employees feeling great about their work. The better employees feel about their work,
the more motivated they remain over time.

➢ Share context and provide relevance. There is no stronger motivation for employees than
an understanding that their work matters and is relevant to someone or something other
than a financial statement. To motivate your employees, start by sharing context about the
work you’re asking them to do.
- What are we doing as an organization and as a team?
- Why are we doing it?
- Who benefits from our work and how?
- What does success look like for our team and for each employee?
- What role does each employee play in delivering on that promise?
- Employees are motivated when their work has relevance.

➢ Anticipate roadblocks to enable progress. Challenges can materially impact motivation.

Be proactive in identifying and addressing them.
- What might make an employee’s work difficult or cumbersome?
- What can you do to ease the burden?
- What roadblocks might surface?
- How can you knock them down?
 - How can you remain engaged just enough to see trouble coming and pave the way for
success?

Employees are motivated when they can make progress without unnecessary interruption
and undue burdens.

➢ Recognize contributions and show appreciation.

Your commitment to recognizing and acknowledging contributions so that employees feel
appreciated and valued is really powerful .
- What milestones have been achieved?
- What unexpected or exceptional results have been realized?
- Who has gone beyond the call of duty to help a colleague or meet a deadline?
- Who has provided great service or support to a customer in crisis?
- Who “walked the talk” on your values in a way that sets an example for others and
warrants recognition?

Employees are motivated when they feel appreciated and recognized for their contributions.

➢ Check in to assess your own motivation.

Employees are very attuned to whether leaders have a genuine connection to the work. If
you’re not engaged and enthusiastic about your company, your team, or the work you do, it’s
unlikely that you’ll be a great motivator for others.
- What aspects of your role do you enjoy?
- What makes you proud to lead your team?
- What impact can you and your team have on others both inside and outside the
organization?
- How can you adapt your role to increase your energy and enthusiasm?

Employees feel motivated when their leaders are motivated.

★ The bottom line is: Don’t rely on outdated methods and tricks to motivate
employees.
- Talk with your team about the relevance of the work they do every day.
- Be proactive in identifying and solving problems for your employees.
- Recognize employee contributions in specific, meaningful ways on a regular basis.
- Connect with your own motivation, and share it freely with your team.
- Put away the carrots and sticks and have meaningful conversations instead.
 ____________________________________

11.1. DOES MONEY REALLY AFFECT MOTIVATION?

Pay alone is not sufficient. (true true true)

Does money make our jobs more enjoyable?

Or can higher salaries actually demotivate us?

● Does money engage employees?

- The association between salary and job satisfaction is very weak.

- The correlation between pay and pay satisfaction was only marginally higher
=> People’s satisfaction with their salary is mostly independent of their actual salary.
There is no significant difference in employee engagement by pay level.

➢ Money does not buy engagement.

● Does money actually demotivate?

There is still no consensus about the degree to which higher pay may demotivate.

- Strategies that focus primarily on the use of extrinsic rewards do, indeed, run a
serious risk of diminishing rather than promoting intrinsic motivation
- The results showed that employee engagement levels were three times more
strongly related to intrinsic than extrinsic motives, but that both motives tend to
cancel each other out.
Quite simply, you’re more likely to like your job if you focus on the work itself,
and less likely to enjoy it if you’re focused on money.

(Now, a skeptic might ask if this is just a correlation showing that people who don’t like their
jobs have nothing to think about other than the money. This is hard to test. Yes, that could be
one reason; another could be that people who focus too much on money are preventing
themselves from enjoying their jobs)

★ If people focus on the task itself and try to identify positive aspects of the process, they
will enjoy it more than if they are just focused on the consequences (rewards) of
 performing the task. The analogy here is that it’s much more motivating to go for a run
because it’s fun than because I must get fit or lose some weight.

Intrinsic motivation is a stronger predictor of job performance than extrinsic motivation.

The more people focus on their salaries, the less they will focus on satisfying their intellectual
curiosity, learning new skills, or having fun, and those are the very things that make people
perform best.

The fact that there is little evidence to show that money motivates us, and a great deal of
evidence to suggest that it actually demotivates us, supports the idea that there may be hidden
costs associated with rewards. (Of course, that doesn’t mean that we should work for free. )

But one size does not fit all. Our relationship to money is highly idiosyncratic.
If companies want to motivate their workforce, they need to understand what their employees
really value — and the answer is bound to differ for each individual. Research shows that
different values are differentially linked to engagement.

Employees’ personalities are much better predictors of engagement than their salaries.
The more emotionally stable, extraverted, agreeable or conscientious people are, the more they
tend to like their jobs (irrespective of their salaries).

The biggest organizational cause of disengagement is incompetent leadership.

Thus, as a manager, it’s your personality that will have a significant impact on whether your
employees are engaged at work, or not.

➢ Engagement of employees most depends on their leader/manager leadership skill.

_______________________________________

11.2. 9 OUT OF 10 PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO

EARN LESS MONEY TO DO MORE MEANINGFUL WORK

[Work] is about a search…for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as
cash, for astonishment rather than torpor,”.

Who truly enjoyed their labors, they had “a meaning to their work over and beyond the
reward of the paycheck.”
Any business case hinges on the ability to translate meaning, as an abstraction, into dollars.

- Just how much is meaningful work actually worth? How much of an investment in this
area is justified by the promised returns?
- How can organizations actually go about fostering meaning?

The Dollars (and Sense) of Meaningful Work

- More than 9 out of 10 employees are willing to trade a percentage of their lifetime
earnings for greater meaning at work.
- Across age and salary groups, workers want meaningful work badly enough that they’re
willing to pay for it.
- Most would rather have a boss who cared about them finding meaning and success in
work than receive a pay increase.

How much is meaning worth to the organization?

- Employees with very meaningful work, we found, spend one additional hour per week
working, and take two fewer days of paid leave per year.
- In terms of sheer quantity of work hours, organizations will see more work time put in
by employees who find greater meaning in that work.
- Employees who find work meaningful experience significantly greater job satisfaction,
which is known to correlate with increased productivity.
- Additional organizational value comes in the form of retained talent: When all
employees feel their work is highly meaningful, employees are less likely to plan on
quitting their jobs, and have job tenures longer on average than employees who find
work lacking in meaning

A Challenge and an Opportunity

Building greater meaning in the workplace is no longer a nice-to-have, it’s an imperative.

Among the recommendations we offer in our report are these critical three:

● Bolster Social Support Networks that Create Shared Meaning.

- Employees who experience strong workplace social support find greater meaning at
work.
- The sense of collective, shared purpose that emerges in the strongest company cultures
adds an even greater boost to workplace meaning.
- For employees who experience both social support and a sense of shared purpose,
average turnover risk reduces , and the likelihood of getting a raise jumps compared to
employees who experience social support, but without an accompanying sense of shared
purpose.
- Simple tactics can amplify social connection and shared purpose.
+ Explicitly sharing experiences of meaningful work is an important form of social
support.
+ Organizations can encourage managers to talk with their direct reports about what
aspects of work they find meaningful, and get managers to share their
perspectives with employees
+ Managers can also build in time during team meetings to clearly articulate the
connection between current projects and the company’s overall purpose.
+ Employees can more easily see how their work is meaningful when team project
goals tie into a company’s larger vision.
➢ Social support is a key predictor of overall happiness and success at work. Such
support outside the workplace drives key professional outcomes, such as promotions.
➢
● Make Every Worker a Knowledge Worker.
- Knowledge workers experience greater meaning at work than others, and that such
workers derive an especially strong sense of meaning from a feeling of active
professional growth.
- Knowledge workers are also more likely to feel inspired by the vision their
organizations are striving to achieve, and humbled by the opportunity to work in service
to others.
- All work becomes knowledge work, when workers are given the chance to make it so.

=> When workers experience work as knowledge work, work feels more meaningful.

- All workers can benefit from a greater emphasis on creativity in their roles.
+ Offer employees opportunities to creatively engage in their work
+ Share knowledge, and feel like they’re co-creating the process of how work gets
done.
- Engaging employees by soliciting their feedback can have a huge impact on employees’
experience of meaning, and helps improve company processes.
- Coaching and mentoring are valuable tools to help workers across all roles and levels
find deeper inspiration in their work. Managers trained in coaching techniques that
focus on fostering creativity and engagement can serve this role as well.
 ★ A broader principle - Personal Growth — the opportunity to reach for new creative
heights, in this case above and beyond professional growth — fuels one’s sense of
meaning at work.
- Work dominates our time and our mindshare, and in return we expect to find
personal value from those efforts.
- Managers and organizations seeking to bolster meaning will need to proactively
support their employees’ pursuit of personal growth and development alongside
the more traditional professional development opportunities.

Support Meaning Multipliers at All Levels.

Not all people and professions find work equally meaningful. ( old-young, with children -
without children, service-oriented vs administrative…)

Leverage employees who find higher levels of meaning to act as multipliers of meaning
throughout an organization.

- Connect mentors in high meaning occupations, for instance, to others to share

perspectives on what makes work meaningful for them.
- Provide more mentorship for younger workers, less educated workers — who are more
likely to work in the trenches — have valuable insights on how to improve processes.
They’d be prime candidates for coaching to help them find ways to see themselves as
knowledge workers contributing to company success.

Putting Meaning to Work

The old labor contract between employer and employee — the simple exchange of money for
labor — has expired.

- Taking its place is a new order in which people demand meaning from work, and in
return give more deeply and freely to those organizations that provide it.
- They don’t merely hope for work to be meaningful, they expect it — and they’re willing
to pay dearly to have it.

* Meaningful work only has upsides. Employees work harder and quit less, and they gravitate
to supportive work cultures that help them grow. The value of meaning to both individual
employees, and to organizations, stands waiting, ready to be captured by organizations
prepared to act.