micromanaging and the like

**Why do some leaders Micromanage?**
Churchill To First Lord and First Sea Lord I thought that Illustrious might well go to the Mediterranean and exchange with Ark Royal. In this case illustrious could take perhaps a good lot of Hurricanes to Malta. As we have a number of Hurricanes surplus at the moment, could not Malta Gladiator pilots fly the Hurricanes themselves? This would not diminish our flying strength in our country. The operation against Lulea has become less important now that the Germans have control of all French and Belgian orefields. We must look to the Mediterranean for action. You were going to let me have your plan for exchanging destroyers of more endurance with the Mediterranean flotilla. Could I have this with dates?	Hitler To High Command General Purpose: The mass of the Russian Army in Western Russia is to be destroyed in daring operations, by driving forward deep armored wedges, and the retreat of units capable of combat into the vastness of Russian territory is to be prevented. In quick pursuit a line is then to be reached from which the Russian Air Force will no longer be able to attack German Reich territory. The ultimate objective of the operation is to establish a defense line against Asiatic Russia from a line running approximately from the Volga River to Archangel. Then, in case of necessity, the last industrial area left to Russia in the Urals can be eliminated by the Luftwaffe
Management Style: Micromanagement Ships, planes, pilots, pilot training, places, dates "I need more details!"	Management Style: Delegation "I've given you the general idea. "You take care of the details."

What better way to illuminate a discussion about micromanaging than to cite the differing management styles of two world leaders?

When it was all over, forces beyond their control determined the macro-outcome, but both Churchill and Hitler won and lost. Churchill was on the winning side of World War II, but he lost the British Empire. Hitler conquered almost the Continental Old World but lost when the New World entered the war. Churchill was kicked out of office almost immediately after WWII ended. Hitler committed suicide.

Micromanaging or delegating, both Churchill and Hitler issued "No retreat" and "Fight to the death" orders throughout the war, (Churchill re Singapore and Hitler re Stalingrad are best known examples) -- sacrifices which in their minds were justified by the greater good of other army divisions or naval battle groups. Both directed winning and losing military strategy (and in Churchill's case, tactics). Both made political decisions which proved farsighted or unwise.

The effect of micromanaging on personnel, on morale, is almost always disruptive. An example: General Claude Auchinleck -- in reply to almost daily detailed hectoring about how to do his job in the battle against Rommel -- wrote Churchill, "If you wish I can send you detailed reasons which actuated me and which appeared to me incontestable. I hope you will leave me complete discretion concerning dispositions of this kind." British politeness for "Get off my back!"

So, why does anyone micromanage at all? In war, business, politics, service clubs, church groups?

For one or both of two reasons:
(1) A temperamental obsession with detail for its own sake. At the extreme, this takes the form of an uneasy feeling that there may a single detail out there which will undo all that you know or think you know. "You never know if you have all the information, you know." Wandering and off-focus discussions result when more than one on a governmental panel or a volunteer committee share that obsession with detail.

(2) A compulsion to control. Whether temperamentally driven or intellectually selected, insisting on detail after detail either derails a group's decision-making effectiveness or wears down opposition to the result being sought by the nitpicker.

I would guess that Churchill was both temperamentally obsessed with detail and a control freak -- and Hitler apparently became a control freak in military matters later in the war.

Bringing it home.
In any group, there will always be a dynamic balance between micromanagement and reasonable oversight, and the balance changes as membership in the group changes. At CITCOM or at Church, there remains the need to be understanding of the temperamental nitpicker and to be on guard against the nitpicking control freak.

This piece on micromanagement was written a week before last night's CITCOM meeting, but I suspect readers who watched that meeting will have recognized our local Churchills.

CITCOM Micromanaging gone mad
Staff was directed to come up with a list of items as part of an overall plan to address at least one budget-related item on each CITCOM agenda for some indefinite period, I gather. Last week, after complaining that the list was confusing to read and demanding a rewrite, the commission argued about whether to hold a series of Special Meetings to focus attention on the list. The minority in favor of Special Meetings maintains that too many commissioners and the mayor are "sitting on their thumbs" and avoiding addressing financial shortfalls seriously. The majority counters that many of the items do not justify CITCOM attention, because they are operational matters, not policy matters. The 3-4 decision was not to schedule Special Meetings at this time.

Although I consider the entire exercise a waste of Staff time, I went through the list and labeled the 50-plus items as I would if I were on the commission: (a) Operational, (b) Policy, and (C), Not sure. VersagiVoice readers can find the entire list on the city's website. For the fun of it, they are invited to classify the following selections, presented here in no particular order:

Double-sided printing of computer printouts . . . Refill printer cartridges . . . Sell advertising on non-emergency vehicles and the website . . . Bill all departments separately for postage . . . Move the pension system to the Michigan Employees Retirement System . . . Cost allocation study . . . Millage Increase . . . Hybrid vehicles . . . College Intern program . . . Police Department shifts . . .

In my mind, two-thirds of the 50-plus items are operational. The rest can be brought up one-at-a-time at regular CITCOM meetings -- on the condition that discussion is limited to 15 minutes. If more time is needed, then schedule a Special Meeting for that item only. -- Nov 2008

Micromanaging in the 19th Century
Although the term hadn't yet evolved, the danger of legislative micromanaging was already a concern for 19th Century political thinkers. In more formal language than used today, here is an excerpt from Chapter 6 of John Stuart Mill's Representative Government:

" . . . one of the dangers of a controlling assembly [is] that it may be lavish of powers but afterward interfere with their exercise; may give power by wholesale, and take it back in detail, by multiplied single acts of interference in the business of administration. The function of governing, in lieu of that of criticizing and checking those who govern . . . No safeguard can in the nature of things be provided against this improper meddling, except by a strong and general conviction of its injurious character."

Excerpts from a letter published in the 18 July 2004 issue of the Detroit Free Press
Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Association of Realtors see local micromanaging as a disincentive for 'cool cities':
The government's best bet to encourage cool cities is to educate municipal leaders, give them the knowledge to make the right decisions and then invite the private sector to go to work.

Michigan is a home rule state. This means that public officials who oversee local municipalities are responsible for creating the master plans, zoning rules and regulations, and the various capital improvement programs that make up the overall framework within which development projects occur.

Within the current framework of local government, it is not uncommon for home rule government officials to micromanage a project and add greatly to its expense. This slows the process and puts undue burden on developers. Developers, realtors, doctors, dentists, churches or any others who have an idea to legally utilize their land do not deserve the extra cost, time, and aggravation of such micromanagement.

. . . A primary focus of home rule should include plans for higher density alternatives to large log, low-density development, allowing for such things as mixed uses, compact designs, and walkable communities.

The letter from which the above paragraphs were extracted was signed by Gil White, president of Michigan Association of Realtors and Jim Barret, president and chief executive officer of Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Is it micromanaging
when the City Commission responds to a citizen complaint against a city department?
Well, that depends.

Recently, a resident complained during Public Comment about being offended by what he considers rude and abusive treatment by a Magistrate. The mayor quietly assured the citizen that the matter would be looked into. That seems reasonable enough, especially because the citizen is a widely respected civic activist and volunteer with no record of chronic complaining.

Let's turn to the more complex and more frequent complaints made against Code Enforcement. The complexity comes from . . .

. . . the fact that residents and business owners are less likely to complain publicly, because they fear reprisal or denials of future requests for consideration;

. . . the fact that the issues can vary from letting one's grass grow too long, to being required to move a dumpster a few feet, to the need, or not, for a sprinkler;

. . . the fact that -- chronic complainers aside -- individuals of widely differing temperament and sophistication make similar complaints about procedures and about specific Code Enforcement personnel;

. . . the fact that some past and present mayors and commissioners have asserted that business owners, especially, are so accustomed to making their own decisions that they become irritated, frustrated, unreasonable when they must follow procedure and meet standards;

. . . the fact that there are those residents who like micromanaging, who want their mayor and commissioners to jump, to take -- or seem to take -- immediate action about any and every complaint brought before the commission;

. . . the fact that Code Enforcement, or Planning, or Zoning are caught in the middle: If they insist on the rules and procedures, they are criticized for being nit-picking bureaucrats. If they exercise judgment and grant a variance, they are accused of favoritism.

Okay, so monitoring Code Enforcement is more complex than following up on a rare complaint about a Magistrate. How do we distinguish between micromanaging and reasonable oversight?

* It is micromanaging for a commissioner to directly investigate every citizen complaint by making phone calls, sending emails, visiting the pertinent department.

* It is reasonable oversight to instruct the City Manager or other paid Staff to relay the complaint to the appropriate individual or department and to request a reply -- to the citizen or to the commissioner or to both, as appropriate -- after a sensible amount of time.

* It is dereliction of duty to avoid confronting repetitive complaints, over months and years, about specific city employees -- using union rules or the gender or race of the individuals as an excuse for inaction.

Two hours talking about dog poop?
This is good government?
This is how our City Commissioners demonstrate their concern for residents?
Please.

If ever there was an issue which appropriately should be handled at the paid staff level, dog parks qualify. If either an ordinance or a resolution requires public hearings about such matters, it should be repealed or modified.

Then there is the issue itself. Parks are for people, not for dogs. Grass is for children to play on, not for dogs to defecate in. How misanthropic is the mind that answers, "No one has been bitten," when told that children and elderly have been frightened by one's unleashed pet? How uncaring is the predisposition which considers trivial the complaints of nearby homeowners about the noise, the smell?

Even if Royal Oak weren't experiencing financial problems, dog-lovers should find and fund their own dog-runs and not expect taxpayers to pay for or subsidize the camaraderie they repeatedly boasted about during the marathon public hearing.

In a too-frequent display of lack of courage, the City Commission implemented still another "moratorium," hoping the issue goes away, I assume. Those of us who like dogs only at a distance, though, are hoping that Royal Oak's dog-loving residents buy some land (one of the other dog parks?) and convert it to a privately owned and operated facility.

Return all those city parks which have gone to the dogs -- to the people.

Frank Versagi
June 2003

It all began with Barbara Hallman?
Why does the City Commission do Staff work?
Wearing my management consultant's hat, I am frequently dismayed when the City Commission does Staff work, micromanages.

The latest example was a hearing concerned with splitting a lot. The merits of the decision aside, here were legislators taking time to discuss setbacks and landscaping and cisterns and house sizes--all of which are covered by ordinances and City agencies and monitored daily by paid Staff.

True, the City Charter assigns ultimate responsibility for all these matters to the City Commission, but delegating to and monitoring the performance of competent and dedicated public employees is certainly a better way to manage.

Why do legislators become publicly involved in minute details? "It all began with [the late Mayor] Barbara Hallman," I've been told by a couple of old-timers. Her emphasis on beautification and on neighborhoods took the form of demonstrating concern for residents during Commission meetings.

I recall one session years ago when the Commission debated whether trees should be sprayed for mosquitoes on Tuesday or Thursday!

With the current City Commission, one quickly loses count at how many times certain commissioners find occasion to proclaim their "concern" for "residents" and "neighborhoods."

All of which can be accomplished by a City Hall Staff which impresses me as above average in serving the public.

Also see City Hall

Micromanaging:
"It all began with Barbara Hallman."

2 Hours talking Dog Poop?

When a citizen complains

Micromanaging: a disincentive?

Micromanagement in the 19th century