![]() It is not sufficient to state the priority at a high level in some circumstances, it is necessary to break it down into its atomic levels so that if one component of the priority is derailed, the entire work is not. This is critical not only for alignment and synchronization but also for keeping the work going forward. Every leader must prioritize and pivot as needed, ensuring that everyone on the team knows what must be done, when and by whom. ![]() In a virtual environment, ruthless prioritizing is a must. Here are some examples of where micro-understanding is required:Ī) Setting priorities and clarifying. Micro-understanding is about delegating but being there to prevent employees from tripping, trusting but ensuring no unforeseen speedbumps, and being flexible but always reading warning signs. You'll need a backup plan, or when you have an intuitive sense that you're not going to cut that big deal despite everyone else's assurances, and it's what lets you know if someone is lying to you! Micro-understanding gives a leader an operational advantage, which is especially crucial when managing remote staff. This kind of understanding lets you know if your business unit will make it through the quarter. The leader can detect vulnerabilities and hazards and build a radar for where things could go wrong. Micro-understanding is about drilling down, sniffing out, and constructing perspectives on a task in its entirety. Micro-management is an excessively limiting style, with freedom-sapping, anti-trusting, heavy-oversight work interference from the leader manifested, among other things, by extensive reviews, checklists, and layers of approvals. Micro-understanding is not the same as micro-management. What a virtual setting demands is not micro-management or laisse-affaire style, but a style I call micro-understanding. At another time, I had a leader who would disappear for weeks at a time, and I watched the group collapse as each member did their own thing without any alignment. I once had a boss who insisted on redoing everything I did, and after a while, I lost interest in doing my best work. Both, a micro-manager and a laissez-faire leader are bad for the way people need to operate. Too little oversight, on the other hand, results in a laissez-faire leader. When leaders impose too much oversight, they are accused of micromanagement. The burden of choreographing team members who are now distributed- some in their homes, others in the office, others across times zones- to get to the outcome invariably falls on the leader, and therein lies the difficulty. When employees work from home, managing outcomes becomes more difficult, especially if the work is complex and involves close coordination and handoffs among team members. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |