I think this pattern exists in many places (civil service, companies, schools). The generalized form goes like this:
There are two ways to manage people. You can assume that they are aligned, motivated, and competent. In that case, tell them the goal, and give them freedom to do it as they choose to. Even if they mess something up, remain calm, show them the problem, and let them fix it. The advantage is that you can get their best effort and skill; and they will be happy and motivated to work in such environment. The disadvantage is that if you were wrong about “aligned, motivated, and competent”, the results will be poor.
The second way is to assume that they are unaligned, unmotivated, and incompetent. In that case, you need to micromanage them. The advantage is that you get some steady guaranteed minimum productivity. The disadvantage is that the productivity is very low, and all competent people will burn out and/or quit.
The problem is, if you try a middle way, you are likely to get the worst of both worlds. Enough annoyance so that the competent people get frustrated and quit, but not enough oversight to prevent problems.
So when the companies get to the “micromanagement” equilibrium, they are likely to stay there. And even the companies that start in the “trust the team” equilibrium are often one disaster or one mistrusting manager away from switching to the opposite.
Also, a large enough company will statistically have both competent and incompetent teams. And the management will probably feel the urge to treat all of them the same way.
Worse, when politics and public money are involved there is a fixation with “accountability” that often leads to micromanagement simply because it feels like it’s the responsible thing to do, the one you can defend best with the voters. “Look, we gave them money and didn’t much check what they were doing with it because we trust them and think that this is the best way to get bang for our buck in terms of productivity” can be sound thinking, but it’s still terrible messaging.
One fundamental problem with public finances is that many voters have what I can only term as “poor mindset”. Pinch pennies, account for every expense, don’t risk waste, bets don’t pay off. Which is fine and often wise when you do in fact have barely enough income to live. But as a voter, you are a tiny fractional manager for an entity that has literally more money than you are capable of imagining. And you can’t manage it like you would your home. But very often that is exactly what politicians and media encourage you to do, and how they present the problem.
Anecdata: I quit the UK civil service (AISI, quite atypical) in small part due to feeling micromanagement creeping in, but also I mostly experienced a good amount of trust and autonomy. People sometimes said ‘startup in government’, perhaps to convey this (among other features). I don’t know how long that’s sustainable.
I think this pattern exists in many places (civil service, companies, schools). The generalized form goes like this:
There are two ways to manage people. You can assume that they are aligned, motivated, and competent. In that case, tell them the goal, and give them freedom to do it as they choose to. Even if they mess something up, remain calm, show them the problem, and let them fix it. The advantage is that you can get their best effort and skill; and they will be happy and motivated to work in such environment. The disadvantage is that if you were wrong about “aligned, motivated, and competent”, the results will be poor.
The second way is to assume that they are unaligned, unmotivated, and incompetent. In that case, you need to micromanage them. The advantage is that you get some steady guaranteed minimum productivity. The disadvantage is that the productivity is very low, and all competent people will burn out and/or quit.
The problem is, if you try a middle way, you are likely to get the worst of both worlds. Enough annoyance so that the competent people get frustrated and quit, but not enough oversight to prevent problems.
So when the companies get to the “micromanagement” equilibrium, they are likely to stay there. And even the companies that start in the “trust the team” equilibrium are often one disaster or one mistrusting manager away from switching to the opposite.
Also, a large enough company will statistically have both competent and incompetent teams. And the management will probably feel the urge to treat all of them the same way.
Worse, when politics and public money are involved there is a fixation with “accountability” that often leads to micromanagement simply because it feels like it’s the responsible thing to do, the one you can defend best with the voters. “Look, we gave them money and didn’t much check what they were doing with it because we trust them and think that this is the best way to get bang for our buck in terms of productivity” can be sound thinking, but it’s still terrible messaging.
One fundamental problem with public finances is that many voters have what I can only term as “poor mindset”. Pinch pennies, account for every expense, don’t risk waste, bets don’t pay off. Which is fine and often wise when you do in fact have barely enough income to live. But as a voter, you are a tiny fractional manager for an entity that has literally more money than you are capable of imagining. And you can’t manage it like you would your home. But very often that is exactly what politicians and media encourage you to do, and how they present the problem.
Anecdata: I quit the UK civil service (AISI, quite atypical) in small part due to feeling micromanagement creeping in, but also I mostly experienced a good amount of trust and autonomy. People sometimes said ‘startup in government’, perhaps to convey this (among other features). I don’t know how long that’s sustainable.