Trust But Monitor
October 19, 2009 by Phil Gerbyshak
Filed under Business
When I graduated high school, I went into the Navy and worked as a communications technician. I worked with a lot of people in military intelligence, including Navy guys who had the coolest patch for their flight jackets.
In God We Trust…All Others We Monitor
At the time, I thought it was the way things were. You trusted people, but you monitored them.
And now, as a manager, I guess that is the way things are.
I trust my team to do things…but I review their work to make sure it’s done right.
I attend meetings where people say they’ll do the right things…but then we check in at the next meeting to make sure they got done.
I expect my team to take care of customers, but then I ask them how we’re doing whenever I see them.
Now that I think about it, I trust but monitor just about everything with my team.
Do you trust but monitor or am I just a micromanager?
Image source from Phil Gerbyshak’s personal collection
Phil, it is clear that you are only acting prudently and professionally to monitor those you trust (and processes you trust!).
My one word of caution is to respect the division of responsibilities as you determine how to go about monitoring. With the right metrics in place, you can perform the function at a higher level, allowing those who report to you to get more detailed in monitoring the team.
Where I have seen senior folks err in the past is in the very sense you mention at the end of this post: micromanaging.
Monitoring is a required function for any manager, but when you begin to stick your nose in where your direct reports have the responsibility to handle things, you risk damaging rapport within your own group by giving the unspoken message that you don’t think they can handle their assignments.
In cases where there are demonstrated performance issues, then it is appropriate to manage at a finer level of detail. If the metrics are looking good and the customers are happy, though–it is always appropriate to talk to customers at every level as often as is feasible–let the people you count on do their jobs without getting into the nitty gritty of each specific incident.
I have to agree with Rick – there is a fine line. You are correct in monitoring the employees but rather it should still be at a distance. One thing I would do if assigning tasks is dependant of the skill level of the person. As an example, a senior person would recieve a task with your expectations of the results. Others would recieve much more detail with the most junior being most monitors as to his/her progress – or even teamed with a senior member.
Have you ever watched Karate Kid? At first he was told “wax on – wax off” etc. He didn’t know WHY he was doing such simple tasks until he asked and was told/shown the reason. As he grew he was given more and more complicated karate forms where he was more willing to follow/shadow his teacher. At the end when he was hurt in the tunament it was he how made the decision (confidence) to finish the competition because he know he could without the instructor.
I think it’s your obligation to monitor. Ultimately, your performance as a manager is determined by the performance of your team. If you don’t check with them to make sure that all is well, you may not be able to catch problems when they are still small.
It can go into the realm of micromanaging a couple different ways:
1) A manager starts telling team members not only what needs to be done but how exactly to do it. If there is another method that can achieve the same results in terms of quality and efficiency, what does it matter how the task is done?
2) A manager checks in too frequently on the progress of a job. Here’s an example from when I was an event planner: my supervisor wanted to review solicitation letters that I drafted to prospective sponsors before they were sent out. That seemed reasonable, but what ended up happening is that after she went through to edit the letters, she then wanted to see what it looked like after I implemented the changes that she had suggested. Oftentimes, she would then make further edits that would really be what I had originally written. She also wanted to see every letter that I sent to every sponsor, even if they were identical (e.g. the same letter going out to 10 different sponsors). Now that was micromanaging.
Phil, from your writings, this does not seem like the type of behavior you would exhibit. I’m sure you are fine.
Absolutely,
Monitoring is the only way you can keep the train going in the right direction and not get blind sided. There are few things in a manager’s life more miserable than to be caught short with a question about his/her team that the manager doesn’t know but should. Even the best employees or team members get side tracked and make mistakes that cause endless grief for the manager if not caught early and fixed.
Been doing the monitor bit for going on 45 years now and wouldn’t do it any other way.
Absolutely agree with trusting but monitoring and agree with the comments that how it is done is also very important. Employees expect some level of follow up and I never had a problem with it provided that it was consistent.