When is Micromanaging, Not?

How do you know when governance, a hands-off stance, is no longer right? Leaders of non-profits agree that micromanaging is not desirable. A Board should lead, not manage. Leaders are visionary, guiding and inspiring, and focus on the organization doing the right things. On the other hand, managing means to guide and supervise, and try to get things done right.

In a recent conversation with a director, she told me, apologetically, that for a few years her board had micromanaged. The story was that the Board got involved with operational things. The financials showed stress and it appeared that some of the executive’s staff members were underperforming.

In one case, where deficiencies are not critical, the Board may simply ask more questions that are detailed and request more information than usual. In another case, where deficiencies threaten the organization’s viability, or could, the Board may have to be more ‘directive’ and demanding of the Executive. In either case, diligent governance work includes a better understanding of the issues, obtaining the Executive’s plan to correct them, and follow up on the improvements.

Micromanaging is a continuum from doing management’s tasks, through guiding, to supervising, and to meddling. When a Board is micromanaging, it is not leading. For some directors, micromanaging is like a drug addiction, and like drugs, there are potential side effects:

• Erosion of trust between the board and executive
• Confusion over roles and responsibilities
• Loss of value for the constituencies who provide the funds that pay the executive's salary and benefits

Micromanagement means doing management stuff instead of sticking to leadership stuff. However, from time-to-time, Boards need to drop below their proverbial “30,000 foot level” because of a performance issue. Issues include when the essential ratios are not in desired ranges, excessive turnover in staff, and a significant drop in member satisfaction. In other words, anything thing that left uncorrected will affect the organization's viability.

Fiduciary responsibilities require a Board to pursue anything that may threaten the viability of the organization. A Board would be negligent not to adequately pursue signs of performance issues or negative trends. Therefore, a Board in pursuit of a performance issue is doing its job, and would not be guilty of micromanaging. In other words, serious performance issues are legitimate opportunities for directors to get into the “weeds” for a time, and limited to the area of concern.

Legally, a director or the Board can see anything they want to. Transparency is essential to a Board’s ability to hold the Executive accountable. Inquiry and inspection by a director or Board do not inherently constitute micromanagement. However, doing the wrong things with the answers could be.

A board micromanages when it drops below the governance and strategic level without justification. When a Board has justification to drop below normal levels of discussion and leadership, it is doing its job and not micromanaging. Once the justification disappears, the effective governing Board elevates back to the “30,000 foot level” of leadership.