Making the most of the minds you employ

Or, why buy a dog and bark yourself (especially if you are paying extra for ‘pedigree’)

Admittedly, this post has been brought on by a recent event, however it’s an issue I come across at some point during most assignments, both personally and as an observer.

In a bid to avoid a ‘why oh why oh why’ post, I will look at the issue from a more positive angle. The issue being:

Recruit experience; pay for experience: use experience

Employers spend a great deal of time defining, recruiting and reference checking for a post they have decided their company needs to fill. Undoubtedly posts are generally created after a gap of some sort is highlighted, usually a skills gap. Whether the post is full time, temporary, freelance, contract or other, time – and therefore money – will have gone into assessing the needs of the company and the level of experience required; advertising and recruiting; interviewing and reference checking; inducting and desking, among other costs.

Having sucessfully interviewed, gained proof of experience and decided which candidate is the best for the job, and even after the post-holder has been in the role for many months, many employers still insist on baby-sitting (or micro managing), explaining in great detail the expectations and aims of particular pieces of work and, frequently, the exact manner in which to go about it.

Why is this? It doesn’t make sense, financially or otherwise. Of course, for any task, there are bound to be aspects requiring additional explanation or information in order for the task to be completed well. But for the most part, if the task is one that ordinarily comes under the responsibilities of the post-holder, the chances are they already know how to do it and know – through experience – what the most effective process for doing it is.

I think the issue is about control as well as trust. Certainly, I do find it hard to hand over the reigns to someone else, sure in my mind that because I defined the task, I must know better than anyone how to accomplish it. Nevertheless, it is important that I do hand them over, however worrisome that may be, because to not do so implies that I (believe I) am infalible and that my staff’s experience is of little value.

Alternatively, it could suggest that I don’t trust my own judgement – if I am secure in my belief that I employed the right person, why would I then question their abilities? 

Better results can be gained when experienced people work on the elements of a task best suited to that experience. Beyond ensuring that the delegatee understands the aims and is competent, my role as delegator should include monitoring progress and answering requests for help and/or information. It should not include repeatedly re-explaining the task, concerted effort to make sure it is done ‘my way’ or monitoring so intensively that the monitoring takes up more time than the task itself.

I’m not averse to learning on the job and I value very highly the experience of those I work with, at any level. But I do question the business sense of hiring someone explicitly for their experience and insight and then choosing not to use it. Would you hire a professional decorator at top rates and then keep them sitting there while you explained in minute detail precisely how you wanted the paint brushed on? Would you take your car to an experienced mechanic and then explain just how they should be checking the brake system?

I know, this is a common whinge, especially for freelancers and contractors such as myself. But it’s as  important (if not more, arguably) to me as it is to you that you get the best value for your money – I live by my reputation.

De-skilling those on whom you have spent time and resources is a folly, which businesses cannot afford in these uncertain times. Micro managing every aspect of every project is an unaffordable level of control and is in no way guaranteed to produce the best results, unless you are *exceptionally* multi-talented yourself. Moreover, you, the delegator, will be rushing around, piling stress upon stress, while your delegatees sit and watch, bemused and demotivated, as the project’s quality deteriorates.

Ultimately, those on the receiving end of micro management will come to understand that it is still their reputation held up against an over controlled and unsucessful task, even if their lack of input is not their decision. Sooner or later, they – and their skills and experience – will be enticed elsewhere.

To sum up: Trust yourself. Reliquish control to those whom you have established have the skills to do the job (and are paying to do so).

Project manage, by all means and so you should, but be just as aware that a project done well reflects as much on the project manager as one done badly.

Lead from the front, support and equip your army and glory will be yours 😉

Z