I've been thinking a lot about micro-managing. Justification for it, reasons to avoid it. Cost of results as opposed to cutting one's losses. Etc. The simple facts of our situation with this President and this war is that often times, when it comes to the leadership of our nation, and our endeavors around the globe, we don't have the luxury of cutting our losses. We must dig ourselves out of a big damn hole with what resources we have available to do so, because when you're talking about national reputation and simply doing what is right, inside our borders and in the world at large, we can't fire the CEO and change the company name. Barring criminal prosecution and impeachment, we are stuck with Dubya and his each and every short coming as a leader.
In the world of managing, the word "micro-managing" arises only with either bad managers or good managers with struggling employees. As an employer or manager, you will often and repeatedly be faced with a decision to micro-manage or take a back seat as the leader of the group. But those of you with experience in this respect, ask yourself how you make that decision. Do you micro-manage a self starter? Do you hover over an employee who has shown aptitude in intelligent decision making? Do you police the guy who had the idea that saved you thousands of dollars last month in overhead expenses?
No. You micro-manage the losers. You focus your daily and sometimes hourly managing efforts on the guy who is late every day, performs poorly, and doesn't seem to have his head in the game. And why do you attempt to micromanage rather than just fire those you can't depend on, or who simply perform poorly? Well, in the business world, it is expensive and time consuming to fire and re-hire and train new employees. It takes a person six months to become astute at most jobs. As a manager, business owner, whatever you may be, you micro-manage in the hopes that you can turn that slacker into someone who excels. You at least make an attempt to manage an employee into something beneficial before you give him or her the boot and start over with a new face. Because it's easier, and you've gotta try at least once, to be fair, if you consider yourself any kind of "manager."
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You know when you hit the wall. You know when you realize you have micro-managed for months, and provided every incentive or threat you have at your disposal, and there has been no improvement. That's when you fire the guy. Give up, get a new face in the position, and start over.
So think of "managing" when you hear things like this:
a key argument being deployed by Republicans against the Democratic effort to compel the President to accept a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq is that Democrats want to "micro-manage" the President's policy in Iraq.And say to yourself, and others, "Damn right we're micromanaging this President and this war. Have you seen the performance evaluation? It isn't good!" And the next time you see something like this in your local newspaper or favorite blog:
You know it's bad news for the White House when agencies you'd never even heard of start launching investigations into the administration.Ask yourself, have I hit the wall, or do I have any micromanaging left in me. Can this guy be brought up to speed, made a performer? Or is it time for him to go?
Don't defend accusations of micro-managing. The President works for you, and his performance is weak. Democrats should proudly accept the title of micro-manager, in the hopes that some of their "managing" skills will be imparted on this president in the hopes of ending this war.