>>Management is finding the right balance of all of that to allow a subordinate to achieve their potential.
Do you mean giving guidance instead of micromanaging which means "to control every part, however small."
The problem with micromanagement comes from one person making all the decisions for her subordinates. Whereas, it makes more sense for productivity to spread the decision making across many people. Another problem that micromanagement causes is subordinates not having confidence in the decisions they do make. So people who are otherwise smart and hard working find their time wasted in second guessing themselves not able to make a decision.
Micromanage is very different than guidance which means "advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty." Perhaps, a better way to describe what Ray Dalio is offering is guidance and based on listening to that video his principles are more suggestions than demands. More importantly, with a grain of humility, Ray encourages guidance coming from below encouraging his subordinates to offer guidance to him. This is very different from micromanagement which is unidirectional.
The CEO should be making the most major business decisions for the company. However, it is the responsibility of the the employees to realize that vision. The person welding shouldn't have to know about markets. However, the very wealthy people I have interacted with would never go into the galley and tell me how to bake a cake. They would say they have guests flying in and would I make something a little more special to impress them.
To expand on what you are saying. Perhaps, one of the ways to support a subordinate is to offer guidance. The keyword I make here is offer or perhaps a better word, proffer, to offer for acceptance meaning it is ok for the subordinate to reject the guidance.
My experience is that these CEOs hire people who know what they are doing, provide them with the resources they need, and stay out of their way. However, if the subordinate does not produce the CEOs do not micromanage. They simply let them go or move them into a more appropriate position.
Being a CEO is more than not micromanaging but my experience observing several CEOs including a few billionaires closely is that they strikingly don't waste their time micromanaging. If someone needs to be micromanaged, they are let go.
Sometimes you need to micromanage, but if you find yourself doing that you better figure out what is wrong with that machine or person and replace it or them after the engagement/meeting/whatever is completed.
We're conflating micromanagement as the style of management and an instance of micromanagement, which is mostly what I'"m talking about. Quality management should be flexible and a manager should be able to navigate between different levels of involvement. On the CEO side of what you're saying, depending on what it is, micromanagement might be the way to go. That can't be a long term solution but for specific things it might be the most effective.
I think we're saying very similar things, I was just giving you a more accurate BW style management viewpoint. Anyways, Ray's points a guidelines anyways, sometimes rules need to be broken to move quickly, but you can always come back and discuss whether that decision to break them was valid.
Some people micromanage incessantly. Are you saying that micromanagement is just one of many tools a CEO can use to achieve a result, that sometimes it is the quick and easy solution to, perhaps, a roadblock launching a product? I can agree with that.
Do you mean giving guidance instead of micromanaging which means "to control every part, however small."
The problem with micromanagement comes from one person making all the decisions for her subordinates. Whereas, it makes more sense for productivity to spread the decision making across many people. Another problem that micromanagement causes is subordinates not having confidence in the decisions they do make. So people who are otherwise smart and hard working find their time wasted in second guessing themselves not able to make a decision.
Micromanage is very different than guidance which means "advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty." Perhaps, a better way to describe what Ray Dalio is offering is guidance and based on listening to that video his principles are more suggestions than demands. More importantly, with a grain of humility, Ray encourages guidance coming from below encouraging his subordinates to offer guidance to him. This is very different from micromanagement which is unidirectional.
The CEO should be making the most major business decisions for the company. However, it is the responsibility of the the employees to realize that vision. The person welding shouldn't have to know about markets. However, the very wealthy people I have interacted with would never go into the galley and tell me how to bake a cake. They would say they have guests flying in and would I make something a little more special to impress them.
To expand on what you are saying. Perhaps, one of the ways to support a subordinate is to offer guidance. The keyword I make here is offer or perhaps a better word, proffer, to offer for acceptance meaning it is ok for the subordinate to reject the guidance.
My experience is that these CEOs hire people who know what they are doing, provide them with the resources they need, and stay out of their way. However, if the subordinate does not produce the CEOs do not micromanage. They simply let them go or move them into a more appropriate position.
Being a CEO is more than not micromanaging but my experience observing several CEOs including a few billionaires closely is that they strikingly don't waste their time micromanaging. If someone needs to be micromanaged, they are let go.