Coaching vs. micromanaging to bring out the best in staff

By Nathan Jamail

One of the greatest misunderstandings in leadership and coaching is the term micromanaging. Most leaders never want to be thought of as a micromanager. In fact, it could be considered an insult or weakness of any leader.

When micromanaging is used as a coaching or leadership style, it will most likely deliver bad results, stifle creativity, limit employees’ self-worth and — without a doubt — limit productivity.

On the other hand, when a coach or leader must deal with a performance issue, it is imperative to help the employee either become a better performer or help them find a job that is a better fit. Leaders should strive to be a coach who, when necessary, uses micromanaging activities to improve specific areas, but uses coaching skills when getting the team ready to win.

Consider the purpose

Read best practices for hiring, keeping, and rewarding staff in the MDRT Hiring Guide

Micromanaging and coaching are often confused because, from the surface, they look similar. Both require the leader to set clear expectations and manage the employee’s activities. The difference lies in the purpose of these activities.

For example, a leader ensures there is complete understanding of what they expect from each employee to maximize productivity and limit confusion. A micromanager does this with the intent to set boundaries and rules. A coach shows his commitment to the team by holding everyone accountable for the end result.

Read more on MDRT’s website. This article is part of the MDRT Hiring Guide. In this guide, you’ll read how to

• Hire and retain talented employees
• Compensate and motivate staff
• Manage employees with effective processes