Difference between Micromanaging and effective leadership?

[floridacyclist]

How common is it for a commander to make a command decision and public announcement regarding the non-emergency standing down of a program without notifying or consulting with the Deputy Commander in charge of the people that run that program? Is that micromanagement or decisive leadership and where is the line drawn?

[Eclipse]

It is impossible to answer a question like this without more detail, however from the tone, its obvous you have already decided what this is.

Micromanagement, as a concept, is basically doing work you have (or should) assign(ed) to subordinates because you don't trust them.

Decisive Leadership is making decisions based on the information you have, even when incomplete, many time s relying on personal experience and intuition.  It also insinuates that once  decision is made, it sticks.

[O-Rex]

Depends on the situation, however if the decision comes as a complete surprise to the staff, I'd question it.  

Moreover, even if and when such decisions are made, there is usually a preliminary announcement at a command/staff level to that key personnel can anticipate the impact thereof as well as prepared to explain it to the rank-in-file.

Communication is the lifeblood of effective leadership.

[arajca]

As mentioned, it depends on the situation. As for being non-emergency, that depends as well. You may have seen it a non emergency, but the commander may have gotten a phone call from on high telling him to do this NOW! In which case, it becomes an emergency.

[O-Rex]

As mentioned, it depends on the situation. As for being non-emergency, that depends as well. You may have seen it a non emergency, but the commander may have gotten a phone call from on high telling him to do this NOW! In which case, it becomes an emergency.

At that point,  the commander is not making a decision, but executing that of the next higher command.

[floridacyclist]

That's not the case, there was no phone call from "on high". I'm not telling too many details as I really respect the people involved at all levels and am not interested in undermining their authority, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm wierd for feeling that a DCC was wrongly blindsided by coming in late (with a previously-excused absence) to be told that a 6-person color guard had been stood down until further notice because there weren't enough cadets involved in the program as a whole and they could not participate in other activities until more cadets joined the program.

[RiverAux]

On the one hand you could count yourself lucky that your squadron commander even pays attention to the cadet program in the first place.  On the other hand, it is more than a bit odd as you describe it. 

[O-Rex]

That's not the case, there was no phone call from "on high". I'm not telling too many details as I really respect the people involved at all levels and am not interested in undermining their authority, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm wierd for feeling that a DCC was wrongly blindsided by coming in late (with a previously-excused absence) to be told that a 6-person color guard had been stood down until further notice because there weren't enough cadets involved in the program as a whole and they could not participate in other activities until more cadets joined the program.

Let's see if I got this straight: penalize those Cadets already in the program because the leadership (and I use the term loosely in this case) can't recruit to fill it's needs? 

A phrase comes to mind: downward spiral.

[Short Field]

Micromanaging is where they give you a task, then keep checking all your decisions and modifying them.  Don't confuse that with hands on leadership where they give you a task, then keep asking how you are doing and what you are doing.  It may even lead to additional guidance but is not micromanagement.  Which is which - depends on where you are standing.   

Effective leadership means you don't cut the legs out from under the people you have delegated responsibility to.  Do it too many times (like once or twice) and they will have no responsibility and everyone will just come to you for everything.

[floridacyclist]

Actually, according to him, it's their fault because they aren't recruiting enough cadets...they should be bringing their friends in and calling old members to try to get them back.

[IceNine]

Actually, according to him, it's their fault because they aren't recruiting enough cadets...they should be bringing their friends in and calling old members to try to get them back.

The only issue I have with this statement is directed blame.  Otherwise he is exactly correct.

As for the original question the answer is neither.  The situation you have here is just a good old command decision, and unfortunately he has no obligation to keep anyone in the loop, ask your permission, or offer you a heads up.

I think UK put it best "When in command, BE in command" and there is a certain burden that comes with assuming command and that is that sometimes you will have to make unpopular decisions for the good of the whole.

[O-Rex]

Actually, according to him, it's their fault because they aren't recruiting enough cadets...they should be bringing their friends in and calling old members to try to get them back.

That's a cop-out.  What's more, it's a cardinal leadership sin to blame subordinates, particularly Cadets: given a little guidance and direction, they can do pretty amazing things....

Sounds like someone's trying to lead from the rear.

[Short Field]

With Command comes responsibility.  Commanders can share all the praise they get - but they can't share or delegate the blame....   

[ZigZag911]

If commanders don't delegate authority (and then keep hands off as far as safely, humanly possible) said commanders will wake up one fine morning and find there is no one left on their staff to delegate to!!!

[BlackKnight]

Actually, according to him, it's their fault because they aren't recruiting enough cadets...they should be bringing their friends in and calling old members to try to get them back.

[soapbox mode on]

I've heard this one time and again.  It's wrong every time I hear it.  Recruiting is the formal responsibility of the unit commander and/or the recruiting officer (see CAPP-226 and CAPR 20-1), and sometimes the DCC- depending on how responsibilities are shared in the unit.  Cadet officers are encouraged to assist with recruiting (especially when working on their PAO and AE achievements), but recruiting is never the sole responsibility of the cadets.  Cadets have enough to do in the program without being asked to shoulder senior staff officer duties as well. 

Perhaps the unit commander needs to be reminded that CAPR 52-16 1-6.a.(2) was revised last year prohibiting commanders from assigning senior staff duties to cadets. Cadets may apprentice or assist, but they cannot be held responsible for execution of a senior duty position.  I'll bet the "recruiting shuffle" was exactly what NHQ had in mind when this section of the regulation was revised.

[soapbox mode off]
 

[Cecil DP]

So that's the issue you were alluding to at the training this weekend. we were wondering what everyone was hinting at on the drive home.

It's my feeling that if the color guard and its members are participating in the Cadet Program, advancing in a timely manner, and doesn't conflict with required training he made the wrong decision, especially because he didn't inform the DCC. However he is the Squadron Commander and decisions about the Squadron's operations and training are his to make. I also recall hearing that when there was a heated discussion about the issue he offered to step down as Commander in deference to those who objected and no one accepted the position.

[floridacyclist]

Actually, I never alluded to it, made mention of it, or even hinted that there was an issue....but it got mentioned plenty of times by the person in question and a voluntary apology was made to the members of the chain of command that were jumped.

Sometimes the biggest measure of a man is how he acts when he is wrong...suffice to say that I still have the utmost respect and admiration for the person in question. The fact that nobody wanted to kick anyone out of office is basically irrelevant; just because you disagree with someone on one issue should not affect your opinion of them or their effectiveness on the multitude of other issues unless it becomes part of a pattern of knee-jerk reactions which is not the case here; in fact, you heard his opinion on knee-jerk reactions when he referred to the van issue, and I think there were a lot of similarities. I'm sure you also heard my mention about the need to make mistakes (regarding Admiral Halsey wanting an Admiral with a few mistakes under his belt vs "A Perfect Admiral") in order to learn. Firing someone over a mistake does not give a group the benefit of learning from the mistake, it just means that now they have to repeat the same process with someone new.

Incidentally, there is no mention that I am talking about MY squadron commander here, so please do not make any assumptions about anyone. As a member of group staff, I get around a bit and while I was not directly involved in this issue as a member of the chain of command, I was very interested in hearing opinions on how it was handled for my own personal knowledgebase.

[Cecil DP]

My apologies in using the word "You" when referring to the discussion during the training.
My use of the word was "you" as in the members of the group, not one particular individual per se

[floridacyclist]

Not a problem sir, I understand. Just like my disclaimer at the bottom was not directed at you personally, but at anyone who might be wondering in general.