Dear Springboard:

All of my team members are remote, at least part of the time.  Some are on a hybrid schedule, and some are far away.  I feel like we did better when Covid first arrived; now, we aren’t as connected and I sense a lack of engagement.

Sign me,

Wanting More Productivity

Dear WMP:

While working remotely seems to have become the new normal, some companies have recently made news because they want employees back in the office and have said they will insist on it.

Given the pushback, I think some version of remote work is going to remain. Plus, many managers have team members working in other cities.

Let’s be clear that managing remotely is challenging and some are better at it than others.

This makes me think of two leaders – Bob and Patty – who work in the same company, and both manage remote teams. They have some similarities but contrasting managerial and leadership styles that has resulted in very different outcomes.

Bob likes to be on top of everything and I mean everything – he’s diligent, detailed, meticulous, and attentive.  He checks in frequently with his direct reports.

Patty also wants to be on top of everything and she also checks in regularly with her direct reports.

Managing employees remotely requires a thoughtful approach to ensure productivity, engagement, and team cohesion. It was interesting that both Bob and Patty were using best practices for effectively managing remote workers.

They both:

• Set clear expectations
• Prioritized communication
• Provided video conferencing tools
• Provided professional development
• Supported work-life balance
• Fostered team collaboration

The difference was in their management styles.

Bob was relentless. He meant well but he tended to spell out how he believed a task should be completed step by step. He checked in frequently and needed to know every detail, impose his input as “added value,” and approve nearly all decisions. In short, Bob’s approach was micromanaging.

His touchpoints felt like he was checking up more than checking in. His direct reports got defensive, resentful, and less forthcoming about problems. He sensed the resistance but didn’t understand why; he was trying so hard to do what he thought was right.

Patty’s focus was on desired outcomes. She collaborated with her team to gain alignment on objectives. Then, she provided her team with the necessary resources and let the team decide how they would deliver the results.

Patty’s approach was to “micro-understand” her team’s work.  She had learned about the distinction from a Harvard Business Review article written by Raghu Krishnamoorthy, a Senior Fellow and Director of the University of Pennsylvania’s acclaimed Chief Learning Officer doctoral program.

Raghu wrote: Employees “want their managers to be present, hands-on, and operationally vigilant without being intrusive. They don’t want their managers to micromanage them; they want their managers to micro-understand their work.”

Micro-understanding is a mindset of trust and empowerment. It is about communicating clear expectations, providing the right tools, and focusing on desired outcomes without insisting on a specific step by step process.

The essence of this approach is trust – that they can do the job, that they will do the job, and they will ask for help as needed.

Some might interpret this approach as so hands off as to be laissez-faire. Just letting go would be a mistake. To set goals and then disappear can lead to lower activity, lack of alignment among the team, missing goals, and letting the team feel neglected or forgotten.

Micro-understanding is “like a being a coach who is very much in the game, but not on the field. . . In a virtual setting, good managers act as enablers, and not as enforcers,” wrote Raghu.

To stay very current on progress in a non-intrusive way, one might have a dashboard monitoring key metrics.

Micro-understanding naturally includes empathy, understanding, encouragement and support.

Micromanaging is about control while micro-understanding is about believing in the team.