The CEO of my company is a micro manager - how to make it stop?
The CEO founded the 30 person company, and there are no other investors- it's all his money. He's a micro-manager who won't let the VPs of sales, product management or engineering make any decisions without his OK. Basically, the CEO comes up with all strategies, and the VPs execute his vision. He smart, and he knows it- which makes him super cocky and he can't be contradicted. I'd like to think that the VP of sales can figure out how to sell our software, and the VP of engineering can be responsible for making it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Anyone have any advice on how to tell a CEO with no superiors to let everyone do their jobs?
40 comments
Quit is great advice.
Don't try and solve this, its his problem, not yours. And unless you want blood in the water (or a severance check) don't try and coach him on this.
I'm guessing that the CEO is younger and lacks the experience and seasoning that will give him the self-awareness and self-confidence that he'd need to delegate appropriately. Its quite common and there's absolutely nothing that you can do to change it. After a few people leave, someone close to him (perhaps a board member, advisor or someone in HR) will mention to him that the turnover is related to his poor management practice and he'll hopefully take that to heart, get some coaching and come out the other side with some better habits. In the meantime, you can be leading a happy, productive career elsewhere.
Don't try and solve this, its his problem, not yours. And unless you want blood in the water (or a severance check) don't try and coach him on this.
I'm guessing that the CEO is younger and lacks the experience and seasoning that will give him the self-awareness and self-confidence that he'd need to delegate appropriately. Its quite common and there's absolutely nothing that you can do to change it. After a few people leave, someone close to him (perhaps a board member, advisor or someone in HR) will mention to him that the turnover is related to his poor management practice and he'll hopefully take that to heart, get some coaching and come out the other side with some better habits. In the meantime, you can be leading a happy, productive career elsewhere.
Is this a place you want to work? You can deftly share articles like HBR "Why Aren't You Delegating?" http://blogs.hbr.org/hmu/2012/07/why-arent-you-delegating.ht... , but at the end of the day the CEO is totally in charge.
This is a really good article - thanks for this.
May I suggest first figuring out if the CEO is suffering from NPD (narcissistic personality disorder); if so, you need out of there. An NPD CEO is not concerned about what is right or good for business, he's concerned about establishing his image to subordinates, customers, investors as a person, nay, as a Messiah, who is vastly intelligent, experienced and wise and should be followed blindly and committed to utterly. He will accomplish this not by quietly demonstrating these attributes but by actively portraying and marketing himself and his image at every opportunity. That kind of person will stunt your personal growth and development immeasurably.
The easy answer is quit. If you're not inclined to do that, you can either demonstrate to him that he doesn't need to micromanage you and everything else or help him grow the business so much that he can't micromanage everything. In either case, you can't make him do anything. He owns the business; you just work there.
Quit
Yes, quit. That company has a huge bus-factor.
The world will never notice that you worked there, or that you quit. It's not important, and you won't think so later.
The world will never notice that you worked there, or that you quit. It's not important, and you won't think so later.
I agree. Work should make you feel satisfied. If your current job doesn't do that for you, find one that does.
EDIT: However, thinking about this from the opposite position; perhaps the CEO is looking for advice regarding employees who won't take instruction?
EDIT: However, thinking about this from the opposite position; perhaps the CEO is looking for advice regarding employees who won't take instruction?
What are are making is cool, and we have the potential to get huge so I'd like to stay.
Everyone does exactly what he says, so he should have no issues with anyone not taking instruction from him.
It just sucks to leave a meeting knowing that we are doing it the wrong way and can't do anything to fix it. I want to fix it.
Everyone does exactly what he says, so he should have no issues with anyone not taking instruction from him.
It just sucks to leave a meeting knowing that we are doing it the wrong way and can't do anything to fix it. I want to fix it.
If the company is so successful, is it possible that in fact you are not being asked to do it the wrong way?
Point taken. Our first product was all him - and its great. Now that we are bigger and can make more products - we aren't doing them the right way.
Rather than telling him, why not ask him? For example, does he have ameta-system he's trying to instil or is he feeling his way? Does he actually like managing every detail or is this something he would prefer to avoid if he felt more confident in his team? Is he feeling short of things to do, since he doesn't have to chase investment at this stage? how does he want to run things as the company grows, or does he just want to keep it small and grow more organically?
Sadly, the first step is to realize that (1) he really thinks he's doing the right thing -- or at least he is choosing the necessary, lesser of evils when he makes these interventions; and (2) that this impression is formed on the basis of a lot of (lopsided) data, from his PoV.
By "lopsided" I mean, he's probably seen a lot of evidence that his business continues to thrive when he continually takes the reins in every aspect of its execution -- but what he hasn't seen is the extent to which it can really thrive when people feel truly enabled and empowered to contribute creatively to productive outcomes (at least within their subdomains of the operation). Even when it comes at the comparatively low cost of, yes, occasionally making small-scale mistakes.
Unfortunately, I don't know a good way to tell a CEO that, like Bjork teaches us, "there's more to life than this." Last time I tried, the CEO just didn't get it (or he sorta tried to get it, but it just didn't stick), and our relationship unraveled shortly after that.
By "lopsided" I mean, he's probably seen a lot of evidence that his business continues to thrive when he continually takes the reins in every aspect of its execution -- but what he hasn't seen is the extent to which it can really thrive when people feel truly enabled and empowered to contribute creatively to productive outcomes (at least within their subdomains of the operation). Even when it comes at the comparatively low cost of, yes, occasionally making small-scale mistakes.
Unfortunately, I don't know a good way to tell a CEO that, like Bjork teaches us, "there's more to life than this." Last time I tried, the CEO just didn't get it (or he sorta tried to get it, but it just didn't stick), and our relationship unraveled shortly after that.
You and the original poster are completely wrong and misunderstanding the situation.
"The CEO founded the 30 person company, and there are no other investors- it's all his money", if true, means that he's not CEO (in the startup sense) at all - he's the owner.
"Anyone have any advice on how to tell a CEO with no superiors to let everyone do their jobs?"
Their job is to do whatever he wants. If he wants you to hire three people to do interpretive dance in front of a web cam and put it up, go ahead.
As long as he's the whole owner, you should act like you're being paid to paint his house. Whatever he wants, as long as he's paying the checks. If you can't do what he asks or don't want to at that price, quote the price you'll do it for or leave. If you can do what he asks for the price he's paying, do whatever he says.
It's his house.
"The CEO founded the 30 person company, and there are no other investors- it's all his money", if true, means that he's not CEO (in the startup sense) at all - he's the owner.
"Anyone have any advice on how to tell a CEO with no superiors to let everyone do their jobs?"
Their job is to do whatever he wants. If he wants you to hire three people to do interpretive dance in front of a web cam and put it up, go ahead.
As long as he's the whole owner, you should act like you're being paid to paint his house. Whatever he wants, as long as he's paying the checks. If you can't do what he asks or don't want to at that price, quote the price you'll do it for or leave. If you can do what he asks for the price he's paying, do whatever he says.
It's his house.
As long as he's the whole owner, you should act like you're being paid to paint his house.
Bad analogy. It's more like you thought you were hired to paint his house, but the way things ended up he was telling you how to match colors and hold a brush. All the while pointing to the 10 year-old kids sloppily painting a fence across the street saying "See? You're still in the basement mixing paint, and they're almost done already!"
Bad analogy. It's more like you thought you were hired to paint his house, but the way things ended up he was telling you how to match colors and hold a brush. All the while pointing to the 10 year-old kids sloppily painting a fence across the street saying "See? You're still in the basement mixing paint, and they're almost done already!"
"he was telling you how to match colors and hold a brush"
You have no cause to complain here in this analogy. Either quit or happily let him tell you how to match colors and hold a brush, and if he tells you to paint like the sloppy kids across the street, that's now your job.
You're not painting for the City while having a superior, or for "shareholders" or to "build a good house" or "build a good company" (that this is a metaphor for) - you're painting for him. If you don't want to do it like he says, you would leave (or quote more money for putting up with his childishness.)
You have no cause to complain here in this analogy. Either quit or happily let him tell you how to match colors and hold a brush, and if he tells you to paint like the sloppy kids across the street, that's now your job.
You're not painting for the City while having a superior, or for "shareholders" or to "build a good house" or "build a good company" (that this is a metaphor for) - you're painting for him. If you don't want to do it like he says, you would leave (or quote more money for putting up with his childishness.)
...or quote more money for putting up with his childishness.
Basically, yeah, that's usually how I end up handling these situations when quitting seems less than convenient.
Basically, yeah, that's usually how I end up handling these situations when quitting seems less than convenient.
in other words: if you hire a personal cook you get to tell him what to cook, and he doesn't get to tell you what you should be eating instead.
Agreed: what to cook, not how.
sorry, both. if your personal cook doesn't want to cook how you tell him to, he can leave. if you're someone's personal cook your only job is to cook like he says. if you can't or don't want to, leave or quote the price that will make you put up with the conditions.
if your personal cook doesn't want to cook how you tell him to, he can leave.
Great retention strategy there, Chief.
Try telling professional, well-established cook how to hold a pairing knife -- when you can barely make scrambled eggs yourself -- and see what happens.
Great retention strategy there, Chief.
Try telling professional, well-established cook how to hold a pairing knife -- when you can barely make scrambled eggs yourself -- and see what happens.
If you're already invested in the company and it's treating you well in other areas (culture/pay/technology) then you have the choice to actively try to change the company.
It's likely that your CEO doesn't trust others to make the best decisions, which is not a great way to run a company. It's going to take a lot of time and a huge amount of effort to change this mindset by demonstrating your capabilities. I would progressively take more ownership of your own area of the business and start making some of the smaller decisions that you would usually require the OK for.
I've done this in a similar situation and it worked out for me. The owner still wasn't happy because he felt it could have been done better his way. But as I took more decisions into my own hands he began to see that it was alright to let go of control, because in the end it worked out. Good luck to you.
It's likely that your CEO doesn't trust others to make the best decisions, which is not a great way to run a company. It's going to take a lot of time and a huge amount of effort to change this mindset by demonstrating your capabilities. I would progressively take more ownership of your own area of the business and start making some of the smaller decisions that you would usually require the OK for.
I've done this in a similar situation and it worked out for me. The owner still wasn't happy because he felt it could have been done better his way. But as I took more decisions into my own hands he began to see that it was alright to let go of control, because in the end it worked out. Good luck to you.
honestly unless you're a owner it's not your place to critique the management style of the ceo. yes if you disagree with something specific you should speak up, but the reality is that you're a hired hand. also if the ceo managed to scale up to 30 people without any help something tells me that either he's doing something right or has enough money banked to make and learn from his own mistakes.
now if you don't like the ceo or that culture you should leave. although unless the ceo is a trust fund kid with cash to burn i think i'd want to learn something from someone who went from one person to thirty (because that's damn hard to do without outside funding).
now if you don't like the ceo or that culture you should leave. although unless the ceo is a trust fund kid with cash to burn i think i'd want to learn something from someone who went from one person to thirty (because that's damn hard to do without outside funding).
>honestly unless you're a owner it's not your place to critique the management style of the ceo.
Of course it is. It's not like he's some ubermensch beyond flaws or with an infinite capacity for reasoning.
You can micromanage 0-20 people to success but it starts to fall apart when you begin to have employees whose names you only sorta remember.
Of course it is. It's not like he's some ubermensch beyond flaws or with an infinite capacity for reasoning.
You can micromanage 0-20 people to success but it starts to fall apart when you begin to have employees whose names you only sorta remember.
it depends on the nature of the business and the capacity of the manager -- for example google didn't start to talk about having a real ceo (i.e. a professional manager) until they hit 200 people. when you join a company you're buying into the culture of that company, and that includes the style of the ceo. so imagine someone telling steve jobs that he's "too passionate about aesthetics" or telling bill gates that "you have really BAD taste" -- clearly you shouldn't be at that company (even if you're correct).
also if the ceo managed to scale up to 30 people without any help something tells me that either he's doing something right or has enough money banked to make and learn from his own mistakes.
How do you know this business was built by the CEO? It's very frequently the case that this kind of CEO is adding no value and is simply adept at taking credit for their underlings' work.
How do you know this business was built by the CEO? It's very frequently the case that this kind of CEO is adding no value and is simply adept at taking credit for their underlings' work.
From the post it sounds like the CEO is the chief funder — so while it's not 100% clear if he was the founder (yes maybe he did purchase the business from a previous owner) he or she has "put their money where their mouth is". Although on the flip side the post doesn't indicate that the CEO isn't the original founder.
But the notion of "taking credit" is sort of at odds with the micromanagement of the employees. Also for a CEO that's also a funder the only real question is making money or not. For example I'm sure even when you had a CEO like Steve Jobs who always thanked his workers, the reality is that most people only know who Steve Jobs is rather than individual team members.
But the notion of "taking credit" is sort of at odds with the micromanagement of the employees. Also for a CEO that's also a funder the only real question is making money or not. For example I'm sure even when you had a CEO like Steve Jobs who always thanked his workers, the reality is that most people only know who Steve Jobs is rather than individual team members.
But the notion of "taking credit" is sort of at odds with the micromanagement of the employees.
No it's not.
"You wouldn't have completed this project if I hadn't been there to correct your mistakes."
Good leaders correct details because they think they're important. Micromanagers correct minor details as a means of making it look like they're adding value (oftentimes this is a lie they tell themselves just as much as it is one they tell others).
Plus, funding a company doesn't buy one a CEO spot. If it did, all startups would be run by VCs.
No it's not.
"You wouldn't have completed this project if I hadn't been there to correct your mistakes."
Good leaders correct details because they think they're important. Micromanagers correct minor details as a means of making it look like they're adding value (oftentimes this is a lie they tell themselves just as much as it is one they tell others).
Plus, funding a company doesn't buy one a CEO spot. If it did, all startups would be run by VCs.
If its possible have him read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Multipliers-Best-Leaders-Everyone-Smar...
It's a book on how some leaders push people at their job while other leaders simply make everyone shut down and only get about 50% productivity. He's micro-managing style is actually covered in depth.
http://www.amazon.com/Multipliers-Best-Leaders-Everyone-Smar...
It's a book on how some leaders push people at their job while other leaders simply make everyone shut down and only get about 50% productivity. He's micro-managing style is actually covered in depth.
The easiest, most general answer is: data. Give him a pie chart with numbers and dollar signs. How much time is he spending on micro-managing? Calculate it. The little things start to add up. Time spent micro-managing is time not spent doing other things (growing the business).
Sometimes it is necessary to have that to get things going. But of course it does not scale. 30 people are not too many for one manager. When you go international and the number of employees is in the middle hundreds he will need to delegate or growth will stop.
You know, sometimes it's best to leave others to solve their own problems. The executives in your company can worry about themselves. How is the CEO affecting your work?
Agreed. The people being micromanaged are adults and should be able to fend for themselves. If your work is being affected, then it would be a cause of concern.
How is the CEO affecting your work?
By driving you crazy, and making it sometimes literally impossible to get anything done for him.
By driving you crazy, and making it sometimes literally impossible to get anything done for him.
I think the advice to Quit should be qualified by: only if the company has more than about 25 people. Otherwise, there may be hope.
As he is the owner, buy the company or live with it. :(
Oh, there are plenty of other options on the table, my friend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitdown_strike