Is it coaching, or micromanaging?

One of the epiphanies I had as a strategy team leader was when I realized the way I had been managing some of the people on my team was not just unhelpful to their skills development, but was actively thwarting it. Maybe you’ve seen this: a strategist is the primary resource on a project and they struggle a bit with it. They’re not comfortable with the ambiguity, and maybe are having a hard time envisioning their process, and the end goal. So their manager leans in and tells them what to do in order to keep the project on timeline. And as the project continues, the manager continues to contribute in this way - helping set up the insights and the story, and directing the other strategist’s work. The result turns out fine - the work stays on schedule and is of a quality above what the primary strategist would have produced by themselves during that timeframe. It feels like a win.

And it is - for the client and the project. But not for the primary strategist, whose role was reduced to taking direction. Following a path set by someone else doesn’t fully engage their brain, and they lose the opportunity to grow through exercising it in the right way. In fact, if it happens often enough, their skills can even atrophy.

Another scenario I’ve seen is where two strategists are assigned to the same project - not to collaborate, but because each only has time for part of the project. So they divide and conquer the work - each focusing on one part, which they’ll assemble into a whole later on. But neither is focusing on the whole problem. It’s better than painting by numbers, but they’re still not accountable for the full strategy.

When I started coaching I realized the key to developing a strategist’s skills is to make sure their entire brain remains engaged on the problem. It’s one of the core principles behind the Kinetic Coaching process I use:

When a strategist works alone (the most common scenario) they only have their own brain engaged on the problem. So the quality of the work is limited to what their brain can come up with.

In a Divide & conquer scenario, two brains are engaged, but neither fully. The quality of the work is not much different from a strategist working solo.

Micromanaging produces a better result because you have a senior person more fully engaged on the process. They essentially own and drive it, and it stays on schedule through the assistance of the “primary” strategist. But when you’re micromanaged you’re not fully engaged. You don’t feel accountable for the solution and you’re not working your brain in the same way. You are less responsible for decision-making, so you don’t need to employ the same critical thinking. And because you’re taking direction you’re have less opportunity to be creative. Obviously this is all subject to the relationship between the two people, but any scenario where agency and accountability are removed stultifies growth opportunities.

The idea behind Kinetic Coaching is that the primary strategist remains fully engaged on the problem, and the coach is fully engaged on helping the primary strategist engage the problem. Sometimes this manifests as introducing new ideas and insights, sure. But it’s always in service of developing the strategist as effectively as possible, not shipping the work as quickly as possible. But the work benefits, because the coach has standards of quality they’re helping the strategist adhere to. They know what good looks like, and a big part of the process is helping the strategist see it also, and get there. A good coach can help a Senior Strategist or Associate Director produce Director or VP level work.

But the bigger insight here comes when you look at the yellow bars on the chart. If someone is helping a principal strategist on a project, they are all in if they’re micromanaging, or if they’re effectively coaching. That is, it’s easy to feel like you’re helping even when you’re micromanaging because you’re fully engaged.

And while it’s impossible to measure, it seems logical that the work that results from Kinetic Coaching can only be better, because two fully engaged brains can usually be more insightful, analytical and creative than one.

Obviously most people who micromanage don’t realize they are. Like me, for a long time. I thought I was just managing. But I was only helping the project, not the strategist. The difference comes down to being very intentional about what or who it is you’re trying to make better.