Micromanage LIKE A BOSS
June 7, 2011 11:56 AM   Subscribe

Academic research environment with human subject psychology experiments. I am in the process of being promoted, from leading day-to-day operations of a large, important project to a "lab manager" supervisory role, overseeing everything that goes on (including said project). Problem is, I'm having trouble letting go of my old role and end up micromanaging the two people who now hold it, and it's not good for anyone. Help.

Background: Everyone involved in this research project is full-time staff, between undergrad and grad school, ostensibly. I have been here two years (though I graduated four years ago), and the two newer staffers, J and K, who graduated from undergrad about a year ago, have been here about nine months. The current lab manager has been here forever, but is now leaving to go to grad school.

For a little more than a year, I was the research staff member in charge of a large, extensive, expensive long-term research project that involved human subjects coming to the lab two dozen times over the course of a school semester, which is really tough, logistically. I think I did a really good job optimizing the study to make it easy for us to run and pleasant for our participants; the last full semester I was in charge, we had a near-perfect retention rate. Other people in the lab helped, of course, including J and K when they started working here.

My boss has explicitly stated that he wants me to take over the lab manager position, and has therefore taken me off the large project to learn the new role from our outgoing lab manager. But I'm having trouble disengaging from my old role and handing it off to J and K*. Namely, whenever I see J and K doing something different from the way I did it, I ask about it or say, "You might try doing X this way..." J tends to get defensive; he usually says, "I see where you're coming from [I'm not sure he does], but why is that better?"

I was an engineering undergrad (everyone else was psychology), and feel like I have a pretty typical example of an "engineering mindset", so naturally, my answer -- at least in my head -- is usually something like "It just makes more sense!" or "It's more efficient!" or "It's a more optimal solution!" I have trouble communicating reasons behind that, especially on the spot, and I feel like I come off as having no reason or poor reasons behind asking them to keep doing things the way I did them.

I would just try to forget about it completely, mentally wiping my hands of the whole project, but for three problems:

1) I put a lot of work into this data set. It's by far the largest dataset of its kind; really immense statistical power. I don't want to see that compromised by shoddy work-- NOT that I think they do shoddy work, but if their procedures are different from mine, I think about them as being "less correct", even if they work fine.

2) I use the data coming out of this project constantly. It's the major resource that I depend on. I want it to be as pristine and extensive as possible, and again, I feel like the methods I honed over the year I was in charge of it make for the cleanest, largest dataset.

This is the big one:
3) If I'm lab manager, everything that goes on is, on some level, my responsibility. The buck stops here. If their recruitment numbers aren't as high as my PI wants, it's my fault on some level, and he's likely to let me know that. If we collect bad data because one of them neglected to tell a subject something, again, my fault, my ass.

I guess the problem is that I haven't yet figured out how to balance oversight with letting them keep their independence. I'm fine with them doing things their own way, but I feel like I inappropriately latch on to small mistakes and say, "Yeah, maybe you should have done this the way I did." (Not in so many words, of course.) I want to cut down on those small mistakes, and I'm sure they do too, but I'm having trouble seeing anything but MY WAY as the best way to do that. It seems like J is of the same opinion about HIS WAY.

*Side note: Neither J nor K "leads" the project the way I did. They share every responsibility, and split all the tasks that I did by myself. I guess I'm not terribly surprised, given that they're or equal seniority. But the most recent disagreement was when I tried to get them to each take distinct task-related responsibilities, which I feel is reasonable and would lead to more accountability in every sense, and fewer instances of one hand not knowing what the other is doing. For example, I proposed that J handle all subject e-mailing, and K handle all subject payment records. J told me that the way they do it (basically, whoever gets to a task first does it) is fine, which led me to point out a recent minor mistake. That didn't go over well.

So yeah. Strategies please. How do I manage without micromanaging? How do I let go of the day-to-day operations that I focused on for over a year? At what point do I put my managerial foot down, if ever?

For what it's worth, my current mantra is, "As long as it gets done, it doesn't matter how efficiently they're doing it. Mistakes happen either way." But that goes against my entire worldview. I keep repeating it anyway.
posted by supercres to Work & Money (11 answers total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
You probably made some mistakes when you first started. And people were patient with you. It's your turn to let go and let folks make the mistakes they need to make to learn how to do this.

Is someone going to die if you don't correct these mistakes? If not, then try to be okay with it.

"As long as it gets done, it doesn't matter how efficiently they're doing it. Mistakes happen either way." But that goes against my entire worldview.

This goes against your worldview, eh? Perhaps consider the bigger picture: one way to ensure inefficiency is to try to tell them how to do tasks and make them pissed off. That'll waste a lot of their time, and yours.
posted by bluedaisy at 12:10 PM on June 7, 2011


supercres,

This book might be of use?

"At The Helm: A Laboratory Navigator", by Kathy Barker. (2002, Cold Spring Harbor Press)


Blurb (from Amazon): "The major strength of the book lies in its near comprehensive treatment of the issues pertaining to laboratory personnel, and it is in these sections that the book should prove invaluable to inexperienced lab managers." --Trends in Neurosciences.

Amazon review: "...nowhere else have I seen such a variety of practical information on lab management compressed into one book. There are even a variety of quotes from other professors about specific situations that are quite enlightening...."


(I was the editor on this one, so it probably means nothing if I say I thought it was outstanding, but that's genuinely what I thought! The writer - who was a joy to work with - started from the premise that promotion to lab manager often left even brilliantly competent people floundering at first).
posted by Jody Tresidder at 1:20 PM on June 7, 2011


My husband, who was an engineer and is now a director, had a tough time with this transition, too, and still micro-manages even now. He's very conscientious, hardworking and all about creating efficient, streamlined procedures.

And sometimes, people do screw up, and he ends up putting out fires (as he puts it) that never should have started in the first place.

But I think you are going in here assuming that J and K are screwing up, when really they are just doing things differently.

I'm fine with them doing things their own way, but I feel like I inappropriately latch on to small mistakes and say, "Yeah, maybe you should have done this the way I did." (Not in so many words, of course.)

Well, then, you aren't really fine with it, are you? If J and K are going to be doing these jobs, you have to let go and let them do the jobs their way.

J told me that the way they do it (basically, whoever gets to a task first does it) is fine, which led me to point out a recent minor mistake. That didn't go over well.

How minor was the mistake? Has it been repeated? Or does their system basically get the job done? Now, if the mistakes continue, they will need to make changes. And you have to give them the opportunity to do that before you step in. That's the difference between managing processes and procedures and managing people. People need some autonomy. You do NOT say "I told you so," or try to turn them into little clones of you. You should only step in on the day-to-day stuff if they get stuck and that data set you need starts to break down.

It's hard to accept this, I know. In my house, I have to sometimes tell my husband to lay off because he wants the dishwasher loaded just so or the laundry done a particular way. It's not that he's wrong so much as I have to be allowed to do things my way, take ownership of them and not be treated like a servant in order for me to do MY best. He's the boss at work, but I need to sometimes be the boss at home, because we are partners.

These guys may be younger and less experienced than you, but they are your colleagues and deserve to be treated with the same respect. Instead of saying to yourself, "As long as it gets done, it doesn't matter how efficiently they're doing it. Mistakes happen either way," how about saying, "Just because they aren't doing it my way doesn't mean they aren't being efficient. The results back that up."
posted by misha at 1:39 PM on June 7, 2011


Response by poster: misha-- I'm cringing at your "in my house" example, mostly because I totally see myself in it. I'm sure my wife will agree.

Thanks, all. It's clear I need the tough talk.
posted by supercres at 2:28 PM on June 7, 2011


I also work in a psych research lab doing human research and I have also struggled with training new employees who are a year out of school and don't respond well to constructive criticism. The only advice I have is that if you're going to ask someone to do something differently (i.e. how you did it), you need to explicitly state what could go wrong if they continue to do it they way they want. For example, "I think it's a good idea to make a copy of the database before I do data entry because one time I accidentally deleted a bunch of cases and had to spend 3 days re-entering all the data." You could also appeal to SCIENCE! by emphasizing the importance of good research or instill a healthy fear of the IRB. For instance, if they keep doing the mailings and payment records randomly, it's more likely that someone's payment will slip through the cracks and they might call you or the IRB to complain that they haven't been paid.

I also think you should l accept the fact that the methods that make the most sense to you might not make the most sense to them. If it works, it doesn't have to make sense to you. If they start to fuck up, get in there and show 'em how it's done.
posted by Mrs.Spiffy at 3:02 PM on June 7, 2011


supercres - I had J and Ks job and could have had yours, had I not moved on to grad school. I fought hard to have a few bits of procedure changed, but I didn't do it without asking and I never did anything randomly, one way one day and another the next day, or differently than someone else.

There ARE good reasons for that and they all revolve around being able to trace back and say exactly what happened to every tiny bit of data from the moment it was collected, cleaned, organized, added to a larger data set, etc. When I asked for changes it was because it was too difficult to properly track my work and each other's work and we needed to be able to do that to avoid duplicate effort or worse, missed steps. It lets you catch mistakes, lets you prove the validity and integrity of your data after the fact if it becomes necessary, and makes you look competent to your subjects which is really important with followup.

So yes, I saw times where the old way of doing something sucked (PAPER recruitment logs?! nightmare! but it had been done that way since the early 90s and no one was willing to make the effort to change) but I went to my lab manager, said "this way sucks, my way is better because XYZ" and we made changes that let me do my job better. I think you are justified in making J and K explain WHY they are doing something differently, and if their way works AND is traceable AND everyone is on board to implement it consistently AND it helps them do it better, great. Until then, you are right to worry about variations in procedures and crack down on them.
posted by slow graffiti at 3:14 PM on June 7, 2011


You could sit down with them, either one on one or together, and have them set tasks and goals ie this many subjects enrolled, this rate of retention, etc. Work with them to set timelines for these goals as well, and then plan to meet with them in a week or a month and see how things are going. Give them responsibility to do their job, and let them do it. Then if they don't measure up, have them figure out what didn't work, and why, and have them come up with solutions. They'll never grow to be competent and confident (and skilled!) unless you give them the room to do this. Also, they will probably quit and you will have a tough time retaining staff as a micromanager.

I have a strong negative reaction to being micromanaged. I interpret it as the micromanager saying, "Wow are you ever incompetent [I'm not]. You couldn't possibly ever do this simple task on your own [Actually, I do much more complex and detailed work, regularly]. And let me tell you, there is only one way to do it [Yeah, right]; attempting to do it any other way is a sure sign of a witless moron [Aargh]."

I have been micromanaged a bit lately and it has resulted in me turning into, you guessed it, a witless moron. I have made mistake after junior mistake of the type that I would typically NEVER do, as I am careful, cautious, and double check everything all the time. But since the group leader is treating me like I don't know anything, well, all of a sudden I don't know anything. It has been interesting to observe myself in this situation and see my rapid decline from functional, competent and skilled to passive aggressive, incompetent, and a bit of an (inadvertent) nincompoop.

So, this has been a longish rant. I am glad you are seeking help and trying to change your micromanaging ways! Remind yourself that you are trying to create a work environment where you could evaporate and your two employees would be able to keep things going with ease. Being indispensable as a manager means you are not a great manager. Find a way to help your staff members identify their strengths and interests, and help them by giving them work which will build those strengths.
posted by lulu68 at 3:32 PM on June 7, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, micro-managing will result in actual incompetency as well as resentment. Which makes for a tremendously fun workplace environment!

You have your way. They have their way. As you said, mistakes are made by everyone no matter what way something is done.

Your job as leader is to guide. You have their backs. You use their skills. You see their strengths and weaknesses and guide them appropriately. If they cock up small time, you step in and guide them back on track. If they cock up big time, you step in and guide them back on track. You are the captain of the ship - you don't tell them in intricate detail how to get to land, you just help them use their skills to get you all there.
posted by mleigh at 3:47 PM on June 7, 2011


3) If I'm lab manager, everything that goes on is, on some level, my responsibility. The buck stops here. If their recruitment numbers aren't as high as my PI wants, it's my fault on some level, and he's likely to let me know that. If we collect bad data because one of them neglected to tell a subject something, again, my fault, my ass.

Is it? I've worked in several labs and this wasn't true in any of them. The lab manager was responsible for making sure people could use the labs and how it was run generally speaking, but people were responsible for their own projects. Do you have any actual authority over J and K? That's where I see the problem. You've spoken of them as replacing you. When you were working on that project, did the lab manager have any authority over you? It sounds like she did not. J and K probably know that. There's a difference between training your replacement and managing someone. Given your more senior role on the project, it may be reasonable to have some authority over J and K now that you've moved on, but was this explicitly stated at any point? If not, J and K may not see you as having any authority over them, just as the old lab manager had no authority over how you did your old job, so they may see you as someone who's moved on from training to meddling. I think you need to clarify this situation with your PI - about who is really responsible for what and how you want to remain involved because you feel responsible for this data.
posted by unannihilated at 4:18 PM on June 7, 2011


Suggestion: Start a list of everything you see that you feel you want to correct. I know you can't just ignore it but you want time to evaluate and think about it so you don't micromanage. Don't say anything in the moment! Then sit down and go over the list. Cross everything that doesn't really matter. Go over it again and cross out everything else that doesn't really matter. Think about why the other things do matter. Then pick ONE thing that really matters and figure out for yourself what exactly is the problem or concern. (Know in your own head what your real goal is - not "do it my way" but what you hope they would accomplish if they did it your way. This focuses you on results, not process. Then meet with J and/or K have a discussion (DISCUSSION not lecture) about it.

Start with "I noticed xyz (factual description of observation) and I was wondering about abc (aspect that might be problematic)" Then LISTEN - maybe they already knew it was a mistake and you don't need to say anything more. Maybe they have a different way of dealing with your concern that you weren't aware of. If not, say "this is how I would handle it. you can handle it anyway it works for you as long as my concern is being met. let me know by x how you are going deal with it."

Then throw out the list and start a new one. (That way you are focusing on only one recent problem at a time)
posted by metahawk at 5:00 PM on June 7, 2011


It sounds like you also can't explain what the problem is with their way of doing it. If the problem is efficiency in the sense of "you're requiring someone to come in to the lab more times" or otherwise making things hard for the research to happen then say that. If it's about traceability of the data and consistency of process then say that. If it's just "I found it easier to do these two steps in this order because I didn't have to look at the log files as many times" ('more efficient') then who cares? Let them find their own system. If they ask for advice tell them that (and make sure you remember it's not that it's "more efficient", it's that it was "more efficient for me"). Maybe they'll end up with something similar, maybe it'll be something better, maybe it'll be worse and they'll waste twenty minutes every week, but _they_ will work better and develop into more competent people for being allowed to figure it out.

As misha said above, this is the difference between managing processes vs managing people. With processes, you need to make sure the project is flowing as smoothly and efficiently as it can. With people, you need to make sure they are working as well and efficiently as _they_ can - which may not be as well as YOU can, or certainly not in the same way. But your role is something else now, and for you to spend your time optimizing their processes is inefficient for the lab as a whole.
posted by Lady Li at 10:56 PM on June 7, 2011


« Older Looking for twee band with hopping video   |   Half Hacks Please! Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.