Good School Leaders Dump The Micromanagement, But Not The Caring Or Responsibility
The temptation for school leaders to micromanage is understandable, says Mary Myatt – but letting go can result in better insights, more focused responsibility and a greater sense of satisfaction for everyone…
- by Mary Myatt
‘The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.’ – Warren Bennis
Oh, it’s tempting to have a finger in every pie. Leaders need to know what is going on, right? Of course they do, but they know the difference between knowing and doing. This is a very fine line, because letting go of micromanagement means we have to assume that things are going well.
It seems that top leaders, aiming to make sure there is high challenge and low threat, make it very clear about what needs to be done. They check that their colleagues know too, and trust them to get on with it. A spot of benign neglect. They don’t become a helicopter leader – a bit like the helicopter parent whose child isn’t able to burp without expecting a memo going home.
Sensible leaders catch themselves when they find themselves going into helicopter mode. It’s tempting. We all care so much, we want things to go right. We know how to do it, it would save so much time. But the problem is that no-one grows to their full potential if the leaders are doing too much and if their colleagues feel they are being watched, stifled, not able to crack on.
A level of trust
There is a paradox here, because top leaders know that they need to know what is going on. So how do they do this without sticking their fingers into every pie? Two main things: they learn how to use a bit of information to tell a big story; and the main thing they do is they keep the door open to colleagues to let them know how things are going.
It’s not exactly triangulated, but there are two of the three legs there. This way of working probably doesn’t need all three legs, because it gets the job done.
What does this look like in practice? As an example, a recently appointed leader to a new role, responsible for continuing professional development, recognised that there are several strands to the work. Some of the work was external, linking with local networks and alliances, and some internal and which required new opportunities for staff to share practice and to think about new ways of working to secure improvements.
She realised, after talking with other colleagues including the headteacher, that this needed to be both intense and balanced with shorter sessions to refine and boost, reflect and debate. So they agreed the overall programme and the headlines of what this structure might look like. The content of the sessions were closely related to the priorities in the school’s improvement plan. Much of the work was focused on refining colleagues’ use of questioning.
Having agreed the main areas of work, the headteacher did not check daily with his junior colleague whether particular meetings had been set up. He did not check that every item of the agenda for the term had been filled. He knows that the headlines have been agreed, is satisfied that they are aligned with the school’s development priorities. And let her get on with it.
She in turn translated this level of trust when working with others on the programme. She invited people to take part, reassuring them that it would be high challenge, low threat. That it would be good for others to hear what they have to say. That she trusted them to produce something both light touch and reflective to fit the bill. And that it wouldn’t be the end of the world if it didn‘t go exactly to plan. And that her door is open, they can come and check. Because she knew that she could refer to the headteacher because she knew that his door was open.
Space for new insights
Now what happens here when we let go of the tyranny of micromanagement is that new energy is released. It flows from the top, but it circulates back once it has reached its full expression when the colleague in question talks for 10 minutes about their practice. Something that has gone well, some thoughts on why. And even better if it is something that has not worked so well.
Now this releasing of responsibility is incredibly efficient. It creates the space for new insights, greater responsibility and indeed greater satisfaction on the part of those involved. And all because the leader decided that micromanagement was not needed. They worked consciously against this.
Importantly though, in this case, the leader did not move away from micromanagement and wash his or her hands of all responsibility. It’s about saying this stuff matters, I can’t and don’t need to do it all. There are others better equipped. But I’m here as a backstop. Oh, and I show up to be part of the final production/event. Because dumping micromanagement doesn’t mean dumping caring or responsibility.
This translates into practice in the classroom too. Many teachers who are diligent prepare beautiful resources, penetrating questions, interesting stuff for students to do. They set out what needs to happen. They check that everyone knows what they are meant to be doing. And off the students go.
Now the temptation is to go and check pretty swiftly how they are getting on. Particularly the awkward crew who are sometimes likely to lose attention. Top leaders in the classroom know to let them get on for a bit, keep an eye on them and even let them struggle a bit. They know not to interrupt the learning to check that students are doing OK, because they know they need time to digest, process, make sense and ask questions.
They have learned not to be helicopter teachers. Just as their leaders have learned not to micromanage them.
© Mary Myatt, 2016
Extracted from the book High Challenge, Low Threat – Finding the Balance by Mary Myatt, published by John Catt Educational. For more information, visit marymyatt.com or follow @MaryMyatt.
