Dick Spencer Case Essay Example
Analysis of the Dick Spencer’s Case
With reference to the case, micromanagement practice, employees’ resistance to organizational change, ineffective management by wandering around approach, and Dick’s managerial problem solving are the main managerial issues that can be identified in the case.
Micromanagement Practice Micromanagement refers to the control of an enterprise in every particular and to the smallest detail, with the effect of obstructing progress and neglecting broader, higher-level policy issues (White, 2010). Micromanagement is a type of leadership style where one thinks and feels he or she has to make all decisions regarding an enterprise, department or tasks. Subordinates or employees’ contributions and views are not welcomed. Weyand (1996) added that a micromanager is someone who tells you not only why things need to be done (vision) and what needs to be done (mission), but also the who, how, when and where.
Dick’s micromanagement practice is seen as a practice where he ‘bosses’ his employees, and lacks confidence in them. People who micromanage generally do so because they feel unsure and self-doubting. They seldom develop people but instead exploit them, preferring to control results rather than inspiring creativity (White, 2010). This was typical of Dick as he performed his duties throughout the branches he worked for. He micromanaged the tasks of his employees to the extent that it created tension between him and them. It is not surprising that he earned a reputation in his troubleshooting job as a cold, calculating head hunter. Employees’ concerns and their formed perceptions about Dick clearly show that they were dissatisfied and daunted by his managerial style; thus, killing their passion towards work and “render irreparable harm to their morale” (Presutti, 2006, p.1).
Micromanagement in some cases, as implied by White (2010), may increase productivity over the short- term but long-term problems such as workers’
With reference to the case, micromanagement practice, employees’ resistance to organizational change, ineffective management by wandering around approach, and Dick’s managerial problem solving are the main managerial issues that can be identified in the case.
Micromanagement Practice Micromanagement refers to the control of an enterprise in every particular and to the smallest detail, with the effect of obstructing progress and neglecting broader, higher-level policy issues (White, 2010). Micromanagement is a type of leadership style where one thinks and feels he or she has to make all decisions regarding an enterprise, department or tasks. Subordinates or employees’ contributions and views are not welcomed. Weyand (1996) added that a micromanager is someone who tells you not only why things need to be done (vision) and what needs to be done (mission), but also the who, how, when and where.
Dick’s micromanagement practice is seen as a practice where he ‘bosses’ his employees, and lacks confidence in them. People who micromanage generally do so because they feel unsure and self-doubting. They seldom develop people but instead exploit them, preferring to control results rather than inspiring creativity (White, 2010). This was typical of Dick as he performed his duties throughout the branches he worked for. He micromanaged the tasks of his employees to the extent that it created tension between him and them. It is not surprising that he earned a reputation in his troubleshooting job as a cold, calculating head hunter. Employees’ concerns and their formed perceptions about Dick clearly show that they were dissatisfied and daunted by his managerial style; thus, killing their passion towards work and “render irreparable harm to their morale” (Presutti, 2006, p.1).
Micromanagement in some cases, as implied by White (2010), may increase productivity over the short- term but long-term problems such as workers’