I don’t really know what you’re asking. If you are micromanaging your assistant and they are still not performing, it’s likely that you either still have not communicated issues and goals well or, more likely, the person can’t cut it and may need to be replaced with someone who can. I hate to sound like Sun Tzu here, but nice and well-intentioned are great, but in the end, workers are judged by what they get done as well as how they do it.

Hope that helps.

My guess is that you know the answer here. “Hoping” that someone will quit to solve a problem is never a solution. A manager has to be proactive and make things happen. As such, assuming your GM has had discussions about the problem with the AGM and created a plan to resolve any issues, the AGM should be fired.

It sounds like there are some political issues. Perhaps the AGM is connected with upper management? If so, this can be a tough situation for the GM, of course. If the upper management is any good at their jobs, they would be delegating this responsibility to your GM and not interfere. It always make sense for your GM to bring them into the loop and make them part of the solution first, rather than having to explain why he fired the AGM later.

In any case, action is ALWAYS better than inaction. If the AGM is a real problem and avenues to resolve the problems have already been pursued, then there’s really no choice. It’s all in *how* it’s done.

Hope that makes sense.

Sometimes, as you stated, the team can take care of the training. Sometimes, though, the skills required for the task don’t exist in the group. This is especially true of startups where companies cannot afford to have much overlap between skill sets or areas of focus. This is where the responsibility for training; hand-holding and *micromanagement* lies with the manager, in my opinion.

The manager could throw the new employee to the wolves of course in a sink-or-swim sort of test. If the right person was hired and they have what it takes, they’ll figure it out, right? But sometimes, this will cause an otherwise worthy employee to drown. This situation isn’t good for anyone – the employee, the team or the company. At the very least, it’s a waste of time. More likely it’s a demotivating for all who are watching what’s going on.

I complete agree that any manager who hires “losers/weaklings” isn’t cutting it as a manager. But I think that there is a lot of gray area between having previous experience with a task and incompetence. There are many people who can add value to an organization that fall into this gray area and are completely worthy of being hired. Some of these people will need more hand-holding than others and this is where the manager comes in. Often the managerial role is creating a sparkling diamond out of a lump of coal and seeing that the diamond was in there in the first place. Sometimes, it’s just polishing up the shiny rock that was clearly visible. Some of this is left to the team, but the personal responsible – the primary teacher and guide – is the manager.

Hope that makes sense.

A good manager hires people who are competent even despite the fear he/she may have that they will advance past him/her. If there is reason for micromanagement like you stated in your post, “it is likely that they will ultimately fail, hurting themselves and negatively impacting the group’s productivity” then it means that person should have a job elsewhere. If someone is the type of person who will ultimately fail then they are not the someone for the position. It doesn’t mean they are bad or that they are a failure it simply means that particular job is not for them.

Managers fail when they fail to train their people therefore insuring failure in their people, they fail when they hire incompetent individuals who they fear will ultimately fail if not babysat, and they themselves are incompetent for hiring people who cannot advance the company in the manager’s absence. Excessive control of others is generally a sign of someone who feels insecure and out of control in their own personal lives and positions. Micromanagement is a sign of a weak manager.

If you have people you have to micromanage then there is a weakness somewhere. 1- the person is weak and needs to be fired or moved to a new position or 2- the manager is weak and seeks people he feels he can control to protect his image, his job or in many cases his illegal activities. If a manager is on the up and up then his people won’t have to be micromanaged it’s as simple as that. Don’t hire losers/weaklings and you will find you have more time to devote to your own job instead of babysitting the jobs of others. A good manager can be involved with his people in a more appropriate way than dictating and overseeing their every breath, and an absent manager is no better than a micromanaging one so why not be present and involved without being insecure and dictatorial? Micromanagement can be resolved simply by making sure that those more experienced and skilled workers are properly training the newer, less experienced ones. Proper training prevents most of the need for micromanagement.