Micromange VS. Macromanage – Where Is The Return On Investment?

WARNING: This is purely a thought experiment. I do not claim to have a clue, however please read below and figure this out with me. When done please comment with your ideas/arguments and then share with friends so that they can have their say.

I am very much in the camp of “macromange > micromanage”. My father definitely acts upon “micromanage > macromanage”. Is your return on your time invested going to be higher for micromanagement or maromanagement?

For Macromanagement

It is the macromanagement that determines publishing this game instead of that game. Clearly this will have a large bearing on success. Macromanagement leads us to the determination on how to market a game. Macromanagement is what moves us to create a blog, get involved with Facebook, and start an email subscription list.

Macromanaging allows us to not allow small bad things get in the way of potentially large good things. If I had a fear of manufacturing issues with an initial print run, then Tasty Minstrel Games would not have ever been started. I would have allowed the fear of bad stuff keep me from allowing VERY good things to happen.

For Micromanagement

Without attention to detail and micromanagement, things would not work well. It would not be easy to share blog posts, because there would not be social sharing buttons. Without continuous adjustment to minute details of a game system, Homesteaders and Terra Prime would not be as good as they are.

Micromanagement is what needs to be done so that large things are successful. Without micromanagement, I would have been longer before I realized how to get free container shipping from China. The realization of which will save thousands of dollars on shipping expenses and reduce potential wastes of resources.

Conclusion

I don’t really have one. Both micromanagement and macromanagement are important and vital to a successful business, but surely one must be better than the other. What camp are you in and why?

Spread the word

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please blog about it, or share the post using any of the following services:

Tagged as: management, optimization

Kevin E. Schlabach

I believe you have to macromanage first and set near term goals... then micromanage to accomplish those goals (but nothing more) and then go back to macromanagement and reassess based on what you learned... then repeat. People who choose micromanagement first lose track of the big picture.

Coming up with an idea is easy. Pursuing it is harder, completing it is hardest. Not losing your path along the way with distraction is near impossible. Ignoring what you have learned and not incorporating it before pursuing the next round of work is quite common.

This is why I subscribe to iterative strategy and execution. It forces you to flip between the two and find some balance.

Michael Mindes

I reactivated the Disqus comments system, and as a result lost some comments, so here they are:

Seth Jaffee January 28, 2010 at 11:35 am

I do not think one of two different, necessary things need be better than the other. If they’re both necessary, then they’re both necessary… and it’s completely possible they’re equally important.

That said, it’s probably worth noting which aspect you prefer and/or are good at, concentrate on that aspect, and look for help with the other aspect. That’s what I think.

Tao January 28, 2010 at 12:10 pm

I think it’s more of a case of what’s good right now? Each has a place in the business cycle; and will be more important than the other. I see it a lot more of a revenue generation / cost cutting option. At times, you’ll need to generate revenue more than worry about costs, and vice versa. Without doing both at different times, the business is going to fail.

Ditto with Micro / Macro managing. Later on, if you grow big enough, then you can stay mostly on Marco level thinking, but we’re so not there yet. :)

Michael January 28, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Seth, I agree completely with the concentration on what aspect you are good at and prefer. I also think that is part of the reason we are working well together on Tasty Minstrel projects. I like macro and you like micro.

Tao, agreed. Although, on one hand it would be nice to stay concentrating on the macromanagement. On the other hand, if you have a non-revenue sharing employee micromanaging, they may miss some huge potential savings in micromanagement.

Michael

Seth, I agree completely with the concentration on what aspect you are good at and prefer. I also think that is part of the reason we are working well together on Tasty Minstrel projects. I like macro and you like micro.

Tao, agreed. Although, on one hand it would be nice to stay concentrating on the macromanagement. On the other hand, if you have a non-revenue sharing employee micromanaging, they may miss some huge potential savings in micromanagement.

Tao

I think it's more of a case of what's good right now? Each has a place in the business cycle; and will be more important than the other. I see it a lot more of a revenue generation / cost cutting option. At times, you'll need to generate revenue more than worry about costs, and vice versa. Without doing both at different times, the business is going to fail.

Ditto with Micro / Macro managing. Later on, if you grow big enough, then you can stay mostly on Marco level thinking, but we're so not there yet. :)

Seth Jaffee

I do not think one of two different, necessary things need be better than the other. If they're both necessary, then they're both necessary... and it's completely possible they're equally important.

That said, it's probably worth noting which aspect you prefer and/or are good at, concentrate on that aspect, and look for help with the other aspect. That's what I think.

Micromange VS. Macromanage – Where Is The Return On Investment?

For Macromanagement

For Micromanagement

Conclusion

Spread the word

Popular Posts

Topics

Name:
Email: