Micromanaging Reports

Conventional wisdom is that by micromanaging reports submitted to a safety management system (SMS), their operation becomes a safer place. Micromanagement is where managers feel the need to control aspects of their processes and personnel decision-making to an extreme degree, more than what is necessary or healthy for a usual working relationship. Micromanagement overcontrolling may take

form of a light, medium or high level of overcontrolling, to an extreme level where a person become obsessed with overcontrolling processes. Organizations establish rules, both written and unwritten rules, and acceptable practices, to what, when and who are eligible to submit SMS reports. These rules are established to manage the probability of reports shared and shedding an unfavorable light on the SME enterprise. However, reports submitted to the SMS are confidential reports, and proprietary property of the organization. SMS reports are only shared to a third-party by the AE, and an SMS manager is not authorized to share any reports, audit results, or operational processes at their own discretion.

The four different levels of micromanagement are Fear of Mistakes, Lack of Trust, Fear of Stepping Outside the Comfort Zone, and Power Obsession. 

Fear of mistakes is a common reason for micromanagement. Managers, and persons with authority resort to micromanagement sine they are afraid that their team will be making mistakes. They often implement it to avoid potential risks or downsides to the outcomes. Managers believe that if they do not oversee everything, personnel will not deliver the correct output, with consequences to follow for managers and other personnel. Mangers fear that if they do not closely check what their team is doing, they may make severe and costly mistakes that will put jobs at risk. Micromanagement due to fear is a light level of management. There are no major issues, and personnel are expecting the managers to tell them what, when and who about their work tasks. This makes every job tasks easy without challenges and without a need for performance ambitions. When conducting a risk analysis of fear of mistakes, the likelihood level is randomly, and times between intervals are without definite aim, direction, rule, or method, and their severity level is low, and would attract attention to operational process, cause operational inconvenience, or unscheduled events. This is a green or yellow risk level, which is acceptable to most SMS organizations.  

Micromanagement is often the result of a lack of trust in team members. Lack of trust is a level of micromanagement which at irregular intervals infringes on a person’s performance expectations. A person may be performing a task satisfactory, but without the end result in site, a manager is unsure, or has lack of trust, that the remaining portion of the task will be satisfactory. Lack of trust is degrading a person’s intelligence to a level of being annoying but is not detrimental to personal behavior. The mistrust usually starts from the manager’s assessment of the team’s skill set compared to their own perceived level of skill set. Managers may feel that they need to constantly monitor and control team members to ensure that they work to the manager’s expectations. Managers feel the need to check the work frequency to ensure that everything is running in accordance with their plan, and according to their instructions. When conducting a risk analysis of lack of trust the likelihood level is occasionally and times between intervals are inconstant, and their severity level is major, involving an industry standard defined risk, or a risk significant in size, amount, or degree. This is a blue risk level, which is a pause, and a decision could go both ways to accept or reject the risk. A root cause analysis is needed of special cause variations within the blue risk matrix range.  

Another primary reason behind managers resorting to micromanagement is fear of the unknown, or fear of stepping outside of the comfort zone. Fear of stepping outside of the comfort zone is a high a level of micromanagement, it is detrimental to operations, production and services, job performance, personal achievement, and the organizational culture. Managers firmly believe that if they don’t have tight control over every detail, they might be viewed as incompetent managers, or that something might go wrong. This negative connotation of the unknown can be attributed to a lack of their own confidence and abilities. This fear also occurs when managers are untrained in change management, and due to frequent changes in the business world, which some managers are unable to navigate. When conducting a risk analysis of fear of stepping outside of the comfort zone the likelihood level is frequently, and times between intervals are reliable and dependable, and their severity level is hazardous, having influence or effect of an irrevocable harm, damage, or loss. This is an orange risk level, and operators are required to conduct an investigation, including a system analysis prior to returning to normal operations. 

Power obsession is an extreme level of micromanagement and is where organizations are totally malfunctioning. There is no guidance, oversight, control, or integrity within the organization. Managers who are driven by power obsession tend to be hypercritical and constantly involved in monitoring their team. They often believe that they know best and that their associates need to be directed and continuously supervised to achieve the manager’s desired results. Managers who feel this way often resort to micromanagement to practice their power and feel like they are making a difference. An organization driven by power obsession may continue their business as usual, but there is little or no reliability in their performance. When conducting a risk analysis of power obsession the likelihood level is systematically, and times between intervals are methodical, planned, and dependable, without defining the operational system or processes involved, and severity level is catastrophic, where functions, movements, or operations cease to exist. This is red risk level, and an SMS enterprise is required to cease all operations until an investigation, including a system analysis is concluded. There are operators that never recovered from such failures. 

The purpose of a safety management system is to identify patterns in normal operations. When the SMS is micromanaged, or overcontrolled, patterns become extinct and can never be recovered. Without patterns an SMS enterprise has failed, It has failed, but not because of the SMS itself, but because the SMS is not allowed to paint the true picture of an organization. 

Analysing patterns is the most important task to maintain a healthy safety management system. When an SMS is micromanaged, patterns of normal work tasks does not exist and without date it is impossible to establish normal work practices patterns. 

It takes a genius to identify who in their organization is micromanaging. The person micromanaging might not be aware of their own micromanagement methods. A person slowly drifts into micromanagement until it becomes a natural behavior and other options are not considered. When an accountable executive review their monthly reports, and when there are no incidents or accidents, and zero hazard reported, a trap to fall into is to conclude that operations run smoothly, operations are safe and perform beyond any expectations.  

Micromanagements thrive on ambiguity with a one-way communication line, and often a forceful communication. Micromanagement communication may not be obvious for an outsider to recognize. Only the person affected recognized the hazards of micromanagement. Signs of micromanaging include being told exactly how to do the job down to every detail, having decisions made for you without consulting your opinion, being frequently second-guessed or criticized for irrelevant mistakes, being constantly monitored, and having limited autonomy or decision-making authority. The main drawbacks of micromanagement are that it prevents creativity and critical thinking, make personnel feel unappreciated or disrespected, create tension between managers and those they manage, decrease productivity by wasting time on details that are irrelevant, and increase turnover as personnel become disillusioned with an overcontrolling atmosphere.

When patterns are missing in the SMS analysis, performance indicators are lost. When performance indicators are lost, there is no data to assess if operators are on the preselected path, and how they drifted away, or maintaining their path. When fueling aircraft, the fuel operator must have in place a process to test their fuel for contaminants. Pilots are also required to test their fuel in the fuel tank for contaminants. TKS was a contaminant in the fuel, for both supplier and aircraft operator. TKS is a trade name for a manufacturer, Tecalemit-Kilfrost-Sheepbridge Stokes, and is a glycol-based fluid with a freezing point below minus 70 degrees F. TKS is a commonly used name to identify the glycol-based fluid. Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether is added to the jet fuel, and commonly known as PRIST. PRIST is a trade name for an aviation fuel system icing inhibitor, diethylene glycol monomethyl ether. The manufacturer’s slogan is “Keep your fleet flying with the brand pilots ask for by name, PRIST.” When unclear communication is used, such as a trade name, as opposed to naming the fluid, there is an increased probability for an incident to occur. Where there is one or more statements suggesting, or enforcing, specific use of terminology, there is micromanagement. For pilots to be accepted, and to be included in a group of their fellow peers, they adapt and use the industry accepted language. Personnel also adapt to micromanaging managers the same way as they adapt to advertising and promotions. For several days, aircraft flew with TKS as the fuel additive. Pilots drained their fuel sump and emptied out the contaminants daily. No SMS report was filed since allowable SMS reports were micromanaged and the SMS manager was unable to monitor and analyze trends in hazards and incidents. When the fuel supplier discovered their mistakes, all aircraft flown with TKS as the PRIST additive were grounded, causing a drastic loss of revenue. 

When SMS reporting, or any processes are micromanaged, data is not collected for analysis of normal work practices. Normal work practice for pilots are to drain the fuel until sump is clean. Pilot were not to examine, or conduct preliminary assessments of contaminants, but were to discard it and keep flying. The opportunity to analyse acceptable work patterns were unavailable since no reports were filed. SMS reports is more than just submitting incident reports, it is crucial that acceptable work practices reports are submitted for patterns to be detected. 

Micromanagement is overcontrolling of processes, which is a hazard in itself. When overcontrolling takes place, there data is manipulated before all data becomes available to the SMS manager for analysis. Micromanagement enforces noncompliance with a regulatory requirement for the accountable executive to be responsible for operations under the certificate and accountable on behalf of the certificate holder for meeting the requirements of the regulations. 

OffRoadPilots