Is it acceptable for a President to micro-manage?

Is it acceptable for a President to micro-manage?

For example: Suppose an agency or department is engaged in some regulatory action of questionable interpretation. It has come to your attention as President and you think the agency/department in question should back off. Do you contact the head and tell them to back off? Or, do you stay back and either let it go or let your disapproval filter down through some other way?

I tend to think it's ok, as long as its kept discreet and is not over-done. I'm sure there could be accusations of favoritism, but to me it's no different than a pardon. You could consider this a pre-emptive pardon, if you will.

Please note that "questionable interpretation" is key here. We all know that government bureaucrats are not immune from making stuff up as they go.

Acceptable: yes, it's his organization

Possible: probably not

I don't think it can be over-done at all. People can't hold the President accountable for all that happens and then not want him to micromanage.

radcen said:

Is it acceptable for a President to micro-manage?

For example: Suppose an agency or department is engaged in some regulatory action of questionable interpretation. It has come to your attention as President and you think the agency/department in question should back off. Do you contact the head and tell them to back off? Or, do you stay back and either let it go or let your disapproval filter down through some other way?

I tend to think it's ok, as long as its kept discreet and is not over-done. I'm sure there could be accusations of favoritism, but to me it's no different than a pardon. You could consider this a pre-emptive pardon, if you will.

Please note that "questionable interpretation" is key here. We all know that government bureaucrats are not immune from making stuff up as they go.

Click to expand...

Any executive that doesn't micromanage is not an executive doing his job.

radcen said:

Is it acceptable for a President to micro-manage?

For example: Suppose an agency or department is engaged in some regulatory action of questionable interpretation. It has come to your attention as President and you think the agency/department in question should back off. Do you contact the head and tell them to back off? Or, do you stay back and either let it go or let your disapproval filter down through some other way?

I tend to think it's ok, as long as its kept discreet and is not over-done. I'm sure there could be accusations of favoritism, but to me it's no different than a pardon. You could consider this a pre-emptive pardon, if you will.

Please note that "questionable interpretation" is key here. We all know that government bureaucrats are not immune from making stuff up as they go.

Click to expand...

Yes.
,,

I voted no, because I don't believe in micromanagement at any level. A good manager surrounds himself/herself with good people who are subject matter experts, and if they do their jobs right, should take ownership of their cost centers, divisions, departments, etc.

No single person can have all of the knowledge required to run something as vast and diverse as the US government. No single person can be in all places at once. And the reality is, the POTUS is so far removed in most cases from the work that is actually being done that it's not possible to think that he has a handle on the work that's actually being done. Micromanagement would mean he is imposing his ideas on people and workers without an in-depth knowledge to back up what he wants to do, so it mostly results in a mistake that people don't think they have the amnesty to oppose.

That said, I do think someone who takes on the role of POTUS or President of Bank of America, Exxon, etc. does have ultimate ownership. The failure bcomes most evident when the people who are tasked with running divisions or departments fail to manage their responsibilities. In that case, the POTUS or President is demonstrating a failure of leadership.

Just my opinion.

If Reagan didn't micromanage, he would've been a garbage president. He was the huge success he was because of the people he surrounded himself with.

Chaddelamancha said:

I don't think it can be over-done at all. People can't hold the President accountable for all that happens and then not want him to micromanage.

Click to expand...

That's actually a very good point. If they're going to be blamed for everything anyway, why shouldn't they manage everything?

Hard to say. Not always good but there should be a balance.