Leaders often bristle when we say they have to run the three core processes themselves. “You’re telling me to micromanage my people, and I don’t do that,” is a common response. Or, “It’s not my style. I’m a hands-off leader. I delegate, I empower.”

We agree completely that micromanaging is a big mistake. It diminishes people’s self-confidence, saps their initiative, and stifles their ability to think for themselves. It’s also a recipe for screwing things up—micromanagers rarely know as much about what needs to be done as the people they’re harassing, the ones who actually do it.

But there’s an enormous difference between leading an organization and presiding over it. The leader who boasts of her hands-off style or puts her faith in empowerment is not dealing with the issues of the day. She is not confronting the people responsible for poor performance, or searching for problems to solve and then making sure
they get solved. She is presiding, and she’s only doing half her job.

Leading for execution is not about micromanaging, or being “hands-on,” or disempowering people. Rather, it’s about active involvement—doing the things leaders should be doing in the first place. As you read on, you’ll see how leaders who excel at execution immerse themselves in the substance of execution and even some of the
key details. They use their knowledge of the business to constantly probe and question. They bring weaknesses to light and rally their people to correct them.

Taken from: Execution The discipline of Getting things Done