Micromanaging. Why do people do it?

Micromanaging could be described as a leadership style where managers closely control and monitor the work of their subordinates. Gallup describe it slightly differently as being someone who wants it done exactly their way but does not provide context, communication or support - the ‘fly-in, fly out’ micromanager. We all think of micromanaging as a negative thing and we wouldn’t like to think of ourselves as one either.

So why do people do it? And is there ever a good reason?

5 potential reasons why:

1. Lack of Trust: One of the primary reasons people micromanage is a lack of trust in their team’s abilities (and most likely, themselves too). Leaders who do not believe their team members are capable of delivering high-quality work independently may feel the need to oversee every detail. 
2. Perfectionism: Some managers are perfectionists who believe that only they can do the job correctly. They may think that delegating tasks will compromise the quality or outcome, leading them to micromanage.
3. Fear of Failure: The fear of failure can drive managers to exert excessive control. They may believe that by closely monitoring every aspect of the work, they can prevent mistakes and avoid negative outcomes.
4. Insecurity and Ego: Insecure managers might micromanage to assert their authority and reinforce their importance within the organisation. By doing so, they aim to validate their position and boost their self-esteem.
5. Lack of Management Training: Some managers lack the training or experience in effective delegation and empowerment. Without the necessary skills, they default to micromanagement as a means to maintain control and order.

Put simply, it all stems from a lack of self-awareness of your leaders.

What’s the impact for employee engagement and wellbeing? (it’s still not good!)

1. Micromanaging can significantly lower employee wellbeing. Workers who feel that their every move is being watched often experience stress, frustration, and a sense of helplessness, leading to decreased job satisfaction.Decreased productivity: Instead of enhancing productivity, micromanaging often hampers it. Employees may become less motivated and more hesitant to take initiative or make decisions, leading to inefficiencies and delays.
2. Stifled creativity and innovation: When employees are not given the freedom to think and act independently, creativity and innovation suffer. Micromanaged environments typically discourage experimentation and out-of-the-box thinking.
3. High turnover rates: A micromanagement culture can lead to high turnover rates. Talented employees are likely to seek opportunities elsewhere where they feel more trusted and valued, resulting in the loss of your organisation’s talent.
4. Strained manager-employee relationships: Constant oversight can damage the relationship between leaders and their teams. Employees may develop resentment and distrust towards their leaders, leading to a toxic work environment.  

Surely it can’t all be bad - when is micro-managing beneficial?

There are a few scenarios where it can be beneficial:

1. Training and onboarding: New employees or those in training may benefit from closer supervision and support. Micromanaging in this context ensures they understand the processes and standards expected of them, facilitating a smoother transition into their roles.
2. Crisis situations: In times of crisis or high-stakes projects, micromanaging can help ensure critical details are not overlooked. Close oversight can be necessary to navigate complex problems and achieve timely, precise outcomes.
3. Quality Control: For tasks requiring high precision and adherence to strict standards, such as in the fields of healthcare, finance, or aviation, micromanaging can be useful to maintain quality and safety.

When is micromanaging particularly bad?

Micromanaging is particularly detrimental in the following situations:

1. Routine Tasks: For routine and repetitive tasks, micromanaging can be counterproductive. Employees performing these tasks typically do not require close supervision and can operate more efficiently with autonomy.
2. Creative Roles: Roles that require creativity and innovation, such as in marketing, design, or research, thrive on independence. Micromanaging in these areas can stifle creative processes and inhibit performance.
3. Experienced Teams: Skilled and experienced teams generally function best when given the freedom to manage their work. Micromanaging such teams can lead to frustration and decreased motivation.

How do you spot whether someone is a micromanager or not? 

Are the team obsessed by the boss and what they want or by the vision and values of the company/project they are working on?  That’s your answer.

What’s your experience about micromanaging?  I would love to hear from you.