Have you ever had a boss who is always hovering over your shoulder, checking to see what you’re doing and how long it takes you to complete tasks? Maybe they do it while you’re in the office, stopping by every hour for a status update at your desk and interrupting your task flow. Or perhaps they are checking in too much online, sending you emails and chats too frequently. This doesn’t lead to a good employee experience - you probably felt stressed, irritated, and unable to actually get your work done well.
These behaviors are all examples of micromanagement in the workplace. Micromanagement is a common but disruptive behavior that too many managers use with their teams in an attempt to produce good work. But micromanagement has many negative effects, and it can actually decrease productivity overall. This guide will cover what micromanagement is, how to spot it, and why it’s harming your team and your company, plus some suggestions for improvements that can help everyone perform at their best.
What is Micromanagement in the Workplace?
Micromanagement describes a management style where a manager closely observes and controls the actions and output of team members. Micromanagement is more than just paying careful attention to what your team is working on and producing - it is an excessive amount of involvement in all the activities of the team. It is a method of exacting control that limits the autonomy and creativity of employees.
Micromanagement is a damaging way of managing a team. But it doesn’t typically come from bad intentions. It comes out of a manager’s need for control and to assert their own authority. The manager imagines there’s a need for structure in the chaos of the workplace, and so they behave by exerting excessive control and carrying each project over the finish line themselves. Sometimes it also comes from a place of deep insecurities, where the manager doesn’t feel they deserve their position and so they think the same about the people they supervise. They may worry that the performance of the team reflects badly on them, and so they try to control every element of each task an employee performs.
Whatever the reason for being a micromanaging boss, it’s an ineffective management style that needs to be stopped quickly and curtailed before the behavior has a negative impact on the whole team.
Examples of Micromanagement
What does micromanagement look like in the workplace? There are many different behaviors that can indicate a problematic management style, but here are a few classic examples that can help you spot a micromanager.
- They ask to be copied on all emails from the team, whether they truly need to be included or not.
- They are reluctant to delegate even the smallest tasks to their team members.
- They constantly check where their employees are, seeing if they’re at their desks or online, and may even monitor bathroom breaks.
- They ask for excessively frequent updates on even small tasks, and check and double-check on deadlines.
- They rarely ask for input from anyone else.
- They take pleasure in correcting someone else’s work or pointing out very small errors.
- They scrutinize each task intently, no matter how small or low-priority the work really is.
- They never seem to be satisfied with any work an employee performs.
- They are reluctant to share their own knowledge with team members, often telling them it’s not important for them to know this information.
- They don’t have constructive feedback conversations with their employees, and instead of asking them how things are going, spend their time telling them what to do and how to do it.
Micromanagement can manifest in many ways, but the defining factor is an excessive desire for control that gets in the way of getting real work done.
Effects of Micromanagement in the Workplace
The negative effects of micromanagement are numerous. It has a significant negative effect on both the micromanaging manager and the team experiencing this management style. It drags down business results, slows innovation, decreases engagement levels, and drives employees out of the company altogether.
Increased employee turnover
Did you know that micromanagement is listed as one of the top three reasons employees resign from their jobs? A work environment where micromanagement runs rampant is one where employees seek to leave as soon as possible. And since the true cost of employee turnover is high, micromanagement also leads to an increase in recruitment and hiring costs, as well as a loss of vital institutional knowledge as workers depart quickly.
Loss of trust
When employees feel they’re not trusted to do even simple tasks on their own, or take a quick bathroom break without being closely observed and criticized, that erodes their sense of autonomy. If you hire high-quality, top-performing professionals and treat them like children who need to be monitored and guarded every moment of the day, that lessens their trust in their manager and your organization as a whole.
Micromanaging isn’t just exhausting for the team members being managed - it’s draining for the manager as well. Exerting this level of control is unsustainable for managers, as they need to look at every single task closely and fail to prioritize or delegate appropriately. This frustration and overwork can end up taking a toll on the manager, which they may pass onto employees in a vicious cycle that is difficult to break.
Lower employee engagement
Employees feel most engaged when they have a sense of autonomy over their work and a sense of purpose in the work they do every day. Micromanagement stifles this connection to meaningful work and the employee’s sense of autonomy. And feeling heard also has an impact on engagement and productivity: employees who feel their voice is heard are 4.6 times more likely to feel empowered to perform their best work.
Losing sight of the big picture
Managers and leaders are supposed to be taking a strategic role in their jobs, helping lead the team’s daily tasks to contribute to the organization as a whole. But micromanagers lose sight of the bigger picture as they’re overly focused on paying attention to small details. Employees lose their creativity and start focusing on the next small task to be done, and the whole team suffers as a result.
Dependence on the manager
Teams that are micromanaged naturally begin to rely excessively on the manager to direct even the smallest of tasks. They feel unable to take any actions or risks themselves because they’re focused only on making their hard-to-please manager happy. That encourages an unhealthy dependence and stifles creativity and innovation for the whole team.
What is the Difference Between Micro and Macro Management?
Micromanagement is looking at the smallest of tasks with a need for control and scrutiny. Macromanagement, on the other hand, is focusing on the bigger picture and allowing employees the independence and autonomy they need to perform their best in their roles.
Macromanagers employ a more hands-off approach to managing their team, and instead focus on creating a work environment where everyone can thrive. They keep direct supervision and criticism to a minimum and treat employees like the competent professionals they are. After all, why would you take the time and effort to hire employees with great skills and plenty of competence only to treat them like unruly kindergartners? Macromanagers believe that is an unhelpful approach to leading a team.
Becoming a macromanager can be a difficult journey for many recovering micromanagers. Here are a few key steps to trying out a macromanagement style for yourself.
Reflect on your behavior
What fears or needs have led you to have a micromanaging style? It will be difficult to make a lasting change if you don’t know why you micromanage employees to begin with. Is it an insecurity about your team reflecting badly on you, or a desire to get tasks done yourself instead of trusting the team? Knowing why you have this need for control will help you focus on why you shouldn’t micromanage as well.
Learning from your team members about how your micromanaging negatively affects their work and their view of your team can be instructive in creating real change. You can do this through 360 reviews or informally gathering feedback in surveys.
One of the biggest pitfalls of micromanagement is that it doesn’t allow time for getting the real work of managing done because you’re overly focused on small tasks. Instead, take the time to delegate tasks you feel comfortable handing over to a trusted team member and slowly begin to see the benefits of a macromanagement style.
Give appropriate support
Macromanagement doesn’t mean taking an entirely hands-off approach to management - employees will still need guidance and advice on a regular basis. Giving them this support only when needed, and in a way that helps employees figure out things on their own without giving explicit direction about what to do, is great practice at becoming a macromanager.
Inspired to let go of your micromanaging ways, but find the process intimidating? Harvard Business Review has some powerful stories about former micromanagers making the transition that might prove helpful.
Micromanagement is a common problem in every industry - managers too often believe that leadership means exerting a high degree of control and telling employees exactly what to do. But that’s detrimental to your employee engagement levels, your retention efforts, and any chance at innovation and growth your business has.