Have you ever found yourself in a working environment where you feel like you are always being watched or as if someone is always looking over your shoulder? For many, the notion that your every move is being scrutinized is a reality predicated around the concept of micromanagement. Micromanagement can be defined as a management style characterized by leaders and/or managers who closely monitors subordinates’ work, often frequently adding his or her own input and constantly changing the final output. Micromanagers also often display a lack of trust in their co-workers and subordinates. Micromanagement is all about excessive control and is often associated with a lack of freedom and creativity in the workplace. Micromanagers poison the cultural well in the office as they obsess over the smallest details of a task or process, and they are incapable of effective delegation1.
Micromanagement Stifles Creativity
Micromanagement may make the leader feel important, but it is actually doing more harm than good. When all decisions must go through the micromanager, employee creativity and innovation is stifled completely. The following are some of the ways that a micromanager can stifle creativity in the workplace, according to Hastings:
- Employees become disengaged. When they feel they are not trusted, or everything is under someone’s personal microscope, or they feel that their input and ideas don’t matter, employees become apathetic and are no longer emotionally invested in the project or the company.
- Employees don’t grow. When employees are not free to do the work they feel they’ve been given to do without being trusted and valued, growth stops. When leaders look for every small mistake or make trivial changes to what the employee has suggested, the employees are boxed into a job where they feel they can’t make any mistakes, and risk-taking is not esteemed. Learning from mistakes and successful risk taking lead to growth and employee satisfaction.
- Employees don’t feel appreciated. When every aspect of their job is under observation and scrutiny employees often feel rewarded or that leaders care about the blood, sweat and tears that they have put into the job.
- Employees don’t feel trusted. When every idea is either stifled, changed or redirected, or when every move is watched for errors, employees not only don’t feel trusted, they won’t trust leaders or other employees. An organization without trust can hardly grow since little creation and innovation happen when people don’t trust each other.
- Employees feel forced to work the same way. We all think differently and approach challenges from different perspectives. Micromanagers expect employees to work in the same way, typically the way they used to do it. There’s no reason to dictate the way the end goal is reached if the results match the expectations and original goals.
- Employees become passive-aggressive. When leaders are micromanagers often the employees who remain with the organization become passive-aggressive. The organization becomes characterized by employees who show indirect resistance to the leader’s demands. They avoid direct confrontation and often procrastinate and develop a “Fine, Whatever,” attitude.
- The company won’t attract creative people. Companies have personalities and when the word is out that XXX, Inc, is known a style of micromanagement it will not attract the best creative talent and people on staff who are creative will leave for a more innovation-friendly environment2.
From the information security standpoint, micromanagement can lead to subordinates turning to the micromanager in a crisis instead of using problem solving and reasoning to solve technical challenges. Risk taking is all but eliminated, as employees do not feel as though they are trusted. Employees do not grow in their careers, and remain stagnant to new learning and development opportunities.
Micromanagement Lengthens Progress
When managers fall into the micromanagement trap, they may be inadvertently delaying the progression of tasks and initiatives. They needlessly and unnecessarily complicate and lengthen processes and tasks, which in turn leads to frustration and disengagement. If an employee that is trying to accomplish a task that has been assigned with a date constraint, and is constantly being taken off of his or her work to provide the micromanager with status updates and check-ins, this leads to inefficiencies in accomplishing work for the organization! The act of designing the way you perform tasks may become compromised as you rush to make up lost time and still hit the (sometimes) artificial deadline. Delays in performing work cost organizations money in lost salaries, lost competitive advantages, and lost revenue generating opportunities.
Micromanagement Pulls Organizations Down
Organizations seek to run efficiently and effectively to maximize the profits for their shareholders or stakeholders. Therefore, it stands to reason that any attempts to introduce inefficiency would be met with both skepticism and disapproval. Micromanagement has many negative consequences that impact organizations and their employees. Here are a few:
- Resentment: It is rare to come across employees that enjoy being micromanaged. Micromanagement causes people to shift into a resentment mindset. Internal thoughts, such as “Does he think I am an idiot?” or, “Doesn’t my manager have anything better to do?” begin to emerge. Resentment then leads to #2…
- A Culture of Distrust: The leader sets the tone for the entire department. When someone micromanages, he or she is sending the message that they do not trust you. If you don’t trust your employee, they will not trust you.
- More Work For Everyone: Just about every micromanager that I have met believes that he or she can do a task better than the employee assigned to actually perform the task. So how does the micromanager respond? Oftentimes, he or she will just do the task him or herself. When the micromanager cannot do it him or herself for whatever reason, he or she will seek to assign blame or fault, often criticizing or making backhanded comments that add no value to the task at hand4.
- Absenteeism Costs Money: Harvard Business Review conducted a study to see the correlation between staff engagement and micromanagement. “Absenteeism caused by disengagement costs a typical 10,000 person company $600,000 a year in salary for days where no work was performed, and that “disengagement-driven turnover costs most sizable businesses millions every year. The conclusion? The costs of disengagement are high and micromanagement is a leading factor in employee disengagement5.
In conclusion, micromanagement is a leadership approach that breeds a multitude of negative consequences, ultimately causing more harm than good. While the intent behind micromanagement might be to ensure quality and control, its impact is far-reaching and detrimental, creating a ripple effect that extends throughout the organization.
Firstly, micromanagement stifles employee creativity and innovation. When leaders scrutinize every detail and constantly oversee their team’s work, employees become hesitant to think outside the box or take initiative. This fear of making mistakes or deviating from the prescribed way of doing things leads to a rigid and uninspired work environment. Innovation thrives in settings where employees feel trusted and empowered to explore new ideas without the looming threat of criticism for every minor misstep.
Secondly, the erosion of trust is a significant consequence of micromanagement. Employees who feel that their every move is being monitored and controlled begin to question their leader’s confidence in their abilities. This lack of trust can lead to a decline in morale and job satisfaction. When employees sense that their contributions are undervalued, they become disengaged and less motivated to excel in their roles. Trust is the cornerstone of any productive and positive workplace, and micromanagement systematically dismantles this essential element.
Moreover, micromanagement contributes to increased stress and burnout among employees. Constant oversight and pressure to adhere to strict guidelines create a high-stress environment where employees feel overwhelmed and undervalued. The mental and emotional toll of working under a micromanaging leader can lead to burnout, resulting in decreased productivity and higher turnover rates. Organizations that foster a culture of micromanagement are likely to face significant challenges in retaining top talent.
Micromanagement also hampers team dynamics and collaboration. A micromanager’s focus on individual performance and minute details often leads to a lack of emphasis on teamwork and collective goals. This siloed approach can create an atmosphere of competition rather than collaboration, as employees become more concerned with meeting the micromanager’s expectations than working together to achieve shared objectives. Effective teamwork relies on open communication, mutual trust, and a sense of shared purpose – all of which are undermined by micromanagement.
Furthermore, the long-term impact of micromanagement on organizational growth cannot be overstated. Companies that cultivate a culture of micromanagement find themselves stuck in a cycle of inefficiency and stagnation. The lack of employee autonomy and empowerment stifles innovation and adaptability, making it difficult for the organization to respond to changing market dynamics or seize new opportunities. In contrast, organizations that embrace a more empowering leadership style are better positioned to foster growth, adaptability, and resilience.
In essence, the negative ripple effect of micromanagement extends beyond individual employees to affect the entire organization. The short-term gains of close oversight are overshadowed by the long-term consequences of diminished creativity, eroded trust, increased stress, weakened teamwork, and stunted growth. Leaders who recognize the detrimental impact of micromanagement and actively work to shift towards a more empowering and trust-based leadership style will not only enhance their team’s performance but also contribute to a healthier, more dynamic, and more successful organization.
Ultimately, the shift from control to empowerment is crucial for fostering a positive work environment where employees feel valued, trusted, and motivated to contribute their best. By breaking free from the chains of micromanagement, organizations can unlock their full potential and achieve sustained success in an ever-evolving business landscape.
- Charao, Daniele. Poisoning the Well: Why Micromanagement is Bad for Business. n.d. https://for-managers.com/micromanagement/. 27 July 2024. ↩︎
- Hastings, Wayne. 7 Ways Micromanagement Stifles Creativity. n.d. https://waynehastings.com/leadership/7-ways-micromanagement-stifles-creativity/. 27 July 2024. ↩︎
- https://www.stantonchase.com/insights/blog/the-micromanagement-dilemma-balancing-control-and-creativity ↩︎
- Shore, Jeff. 3 Negative Results of Micromanaging Your Employees. n.d. https://jeffshore.com/2017/10/3-negative-results-micromanaging-employees/ ↩︎
- Rama, Elvira. How Much Does Micromanagement Cost?. n.d. https://elvirarama.com/how-much-does-micromanagement-cost/ ↩︎
- https://www.stantonchase.com/insights/blog/the-micromanagement-dilemma-balancing-control-and-creativity ↩︎