You don’t have to search long for “bad boss qualities” before you see micromanagement on the list. To “control aspects of an enterprise, decision, or activity to an extreme degree” is almost universally seen as a negative trait. But is it really that simple?
A holistic approach to understanding micromanagement doesn’t rest with identifying the behaviors associated with micromanagement but knowing the origin of the behavior in the first place. We miss an important opportunity for depth when we focus on the behavior and not the cause. Essentially, micromanagement is a response to one of two possible precursors.
Insecure Micromanagers
In some cases, leaders will rely on a controlling approach to soothe their own professional insecurity. Internally, they may question their competency to fulfill the responsibilities associated with their role, feel in over their heads, or struggle with the belief that whatever they’ve achieved can be taken away at the drop of a hat. Fear drives an insatiable external need to control everything and everyone around them, inaccurately believing that such control will prevent vulnerability and potential exposure of their inadequacies.
This particular micromanagement origin story is what gives the term such a bad rap and represents a strategy doomed to fail. No amount of control will soothe those feelings of inadequacy. In fact, the more they try to control, the more insecure they tend to become. You can almost feel compassion for leaders who suffer in this way if they weren’t so impossible to deal with.
Performance Micromanagers
Professional insecurities aside, the majority of leaders fall into a second category where micromanagement is a leadership response to damaged trust with a colleague. While leaders in this category will generally give colleagues a wide berth to perform their responsibilities in the way they see fit, trust is quickly lost when a co-worker proves themselves to be unreliable. Missing deadlines, poor execution, and a habit of saying one thing and doing another are professional conditions that warrant a leader becoming more involved with what’s being done to produce expected results.
While this type of leadership adjustment can be seen as micromanagement, it is really an attempt to rebuild trust through closer supervision. By focusing on clear and direct expectations and gradually upping the level of accountability, these leaders use temporary control to get things back on track. In cases like these, micromanagement is a necessary response to poor performance and a tool leaders can use to rehabilitate trust issues with colleagues.
So, How Can I Tell Which Type of Micromanager I Am?
Do you feel most colleagues can’t be trusted to execute quality work without constant supervision, or just certain people?
Are you on high alert for conditions that could mean failure and sensitive to criticism, or do you control projects because you lack trust in a colleague’s abilities?
Do you believe you must manage every detail to prevent things from derailing, or is this your response to clear performance issues?
Does your level of control over work-related tasks remain consistently high, or does it fluctuate with performance levels?
Uh Oh, I’m an Insecure Micromanager
If you are an insecure micromanager, you’re not alone. The demands and expectations we hold for leaders in difficult working environments are sure to foster feelings of uncertainty, even with the most seasoned corporate warriors. However, if fear and insecurity is driving you to control too many professional situations, you may be compromising your effectiveness and unintentionally demotivating everyone around you. It might be just the right time to ditch micromanagement and channel our professional insecurities in a more productive direction. Here’s where I would start.
1. Develop Self-Awareness
Understanding the origin of your controlling impulses and recognizing the people and circumstances most likely to trigger micromanagement is an important step to developing strong self-awareness. Take some deep breaths, try to pinpoint the exact reasons behind the need to control, and use a journal to vent your fears and insecurities. This should make the desire to control everyone and everything around you more manageable.
2. Set Clear Expectations and Non-Negotiables, Then Back Off
At the onset of any project or collaborative effort, your job is to set clear and specific expectations for your team, and identify a few non-negotiables to guide efforts along the way. Once this is done, your job is to back off and grant them the autonomy to execute their responsibilities in the way they see fit. You have to trust your team to deliver results without constant oversight and create opportunities for your team to demonstrate their competence. Take a few more deep breaths and resist the urge to demand constant updates on how things are going.
3. Schedule Time to Check In
It’s probably not realistic to expect an insecure micromanager to back off completely until a project or task is complete, but it’s also not effective to continue to waste time and effort to control every detail for the long haul. Establish periodic check-ins with your team to receive updates on how things are going, and try to resist getting involved in the execution of work in the interim. If you want bonus points, try to continually space out the amount of time between check-ins to grant higher levels of autonomy.
4. Invest Time in Strengthening Partnerships
The principle here is simple – you can’t build trust with colleagues on weak partnership foundations. Focus dedicated time on building relationships with your colleagues. Commit to getting to know their strengths, struggles, and goals, both personally and professionally. When you know more about how people think and what drives them to succeed, you can create a supportive environment where trust can flourish, reducing the desire to micromanage their efforts.
5. Change Your Relationship with Failure
Failure sucks, and I won’t try to pretend that it doesn’t - but I wonder how helpful it is for you to dress-rehearse tragic outcomes in your mind and act as if those fears are imminent realities. If you really think about it, most fears of failure never come to fruition, and those that do are usually because we were headed in the wrong direction anyway. Failure is an important life teacher and if we avoid her at all costs, we never learn what we’re capable of. If you stop fearing failure and trust that you can survive the difficulties failure brings, you may reduce your need to control every last detail in your professional life.
Performance Micromanagers, you’re not off the hook
Although I’m making a case for the legitimacy of micromanagement as a leadership tool in certain situations where trust with a colleague has frayed, I’m not granting carte blanche permission to micromanage your team. Increased control and supervision with a colleague must be a tool wielded with discernment and have limits and boundaries to ensure a leadership competency doesn’t turn into a liability.
1. Micromanagement doesn’t replace difficult feedback
Micromanagement should never be a substitute for having tough conversations about performance issues. Avoiding these conversations by resorting to micromanagement will certainly lead to misunderstandings and resentment. Instead, provide clear, constructive, and honest feedback directly to the team member about specific areas for improvement and offer guidance before tightening control over their activities.
2. Micromanagement is not an appropriate response to stress
When feeling overwhelmed or stressed, it might be tempting to increase control over your team’s activities. However, this approach can backfire, creating a tense and stifling work environment. Instead of micromanaging, seek healthier ways to manage your stress, such as delegating tasks effectively, prioritizing your workload, and practicing stress-relief techniques like mindfulness or exercise. By managing your stress appropriately, you can maintain a balanced and supportive leadership style that promotes team well-being and productivity for everyone involved.
3. Micromanagement should be a bridge to autonomy
Micromanagement is a temporary intervention, not a permanent solution. The goal is to rebuild trust and improve performance to the point where your team member can function independently again. Establish a clear plan for gradually reducing your oversight as your team member meets performance benchmarks. Encourage their growth and development, providing support and resources to help them succeed. If you are unable to transition your colleague toward a more autonomous working relationship, it could be a sign of larger issues that require support from HR.
Listen, micromanagement has a bad rap for good reason. When driven by insecurity and fear, pervasive micromanagement represents leadership ineffectiveness in one of its highest forms. It stifles creativity, demotivates teams, and creates a working environment soon to be labeled “toxic” by the Millennials on your team. Yet, when used with some discernment as a response to poor performance and damaged trust, micromanagement can be an effective tool to get things back on track. It all comes down to knowing yourself and thinking through your motivations for increased control over a colleague’s activities.
In my own leadership journey, my controlling ways and vertically challenged stature earned me the nickname “Napoleon” with my team. It took me too long to learn that leadership isn’t about controlling every detail, but empowering your team to find their own definition of success. While I micromanage less, I certainly haven’t abandoned it as a tool to rebuild trust with colleagues. I’ve just learned to keep my insecurities in check, balance oversight with autonomy, and keep my controlling ways to an exception instead of the rule.
If I can do it, I know you can too. You’ve got this.
Danielle Terranova is the voice behind Leadership Lessons with Danielle.
She has been an executive coach since 2015 and owner of Terranova Consulting, LLC since 2019.
コメント