970x125
I was recently speaking with someone who was reflecting on her career when she reminded me of a fundamental management truth.
She had worked for many years for a solid insurance organization and had largely enjoyed her work. There was only one time in her career when she hadn’t liked it, and she remembered it well.
She had normally worked quite independently, but then one manager chose to get much more involved in the details of her daily tasks and became surprisingly controlling.
The effect was immediate. Frustration with the job increased, and enjoyment of it declined.
It was a textbook example: Employees almost never respond well to micromanagement.
Too Much Involvement
The main distinction between (reasonable) close management and dysfunctional micromanagement is the need for it.
There are naturally times when an employee isn’t performing satisfactorily, so a manager needs to pay close attention to how daily tasks are being handled. That’s just basic good management.
It’s also very different from micromanagement, where a manager is excessively involved in small (micro) details of an employee’s work, even when that employee is competent (and often better than competent) in his or her job.
Micromanagement is extremely common. Over the years, numerous surveys have been done on the topic, and they usually place the number of employees who feel they’ve at some point been micromanaged in the 60 to 70 percent range.
Control in a Relationship
Why do people dislike micromanagement so much? I believe it comes down to autonomy and control.
Like it or not, managers and employees are in a relationship. They see each other often, and even in remote-work arrangements, they communicate regularly. Very few people like to be controlled in a relationship, or have the details of their daily lives meddled with; it’s a recipe for frustration and discontent. Not surprisingly, these same dynamics apply inside the workplace and out of it.
It’s well-documented that micromanagement can lead to a wide variety of negative business outcomes. These typically include issues like demoralization, lack of innovation and creativity, reduced productivity, and ultimately even higher turnover rates. As the old saying goes, “employees leave managers, not companies.”
The woman whose story I described at the outset was relatively fortunate. Although the micromanagement she experienced was unpleasant, it turned out to be just a passing phase in the broader arc of her career.
Her micromanager moved elsewhere, her own management changed, as tends to occur (frequently) in large organizations, and she was able to return to what she felt was a more agreeable workplace environment.
That, at least, is one positive element of working for a micromanager. With all the churn and reorganizing in today’s business world, managers may come and go quickly. While that can be a problem, sometimes it’s welcome.
