PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Micromanagement is a management style characterized by behaviors such as an excessive focus on observing and controlling subordinates and an obsession with details.

Micromanagement generally has a negative connotation, suggesting a lack of freedom and trust in the workplace,^[1]^[2] and an excessive focus on details^[3] at the expense of the "big picture" and larger goals.^[1]

Definition

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines micromanagement as "manage[ment] especially with excessive control or attention on details."^[3]

The online dictionary Encarta defined micromanagement as "atten[tion] to small details in management: control [of] a person or a situation by paying extreme attention to small details."^[4]

Dictionary.com defines micromanagement as "manage[ment] or control with excessive attention to minor details."^[5]

Often, this obsession with the most minute of details causes a direct management failure in the loss of focus on the major details.^[1]

Symptoms

Rather than giving general instructions on smaller tasks and then devoting time to supervising larger concerns, the micromanager monitors and assesses every step of a process and avoids delegation of decisions.^[6] Micromanagers are usually irritated when subordinates makes decisions without consulting them, even if the decisions are within the subordinates' level of authority.

Micromanagement also frequently involves requests for unnecessary and overly detailed reports. A micromanager tends to require constant and detailed performance feedback and to focus excessively on procedural minutia (often in detail greater than they can actually process) rather than on overall performance, quality, and results. This micro focus on trivial matters often delays decisions, clouds overall goals and objectives, restricts the flow of information between employees, and guides the various aspects of a project in different and often opposed directions. The sum of such inefficiencies is unlikely to be a net gain for the organization, even if it allows a micromanager retention of control or the mere appearance of it.

It is common for micromanagers, especially those who exhibit narcissistic tendencies and/or micromanage deliberately and for strategic reasons, to delegate work to subordinates and then micromanage those subordinates' performance, enabling the micromanagers in question to both take credit for positive results and shift the blame for negative results to their subordinates.^[7] These micromanagers thereby delegate accountability for failure but not the authority to take alternative actions that would have led to success or at least to the mitigation of that failure.

The most extreme cases of micromanagement constitute a management pathology closely related to workplace bullying and narcissistic behavior. Micromanagement resembles addiction in that although most micromanagers are behaviorally dependent on control over others, both as a lifestyle and as a means of maintaining that lifestyle, many of them fail to recognize and acknowledge their dependence even when everyone around them observes it.^[1]

Although micromanagers may have good intentions, micromanaging most often arises due to a lack of trust and respect. Some common reasons why people micromanage include:^[8]

Fear of loss of control over projects
A belief that work deemed superior to their own may make them look inadequate
Extreme need for control and domination
Poor self-image and insecurities
Inexperience in management

Causes

The most frequent motivations for micromanagement are internal and related to the personality of the manager. However, the external factors such as organizational culture may also play a major role.^[1] Other factors which can induce micromanagement include the importance of a project and its timeline, with more important work and more demanding deadlines increasing the stakes for the manager in charge.

Micromanagement can also stem from such dynamics as a breakdown in the fundamentals of delegation and lack of trust. When a task or project is delegated in an unclear way, or where a lack of confidence exists between the manager and the person doing the work, both common characteristics of too little management, micromanagement, however, may instead ensue. Preventatives include clear delegation, a well defined goal, and a firm grasp of constraints and dependencies^[clarify].^[9]

Effects

Micromanagement can have profound psychological effects on employees. It often leads to increased stress, anxiety, and a sense of helplessness. Employees may feel undervalued and lose confidence in their abilities. Over time, this can result in burnout and a high turnover rate. Understanding these impacts can help both managers and employees address the root causes of micromanagement.

Stress and Anxiety

When employees are constantly monitored and controlled, it creates a high-stress environment. The fear of making mistakes and the pressure to meet unrealistic expectations can lead to anxiety. This stress can spill over into personal life, affecting overall well-being.

^[10]Loss of Confidence

Micromanagement sends a message that the manager does not trust the employee’s abilities. This lack of trust can erode self-confidence and make employees doubt their skills and judgment. Over time, this can lead to a decrease in job satisfaction and motivation.^[10]

Burnout

The constant pressure and lack of autonomy can lead to burnout. Employees may feel exhausted, both physically and emotionally, and lose interest in their work. Burnout can result in decreased productivity and increased absenteeism.^[10]

The Organizational Impact of Micromanagement

Beyond individual psychological effects, micromanagement can have broader organizational consequences. These include reduced team cohesion, lower overall productivity, and a negative workplace culture.^{[citation needed]}

Reduced Team Cohesion

Micromanagement can create a divide between managers and employees, leading to a lack of trust and collaboration. Team members may become less willing to share ideas or take initiative, fearing criticism or interference.^{[citation needed]}

Lower Productivity

While micromanagers may believe they are ensuring high standards, the opposite is often true. Constant oversight can slow down processes, as employees wait for approvals and second-guess their decisions. This can lead to missed deadlines and reduced efficiency.^[10]

Negative Workplace Culture

A culture of micromanagement can permeate an organization, affecting morale and engagement. Employees may feel demotivated and disengaged, leading to higher turnover rates and difficulty attracting top talent.^[10]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Chambers, Harry (2004). My Way or the Highway. Berrett Koehler Publishers, San Francisco. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.
^ "Micromanagement", Small Business Resource Centre (2006), archived from the original on 24 July 2008
^ ^a ^b "Micromanage", via Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary.
^ Encarta Dictionary (2008). Definition of micromanage. Retrieved on 21 June 2008. Archived 2009-11-01.
^ Dictionary.com (2008). Definition of micromanage. Retrieved on 21 June 2008.
^ McConnell, Charles (2006). "Micromanagement is Mismanagement". National Federation of Independent Business. Retrieved 8 June 2008.
^ Thomas, David. Narcissism: Behind the Mask (2010)
^ "Micromanager Definition: 25 Signs and How To Deal With One".
^ Canner, Niko; Bernstein, Ethan (17 August 2016). "Why is Micromanagement So Infectious?". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 23 August 2016.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Fekry, Ahmed (9 September 2024). "How to Deal with a Micromanagement?". Men's interests: The modern man's guide.