Are You a Micromanager? Do You Realise the Damage You're Doing?
Full disclosure: I confess to having some micromanagerial tendencies myself. That is why I feel qualified to talk about what causes them (see below). But I have also been on the receiving end of such tendencies rather a lot, which is why I also know how destructive they are.
There are many articles in the blogosphere listing the very real negative consequences of micromanagement to a company: erosion of trust, disengagement, high staff turnover and its associated costs, burn-out... The problem is, most micromanagers aren't even aware that they are doing it, and even if they are, may be unaware of the damage they are doing...
How Micromanagers see themselves…
Micromanagers tend to be clear visionaries with a top-down (“big picture”) way of understanding things, and an organised and systematic approach to getting things done. They have a clear and detailed vision of processes from start to finish, and in order to reach their probably highly desirable goal, they seek to give explicit instructions to everyone working for them to so that no time is wasted. Deep down they would probably prefer to do everything themselves
"If you want something done properly, do it yourself!" (the micromanagers credo!)
But they cannot, so they have to delegate. (Micromanagers also tend to be poor delegators, not surprisingly, but that's a different story). They already know the whole process will work: they can see the whole thing and how it has to occur, and all they are trying to do is to maximise efficiency and guarantee a swift and desirable outcome. They probably even feel that by handing out explicit and detailed instructions, they are communicating clearly, being helpful and supportive, and that that way, everybody knows where they stand...
Unfortunately, this is rarely the way they will be perceived.
How micromanagers are seen by others…
Those who are being micromanaged will most commonly interpret the fact of having their every move dictated or scrutinised as a sign that their supervisor...
doesn't trust them and/or
has no faith in
their ability to understand the big picture and/or
their capacity to find solutions on their own and/or
thinks they are idiots
The approach is condescending and belittling. It treats employees like children and will almost certainly annoy and disengage them.
SO, ARE YOU A MICROMANAGER?
There are at least two different expressions of micromanagement: overt and covert. The covert kind is worse...
Overt micromanagement
When you have a delegated task, do you assign it in terms of goal and timeframe, or do you include internal steps: process instructions? If you are in the habit of including process instructions, why do you do that? The employee to whom you are assigning the task should be capable of doing the work (right? Otherwise why are they working for you?), so why are you laying out all the steps necessary to achieve the desired goal? That's just insulting. Your employee has the skills, or, if they don't, then maybe you need to review your hiring policies. Let them do their job. Treating your employees like dumb marionettes is overt micromanagement. If you do that, stop it (see below)!
Covert micromanagement
Do you delegate a task in terms of goal and timeframe, no process instructions (so far, so good), but then check on your employee's progress every 5 minutes and make changes to their workflow each time? That is covert micromanagement and it is worse than the overt kind. At the outset, you give the impression of according trust and control to your employee, and then you progressively undermine that impression by constantly looking over their shoulder. At least the overt micromanager is up front about it... The covert micromanager has all the annoying characteristics of the overt kind plus they are disingenuous! If you do that, my advice is all the more urgent: Stop it (see below)!
STOP IT!
If either of the characterisations above seem to resemble your modus operandi, you really need to be aware of the insulting and condescending message you are sending. It might not be what you mean, but that is irrelevant: it is what people understand! Offering a pre-excuse something like "Now, I know you can probably do this yourself, but..." and then going ahead and micromanaging anyway is not a solution! If anything that's even more condescending than just doing it!
Understand that people have different ways of doing things, and if necessary force yourself to allow stuff to be done in a way that perhaps doesn't correspond to your ideal. Ask yourself: "Is the way my employee is carrying out this task clearly going to fail?" If the answer is "yes" — and the answer can only be "yes" if you can prove it with some unarguable empirical fact, not just "because that's not the way I want it done" — then your role as a manager is to step in and make sure they are not doing something that will fail or waste their or the company's time. Point out the problem. Divide the task into two smaller tasks that avoid the problem, and then get out of the way and let them do their work. This is support and guidance rather than domineering micromanagement. But if the answer is "no", then back off! Take a deep breath, go for a walk. Let them do it their way! So what if it is less efficient? Maybe you could suggest improvements for the next iteration, but let them work in their own manner. This will validate their own efforts and understandings in a way that will strengthen engagement rather than weaken it.
Clearly this is a balancing act: if your approach is 100% efficient, and their approach is only 10% efficient (although really, how could you ever measure that? But anyway…), then maybe you should step in. But is the difference between 100% and 85% efficiency really worth damaging an employee's self-esteem over? They will make up the difference and more if you develop trust and engagement rather than badgering them...
HOW TO UPWARD MANAGE A MICROMANAGER
You should not have to put up with this kind of thing. It is an awful management style and in all likelihood, if your micromanager is not the highest point in your hierarchy, those higher up should probably be informed of what is going on... Things have to change if the micromanager is not going to poison the work environment. You can be an agent for change.
First of all, try to understand that in all likelihood, your micromanager does not think of you as a dim-witted untrustworthy pawn (well, OK they might, but that would be a different problem!) Their problem is that they have a clear vision, a desire to make it work, and forget that different people work differently. They also have control issues that makes it very difficult for them to bite their tongue if they see things happening in a way that doesn't correspond to their streamlined vision. So, rule one, try not to take offence. It probably isn't actually a negative evaluation of you as an employee, although it certainly can feel like one.
If you can, suggest to your micromanager that you would be able to work much more effectively with a clear expression of the desired goal of your input, rather than a detailed step-by-step. Remain polite, respectful and unemotional, but point out that you believe you would work more effectively with a goal and a timeframe, and the freedom to work towards it in your own manner.
Ultimately, if the situation persists, you need to seek alternative sources of support, or if all else fails, leave the toxic environment before it does you damage. Micromanagement is not normal, not functional and not something that needs to be tolerated as it can be very damaging to your self-esteem and self-confidence. And if you are suffering from it, you can bet that you are not the only one.
How not to upward manage a micromanager…
I was once in an employment situation where I was being micromanaged. I responded badly and probably not very tactfully... I was young! My "rebelliousness" threatened my micromanager and made her even more controlling in an attempt to neutralise me. We were both in the wrong here: she was a poor manager, but my reaction did nothing to ameliorate the situation. Tension mounted until eventually I quit. Retrospectively, I realise I would never have been able to change that situation, even with better conflict management skills: the whole work environment was toxic for me, and leaving it was the only option I ever had. The company subsequently went out of business. No, I don't know why, but I can't help but think that it died from critical internal communication breakdown.
Micromanagement is not OK. Don’t do it, and don’t accept it as “normal”.