Avoiding Micromanagement
Helping Team Members Excel – on Their Own
You've assigned an important task to a talented employee, and given them a deadline. Now, do you let them do their work and simply touch base with them at predefined points along the way – or do you keep dropping by their desk and sending emails to check their progress?
If it's the latter, you might be a micromanager. Or, if you're the harried worker trying to make a deadline with a boss hovering at your shoulder, you might have a micromanager on your hands – someone who just can't let go of tiny details.
Micromanagers take perfectly positive attributes – an attention to detail and a hands-on attitude – to the extreme. Either because they're control-obsessed, or because they feel driven to push everyone around them to succeed, micromanagers risk disempowering their colleagues. They ruin their colleagues' confidence, hurt their performance, and frustrate them to the point where they quit.
Luckily, however, there are ways to identify these overzealous tendencies in yourself and get rid of them before they do more damage. And if you work for a micromanager, there are strategies that you can use to convince him or her to accept your independence.
But how do you spot the signs of micromanagement? Where's the line between being an involved manager and an over-involved manager who's driving the rest of the team mad? This article and video will answer these questions and provide you with strategies that you can use to avoid micromanagement.
Signs of Micromanagement
Here are some signs that you might be a micromanager – or work for one. In general, micromanagers:
- Resist delegating.
- Immerse themselves in overseeing the projects of others.
- Start by correcting tiny details instead of looking at the big picture.
- Take back delegated work before it's finished if they find a mistake in it.
- Discourage others from making decisions without consulting them.
What's Wrong With Micromanaging?
If you're getting results by micromanaging and keeping your nose in everyone's business, why not carry on?
Get the Free Newsletter!
Learn new career skills every week, plus get a bonus Be a Successful Manager Checklist, free!
Read our Privacy PolicyMicromanagers often affirm the value of their approach with a simple experiment: They give an employee an assignment, and then disappear until the deadline. Is this employee likely to excel when given free rein?
Possibly – if the worker has exceptional confidence in their abilities. Under micromanagement, however, most workers become timid and tentative – possibly even paralyzed. "No matter what I do," such a worker might think, "it won't be good enough." Then one of two things will happen: either the worker will ask the manager for guidance before the deadline, or they'll forge ahead, but come up with an inadequate result.
In either case, the micromanager will interpret the result of this experiment as proof that, without constant intervention, their people will struggle or fail.
But do these results verify the value of micromanagement – or condemn it? A truly effective manager sets up others to succeed. Micromanagers, on the other hand, prevent employees from making – and taking responsibility for – their own decisions. But it's precisely the process of making decisions, and living with the consequences, that causes people to grow and improve.
Click here to view a transcript of this video.
Escaping Micromanagement
So now you've identified micro-managerial tendencies and seen why they're bad news. What can you do if you know you're exhibiting such behaviors – or are being subjected to them by a supervisor?
From the micromanager's perspective, the best way to build healthier relationships with employees may be the most direct: talk to them.
It might take several conversations to convince them that you're serious about change. Getting frank feedback from employees is the hard part.
Once you've done that, as executive coach Marshall Goldsmith recommends in his book What Got You Here Won't Get You There, it's time to apologize and change. This means giving your employees the leeway – and encouragement – to succeed.
Focus first on the ones with the most potential, and learn to delegate effectively to them. Read our article on delegation for more about this.
And if you're the person being micromanaged, things may be a bit more complicated. Likely as not, you're being held back in your professional development – and probably not making the progress in your career that you could be if you enjoyed workplace independence.
But there's a certain amount that you can do to improve the situation:
- Help your boss to delegate to you more effectively by prompting them to give you all the information you will need up front, and to set interim review points along the way.
- Volunteer to take on work or projects that you're confident you'll be good at. This will start to increase your manager's confidence in you – and maybe also their delegation skills.
- Make sure that you communicate progress to your boss regularly, to discourage them from seeking information just because they haven't had any for a while.
- Concentrate on helping your boss to change one micromanagement habit at a time. Remember that managers are only human too!
- Read our article on Working With Powerful People for further advice on how to manage upward.
Key Points
Micromanagement restricts the ability of micromanaged people to develop and grow, and it also limits what the micromanager's team can achieve, because everything has to go through them.
When a boss is reluctant to delegate, focuses on details ahead of the big picture, and discourages people from taking the initiative, there's every chance that they're sliding toward micromanagement.
The first steps to avoiding the micromanagement trap (or getting out of it once you're there) are to recognize the danger signs, and then to talk about them.
If you're micromanaged, help your boss to see that there's a better way of working. And if you're the micromanager, work hard on those delegation skills and learn to trust your staff to develop and deliver.
This site teaches you the skills you need for a happy and successful career; and this is just one of many tools and resources that you'll find here at Mind Tools. Subscribe to our free newsletter, or join the Mind Tools Club and really supercharge your career!
Thank you for sharing your research with us. The use of pronouns in articles is much debated, as you have discovered. At Mindtools, we take this matter seriously. Our practice is to balance the use of pronouns, images of men and women and the subject of scenarios throughout our articles.
Michele
Mind Tools Team
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English
Pronouns[edit]
See also: Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns
"Another target of frequent criticism by proponents of gender-neutral language is the use of the masculine pronoun he (and its derived forms him, his and himself) to refer to antecedents of indeterminate gender. Although this usage is traditional, its critics argue that it was invented and propagated by males, whose explicit goal was the linguistic representation of male superiority.[31] The use of the generic he was approved in an Act of Parliament, the Interpretation Act 1850 (the provision continues in the Interpretation Act 1978, although this states equally that the feminine includes the masculine). However, despite its putative inclusiveness, it has been used to deny women's entry into professions and schools.[32]
Proposed alternatives to the generic he include he or she (or she or he), s/he, or the use of singular they. Each of these alternatives has met with objections. Some feel the use of singular they to be a grammatical error, but according to some references, they, their and them have long been grammatically acceptable as gender-neutral singular pronouns in English, having been used in the singular continuously since the Middle Ages, including by a number of prominent authors, including Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, and Jane Austen.[33] Linguist Steven Pinker goes further and argues that traditional grammar proscriptions regarding the use of singular "they" are themselves incorrect:
The logical point that you, Holden Caulfield, and everyone but the language mavens intuitively grasp is that everyone and they are not an "antecedent" and a "pronoun" referring to the same person in the world, which would force them to agree in number. They are a "quantifier" and a "bound variable", a different logical relationship. Everyone returned to their seats means "For all X, X returned to X's seat." The "X" does not refer to any particular person or group of people; it is simply a placeholder that keeps track of the roles that players play across different relationships. In this case, the X that comes back to a seat is the same X that owns the seat that X comes back to. The their there does not, in fact, have plural number, because it refers neither to one thing nor to many things; it does not refer at all.[34]
Some style guides accept singular they as grammatically correct,[35] while others reject it. Some, such as The Chicago Manual of Style, hold a neutral position on the issue, and contend that any approach used is likely to displease some readers.[36]
Research has found that the use of masculine pronouns in a generic sense creates "male bias" by evoking a disproportionate number of male images and excluding thoughts of women in non-sex specific instances.[37][38] Moreover, a study by John Gastil found that while they functions as a generic pronoun for both males and females, males may comprehend he/she in a manner similar to he.[39]"
Thank you for your feedback. As a rule, Mind Tools is careful to balance gender in our articles. I will pass along your feedback on to the editorial team.
Michele
Mind Tools Team