micromanagement

A manager is responsible for ensuring deadlines are met and tasks are completed. Naturally, managers want the best for their team and are willing to assume more roles in order to help their team achieve success. Once managers begin completing entry-level tasks, strive for absolute perfection, and become overly attentive to their direct reports, they enter the territory of micromanaging. 

Although micromanagement often develops with good intentions for wanting the team to succeed, this management style can cause a lot of unintended consequences. When direct reports experience micromanaging, creativity is stifled, morale is decreased, and trust is lost. Micromanagement doesn’t just negatively impact employees, the additional effort used by managers who micromanage leads to severe exhaustion. Despite these negative implications on teams, micromanagers often continue these behaviors because they fail to recognize that they are micromanaging. 

An indication of micromanagement is resistance to delegating tasks. As a manager with more experience than other team members, it may feel challenging to assign tasks to direct reports who may have more underdeveloped skill sets. Something important to consider is the opportunity cost of completing these more entry-level tasks. Senior managers are more suited for higher-level tasks, so it wouldn’t be valuable for high-level managers to be completing entry-level tasks. Managers' time is more valuable on something that can only be completed with their knowledge and specific skill set. 

Imagine if Tom Brady spent his life mowing lawns instead of playing quarterback. His great attention to detail and strong work ethic would allow him to be very good at mowing lawns, but this wouldn’t be the best use of his unique skill set as a professional athlete. The same idea translates to managers struggling to delegate tasks. When managers spend time completing tasks that their team can handle, they become like Tom Brady mowing lawns instead of winning with their team. Effective delegation isn’t solely about assigning tasks to employees It’s about recognizing the team's strengths and trusting them to complete tasks, allowing managers to focus on tasks only they can do as a leader. 

As a manager, it is critical to understand what team members are doing and how it contributes to the overall objectives of the team. Managers who take this a step further, through very frequent updates and constantly involving themselves in employees' work, become micromanagers. Although it can be tempting to step in and help an employee who is struggling, managers shouldn’t be constantly working with employees on their tasks or taking over for them.  

Make sure to reflect on how frequently communication is conducted with employees. Managers who are constantly asking for updates and asking questions about minor details may be micromanaging their team. This is also applicable to managers who have employees constantly reaching out for confirmation. Whether or not it is explicitly stated, if employees frequently need to have their managers approve of interim task phases, there is likely a micromanaging relationship present. 

Another sign that a manager is a micromanager is how they monitor their employees. Constant oversight from managers can make employees feel scrutinized. Whether a manager is monitoring their team by being physically present or digital tools to keep tabs on everyone, a compulsion to constantly supervise employees is an indication of micromanaging. 

Micromanagers often confuse visibility with control. While managers need to be informed about their team’s progress, there’s a difference between keeping track of outcomes and obsessively monitoring every detail within the process. A healthy management strategy is to build trust and open communication with team members so they feel empowered within their roles. Employees are more likely to feel motivated and deliver creative solutions when managers provide them with more autonomy. 

Reflecting on the three previous behaviors is an important step to counteract micromanaging. Since it can be difficult to self-assess, asking for feedback from employees can be a powerful tool to recognize micromanagement. Creating an anonymous feedback mechanism where employees can share honest criticism can be a helpful way to diagnose micromanagement. 

 

Oftentimes, micromanaging can stem from managers stepping in when their employees are confused about a project. To prevent employees from becoming confused about a task, make sure to effectively communicate expectations. Not only should managers properly discuss what is expected from employees, but they must also encourage employees to ask questions to promote a better understanding. 

 

Micromanagers struggle to delegate tasks and often assume way more responsibility than they should. To feel more comfortable delegating tasks, managers can practice delegating less complex responsibilities. Gradually shifting responsibilities to employees works to establish trust and build confidence for employees. Not only will employees become more confident, but managers will also become more confident in the competencies of their employees. 

Micromaning often stems from managers feeling that their employees aren’t capable of completing their assigned tasks. Similar to practicing gradual delegation, managers should also collaborate with employees to further develop their skill sets. If an employee struggles with a particular software or another critical component of their role, managers can provide resources or specific training to help enhance their skills. By working to expand employees’ abilities, managers will be more confident in allowing their employees to assume more responsibility. 

Fear of failure motivates managers to develop micromanagement behaviors. One way to counteract this fear of failure is to work on developing a growth mindset. Managers who are able to shift their thinking to consider setbacks as a learning opportunity are more able to let go of their micromanaging behaviors because they are less hyper-focused on ensuring a standard of perfection. 

Changing subconscious behaviors is an incredibly difficult task. As a manager hoping to stop micromanaging tendencies, make sure to self-reflect often and evaluate the effectiveness of changes in management styles. Throughout this journey to stop being a micromanager, it is beneficial to receive guidance from peer mentors who have similar experiences. No one wants to be micromanaged and it isn't a productive strategy for managers either. Make sure to focus on the big picture and the benefits that will be experienced once micromanaging is out of the picture. 

Managers play an important role in their teams, serving as a leader and guide. While managers' involvement in projects can promote growth for their team members, constantly overseeing team members and micromanaging them can lead to direct reports feeling untrusted and unsupported. Leaders with micromanaging behaviors often have good intentions, but stifle productivity through ineffective leadership styles. 

When dealing with a micromanager, it’s challenging to determine how to navigate the situation. While it may seem uncomfortable, addressing concerns to the micromanaging manager in a professional manner is the best way to promote positive change. Working under a micromanager is exhausting and causes the entire team’s morale to suffer. Communicating the negative implications of micromanaging and working to develop a solution will overall create a better team dynamic. 

Micromanagers typically don’t recognize that they are exhibiting these traits within their teams which is why it must be addressed through a conversation. While it may be intimidating to address a manager about their negative behaviors, their actions are majorly impacting the team. Micromanaging is making the work environment miserable for the whole team, and if unaddressed, will force the team to continue to suffer. Since micromanaging is already causing so much harm to the team environment, having a conversation has the potential to majorly improve the managers’ behaviors. 

Micromanaging is a pattern of behaviors that often stems from fear of failure and lack of trust of other members of the team. Managers have a lot of responsibilities, and the excessive pressure can cause them to be particular and overbearing on their direct reports. While micromanaging isn’t a positive solution, it is important to recognize that these behaviors originate from wanting the team to succeed. Lacking trust is another main cause of micromanagement. If a manager doesn’t have established trust with their direct reports, they may be compelled to become overly involved in their assignments. Since the team’s work is the responsibility of the manager, they may want more frequent and detailed communication because they want to ensure a successful end result. 

While there are various reasons a manager micromanages their team, recognizing the cause of these actions is a critical step in addressing the issue. Going into a conversation with the mindset that a manager is terrible because they are micromanaging isn’t a productive way of thinking. Since managers often exhibit micromanaging behaviors due to their desire for the team to succeed, it’s important to enter the conversation with the intent to adjust their behaviors for the mutual goal of supporting the team. 

Everyone on the team wants the team to succeed. With this common goal in mind of supporting the team, describe how this managing style is an obstacle to the team’s progress. Discussing different implications of their behaviors, such as how the team must sacrifice limited work time to constantly communicate updates with their manager rather than making progress on their assignments, can help a manager better understand the real impacts the micromanaging is having. 

When addressing the behaviors, make sure to utilize ‘I’ statements rather than ‘you’ statements. By discussing the personal impacts of their actions, a manager is less likely to feel attacked and be on the defensive. Using such statements opens the conversation up to be more collaborative. Owning the personal effects of their behavior rather than blaming the manager, communicates concerns in a way that promotes positive problem-solving. 

2. Establish Trust 

Since a lack of trust can cause micromanaging, working to develop a stronger working relationship with the micromanaging manager can establish more trust. During the conversation, collaborate on a solution that can encourage more autonomous work, while still allowing the manager to feel updated. For example, scheduling weekly meetings to share progress can alleviate hovering while working on assignments. Working together to devise a strategy that balances each other's needs, can begin to establish a foundation of trust. 

Managers may also lack trust because they aren’t confident in the abilities of their team members. Utilize this conversation as a moment to solicit feedback about areas of improvement. Working to develop skills can allow a manager to be more confident when assigning tasks and be less compelled to constantly check in. Establishing credibility through a stronger skill set will ultimately continue to create a more trusting relationship and minimize micromanaging behaviors. 

3. Provide Specific Expectations

As discussed, this conversation should include specific examples of instances when micromanaging behaviors are negatively impacting the team. Not only should the conversation address specific concerns, but a focus should also be placed on providing solutions. Collaborating to derive specific methods that the manager can adjust their behavior to better support the team will create a solid action plan. Without tangible steps for them to implement, it can be difficult to have an actual change going forward. 

4. Suggest Accountability Tools 

Another topic to discuss during this conversation is accountability tools. Scheduling meetings to revisit this conversation and collaboratively evaluate progress over time can also ensure accountability. Additionally, considering performance management tools for the manager to implement can work to reduce micromanaging behaviors. Tools such as AIM Insights can allow managers to better gauge their direct reports' performance without hovering over their work. Considering alternative creative approaches is a productive way to conduct this conversation with a micromanaging manager. 

Oftentimes managers are unaware of their micromanaging behaviors. As a direct report, it can be intimidating to address these behaviors, but it's important to remember that the issues will persist if undressed. When conducting this conversion, focus on giving specific ways these actions are harming the team, establish a trusting relationship, devise ways these behaviors can be adjusted, and collaborate on accountability tools to ensure tangible changes are made. 

When considering the appropriate number of direct reports to manage within a team, the easier answer would be to follow the rule of seven. While this rule encouraging managers to not exceed 7 direct reports appears to be a simple solution, it isn’t always the right answer. Depending on various factors, such as the complexity of work, experience of team members, and supporting systems in place, managers may be equipped to manage more or fewer numbers of direct reports.

When teams are comprised of too many direct reports, both engagement and performance may suffer. Overly large teams may struggle to have enough tasks that allow team members to contribute in a meaningful way. Without stimulating tasks that encourage direct reports to take ownership of their work and observe their own impact, they may feel their work isn’t important and lack motivation. 

Other consequences of too many direct reports that a team may encounter include communication complications and missed development opportunities. With a large quantity of direct reports, maintaining clear and effective communication may pose a challenge. The more people there are, the more people that need to be kept in the loop for the team to function properly. Furthermore, more direct reports leads to less opportunities for them to experience direct mentoring and coaching by their manager, thus causing their development to suffer. 

Not only does a large number of direct reports negatively impact the team, but it has direct implications for the manager as well. More reports require more time dedicated to oversight and mentoring. Managers with too many direct reports to oversee may experience higher stress levels, ultimately leading to burnout and decreased productivity. 

Managers with too few direct reports are more susceptible to micromanaging their reports. With fewer people to focus on, these managers may become more compelled to hold unnecessary check-ins and become overly involved in the work of their direct reports. Micromanaging employees will only slow down productivity and create a more stressful work environment. 

Another complication for managing too few direct reports is the potential for consolidation. Upper management may perceive managers with few direct reports as nonessential because it creates too many redundancies in the management hierarchy. Organizations looking to make a flatter structure will more likely remove these management positions with few direct reports. 

McKinsey devised a method to determine an ideal range of direct reports depending on 5 categories of manager archetypes: player/coach, coach, supervisor, facilitator, and coordinator.

This managerial archetype requires a considerable amount of individual responsibility as well as extensive expertise. 

Recommended amount of direct reports: 3-5 direct reports

2. Coach 

A coach archetype requires individual responsibility and leads to self-sufficiency through structured apprenticeship. 

Recommended amount of direct reports: 6-7 direct reports

3. Supervisor 

A moderate level of individual responsibility while incorporating a standard work process. 

Recommended amount of direct reports: 8-10 direct reports

4. Facilitator 

A facilitator's main responsibility is managing the day-to-day work of their direct reports, as work is mostly standardized. 

Recommended amount of direct reports: 11-15 direct reports

5. Coordinator 

The work overseen by coordinators is highly standardized, and direct reports perform similar work. 

Recommended amount of direct reports: 15+ direct reports

As the team evolves and new tools are introduced, don’t be afraid to adjust the number of direct reports. Just because a certain number of direct reports is more standard for a specific work style, doesn’t mean managers should be constrained by these recommendations. Continue to evaluate the optimal balance of direct reports that is most appropriate for work responsibilities.