Micromanagement is amanagement style characterized by behaviors such as an excessive focus on observing and controlling subordinates and an obsession with details.
Micromanagement generally has a negativeconnotation, 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]
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines micromanagement as "manage[ment] especially with excessive control or attention on details."[3] The online dictionaryEncarta 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] This obsession with the most minute of details causes a direct management failure in the loss of focus on the major details.[1]
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 avoidsdelegation of decisions.[6]
It is common for micromanagers, especially those who exhibitnarcissistic tendencies and/or micromanage deliberately and forstrategic reasons, to delegate work to subordinates and then micromanage those subordinates' performance, enabling the micromanagers in question to bothtake credit for positive results andshift the blame for negative results to their subordinates.[7] These micromanagers thereby delegate accountability for failure but not theauthority 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 toworkplace 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]
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 ofdelegation 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 anddependencies[clarify].[9]
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 andAnxiety
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 ofautonomy 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]
It is said that micromanagers may believe that they are ensuring high standards, though 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] 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]
Secretary of DefenseRobert McNamara'sactions during the Cuban Missile Crisis would lead Chief of Naval Operations AdmiralGeorge Anderson to accuse him of micromanagement:
I think when you have dominant people like McNamara playing, they throw the whole thing off balance...For example, I sent out a directive to make sure that there were qualified Russian-language officers on each ship involved in the quarantine—in case there had to be interrogations. As CNO, I didn’t go around and personally try to check every ship to find out if a Russian-language officer was on board. After all, I had a four-star, experienced CinC inAdmiral [Robert] Dennison, I had a good organization, and I had no thought of saying, “Well, did you carry out my order? Did each one arrive on each ship?” Dennison said he’d get them on there, and that was enough for me. But McNamara wanted me to get into every detail, he wanted me to interrogate each ship as to whether language officers were actually on board. This was an overpreoccupation with detail that I don’t think the civilian authorities should get involved with in a case of this sort.[11]
As a consequence of incidents such as this, McNamara's designation of aircraft 'times-over-targets' [TOTs] (which contributed to their downing),[Note 1][12] and the White House selection of targets duringOperation Rolling Thunder, the U.S. military would attempt to resist civilian micromanagement in future operations.[13]
| Similar personality concepts | |
|---|---|
| In society | |
| Pathological narcissism | |
| Phenomena | |
| Related psychology concepts | |
