Micromanagement Means Mismanagement

The concept of ‘micromanagement’ might not be new to you. Still, it’s a buzzy term in the business world and often it means different things to different people; therefore, it is important to define the term from the outset. Its actual meaning, as defined by academicians, is supervision with too much control on trifling details. In most cases, no matter how minute the project or decision, micromanagers sense it compulsory to be in command of it.The dispute lies with professionals. At any level, professionals need autonomy and many find it cumbersome to operate at optimal efficiency when a manager is excessively overbearing for a particular task. This is irksome because it inhibits professional development and incapacitates people.
Micromanagers, instead of focusing on the big picture or their own management errands, waste time in leading less significant tasks and taking over the jobs of officers. They do not know the boundaries of their decisions; they want to hear about the decisions passed by others, even if those decisions fall within the boundary of lower-level employees.
In most organisations, you might come across delayed cases requiring a blessing from ‘big bosses’. A petty settlement or minor decisions – whatever they may be – suddenly oblige you to pass through multiple layers of consent and approval, engendering a cumbersome, unpleasant work environment.
The effects of micromanagement can prove deleterious in more ways than one. According the Harvard Business Review (HBR), micromanagement can hinder creativity and beget awkward dynamics in an office setting. In addition to this, micromanagement can hinder the overall mission of a company because a supervisor is too concerned with day-to-day minutiae instead of focusing on growing the overall company.
What’s more, micromanagement can lead to employee dissatisfaction and disengagement in their job, which hinders productivity. According to a survey conducted by Gallup, the US-based polling company, “disengagement-driven turnover costs most sizable businesses millions every year.” Furthermore, when employees are engaged and feel ownership in their work, productivity improves across all metrics. Research cited in the Gallup study demonstrates that highly engaged workers average 18Pct higher productivity and 12Pct more profitability than lesser-engaged employees.
The good news is that one can determine the extent to which he or she is a micromanager and work to change that tendency.
In order to address these traits, it’s best to understand why you’re micromanaging in the first place.
A lack of vision or communication may be one reason. Some micromanagers, due to their inability to articulate their vision clearly, focus on trivial issues or are heavily involved in a particular decision-making process. One way to fix this is by prioritising goals for a particular project and set clearly defined outcomes and expectations for employees. Also, strategise and think about when your subordinates should update you regarding the progress of a particular assignment.
Another common issue that contributes to micromanagement is insecurity. Many micromanagers are insecure and may lack the necessary management traits to govern a particular team. Karen Dillon, a former HBR editor and best-selling author of business strategy books, says this is a common theme among managers: “Most likely it’s because of some insecurity—you’re afraid it will reflect badly on you if your team doesn’t do something exactly the way you would do it or you’re worried you’ll look out of touch if you’re not immersed in the details, so you overcompensate.”
In order to effectively overcome these feelings, Dillon says it’s important to focus on the reasons why you shouldn’t micromanage: it’s bad for your employees, as it hinders their growth and stifles creativity. She also says that it also takes away time from the manager to do his or her own work, which is perhaps a greater reflection of their efforts.
Still, the way out is not simple. It is not easy to prescribe solutions outright. The first step is to believe that micromanagement is mismanagement.
Once that’s done, experts say that the mitigation of micromanagement takes deliberate effort from the managers themselves. They say that this requires micromanagers to slowly step back from their tendency to be involved in all aspects of a particular project. Communication is also crucial – that is, establishing clear, appropriate times in which your employees can update you about their progress on a particular project. That way, the anxiety micromanagers feel will begin to subside and rank and file workers can begin to feel more ownership of their work, contributing to a happier, more efficient workplace at all levels of the employment hierarchy.

4th Year • February 16 2016 – March 15 2016 • No. 36