When it comes to business management, many believe that micromanagement is the worst way to lead a team. Micromanagement usually refers to the type of management where a manager follows and controls the work of their employees or subordinates strictly. The negative connotation regarding this leading strategy usually refers to the lack of freedom in the workplace, as the team get bogged down and is unable to make any independent decisions. In order to understand what micromanagers do and what characterizes them, let’s take a look at their following features:
• Micromanagers usually lack a sense of what is ‘urgent’ as well as the lack of understanding of priorities
• Even when the job is done correctly, micromanagers don’t feel satisfied with the final results is the job is not done in the exact way they wanted it to
• Micromanagers feel the need to control their team members all the time, persistently asking for the updates on the status of projects
• Micromanagers seem to be obsessed with emails, even with the most irrelevant ones
• And most importantly, micromanagers are not aware of their behavior and the fact that they stand in the way of the productivity of the team
It is not hard to conclude that the aforementioned features of a micromanager can destroy a team and its productivity. However, we are going to take a closer look at the way micromanagement can be fatal for a team, the working environment and the overall reputation of the company. But, before we do that, make sure to check out amazing samples by Edusson, in case you are looking for some essay or paper writing help, tips, and tricks.
Micromanagement Doesn’t Include the Team in Goal-Setting
Micromanagers usually have a fear of failure and the possibility of their team making them look bad in front of their superiors. Therefore, the majority of micromanagers tend to come up with their own goal and expect the team to reciprocate, following their directions as closely as possible.
There is usually no room for individual and personal contribution to the purpose of the project, or the way it should be done; the personal potential of the employees in never taken in consideration because a micromanager believes their potential is the only one that counts. Understandably, the team then feels entirely unmotivated for work and complete the project, as there is no sense of accomplishment and purpose in their presence at work.
According to Employee Job Satisfaction report, due to the lack of engagement, healthy work environment and a bad relationship with the manager, many employees do not feel job satisfaction as they actually do not feel like they contribute in any sense. Micromanagers do not talk to their employees about this issue and do not take into consideration the bigger picture and the fact that their team is not something they own. The lack of value and feeling of contribution can lead to the disruption of the team rather quickly.
Micromanagers Only Have One-Way Conversations.
One of the main disadvantages of micromanagement is the fact that it usually fosters a one-way conversation. If the leading strategy is one-sided, the chances are that everything is going to be done the manager’s way, and the employee participation is nowhere in sight. This shows a lack of respect, lack of discussion, purpose, contributions and overall quality of the final product.
However, even if a manager leads a two-sided conversation, in micromanagement, managers don’t usually listen to what the other side is presenting. The illusion of ‘listening’ is there so they can only let the employee finish and continue with their own orders. This is never a productive, leading decision, as it can cause the employees to lack in freedom of choice and decision making, ultimately leading to poor performance, dissatisfaction, and even quitting the job.
Micromanagers Are Closely Tied to The Office.
Micromanagers are scared of flexible or remote working options. The office is the only place where the job can get done and where they are in control of their employees. However, the majority of employees disagree with this, as they find it much more productive and efficient to have to freedom to complete their work outside the office. There have been numerous surveys, where employees have stated that the office isn’t usually their location of choice in order to get the work done. More than half of people have also said that they’d rather work at home, a library or coffee shop, as it makes them less restricted and more relaxed.
Micromanagers, of course, do not agree with such options, because outside the regular working hours and regular workplace, they do not feel in control. Many would say that micromanagement is entirely egotistical and self-centered, which is only the tip of the iceberg once we take into consideration the effects of such leading strategy on the team and its work performance. Everybody needs to room to breathe, relax and clear their mind in order to work, and sometimes, the office can be a rather crowded and noisy place. However, micromanagers want their employees at the work desk, taking away from their professional independence.
Micromanagers Do Not Provide Results Feedback.
If there is no feedback, the employees do not know what they got wrong and how to fix it. Micromanagers are known never to provide feedback when needed the most, leaving the employees clueless about their mistakes if there were any in the first place. Instead, micromanagers simply state that a thing wasn’t done their way, without any guidance, recommendation or advice.
Moreover, they also do not focus on the facts or results, but rather the process in which the work is getting done. They are regularly and carefully observing every step their employees take, which directly affects their freedom and makes them feel controlled all the time. They are never able to see the things they have done right on the way to completing the project, only the things the manager points out that haven’t been done according to their orders.
Micromanagers choose this leading strategy for a reason; they fear failure and believe that the more control over the employees they have, the lower the chance of failure. But, the truth is, micromanagement can be extremely harmful to the employees and the working environment due to the increase in pressure, control, lack of freedom and independence. And no one can produce high-quality work in such circumstances.
Micromanagement can be tempting for many managers, especially the new leaders on the block, but before jumping to a decision to micromanage a team, everyone should weigh out the pros and cons; and, as we can see, there are really no advantages to micromanagement.
