“When am I guilty of micro-managing? What’s a reasonable way to sort that out?”

I’ve often been asked a version of that by managers who aren’t sure whether they’re coming on too strong or not coming on strongly enough.

Often what’s going on at the time that question is being posed is that a manager has had a run-in with an employee, the term “micro-managing” has been tossed into the discussion, and the manager isn’t quite sure how to react.

The textbooks say micro-managing isn’t good - that it impedes employee initiative, generates resentment, and indicates a “controlling” temperament. And as far as it goes, that’s right. In a healthy environment with an even distribution of reasonable people, micro-managing is both unnecessary and disrespectful. It can actually reduce employee productivity.

The problem is that in the real world it tends to overlook, or at least sidestep, the issue of accountability. In many workplaces, the key quality that makes someone a manager is his or her willingness to step up and take responsibility for the satisfactory completion of the work product. Since managers are acutely aware that their own job performance is being closely monitored, there’s definitely more urgency attached to following up on problems - in fact, failure to anticipate and act on problems is one of the main reasons managers lose their jobs. Which is why many have learned from bitter experience to be vigilant, and stay on top of potential problems early and often.  Which is exactly what some call “micro-managing.”

And which takes us back to the beginning. What’s a reasonable level of checking in and monitoring, when does it morph into micro-managing - and who decides?

Share This

Tags: coaching, micro-managing