Reactance and Micromanagement

Reactance, sometimes known as psychological reactance, is the response to a loss of behavioral freedom, or to the perception of threats to behavioral freedom. For example, when pressed to perform a task in a new way, we sometimes feel an urge to perform that task in the customary way, or perhaps, in any way at all that differs from the prescription. Some feel this urge even if the prescription is aligned with their customary approaches. They react to being required to follow direction, even if they usually do it that way on their own. As a second example, when we're directed not to do something, we sometimes experience a strong urge — at times, a compulsion — to do that very thing, even when we had no prior desire to do it.

The widespread understanding of the concept of "reverse psychology" is evidence that most of us understand reactance at a very visceral level.

Reactance theory was first developed by J. W. Brehm in 1966. Here are its basic elements:

• People are free to choose from a range of free behaviors, which are acts they can imagine doing, or refraining from doing.
• People are likely to experience reactance in response to constraints on their ability to choose (or abstain from) free behaviors, or when they perceive threats to their freedom to choose.
• The magnitude of reactance increases with the importance of the behavior.
• Reactance is cumulative. Loss of a collection of free behaviors creates reactance more intense than the reactance associated with any one of the collection.
• People can experience loss of a single free behavior as a threat to other free behaviors.

Reactance plays a role in a range of workplace phenomena. One of the more obvious is organizational change, where it might account for what many call resistance. But one of the more fascinating and paradoxical is the role of reactance in both the need to micromanage and the reaction to being micromanaged.

Reactance as micromanagement

Some managers experience the managerial role as a constraint on their freedom to perform the tasks that belong to their subordinates. In a state of One of the more paradoxical
manifestations of reactance is
its role in both the need to
micromanage and the reaction
to being micromanagedreactance, they feel irrepressible urges to intervene in the work of their subordinates, because they — the managers — feel that only they can perform those tasks at the level required.

Reactance as a response to micromanagement

Most of us have strong negative responses to micromanagement. When we're micromanaged, we feel insulted, degraded, and even abused. Some of us are driven to anger, which can lead to behavior far less acceptable than the micromanagement itself. Certainly micromanagement is bad management, but almost as certainly, reactance is involved in the behavior exhibited by some of those who are micromanaged.

When next you observe a manager and a subordinate entwined in the dance of micromanagement, try to view the exchange with reactance mind.  Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

For more about psychological reactance, see Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control, by Sharon S. Brehm and Jack W. Brehm. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Available from Amazon.

For more articles about reactance, see "Reactance and Decision Making," Point Lookout for April 18, 2012, and "Cognitive Biases and Influence: II," Point Lookout for July 13, 2016.

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

On Organizational Coups d'Etat

If your boss is truly incompetent, or maybe even evil, organizing a coup d'etat might have crossed your mind. In most cases, it's wise to let it cross on through, all the way. Think of alternative ways out.

Are You a Fender?

Taking political risks is part of the job, especially if you want the challenges and rewards that come with increased responsibility. That's fair. But some people manage political risks by offloading them onto subordinates. Be certain that the risk burden you carry is really your own — and that you carry all of it yourself.

What Insubordinate Nonsubordinates Want: II

When you're responsible for an organizational function, and someone not reporting to you won't recognize your authority, or doesn't comply with policies you rightfully established, you have a hard time carrying out your responsibilities. Why does this happen?

Kinds of Organizational Authority: the Informal

Understanding Power, Authority, and Influence depends on familiarity with the kinds of authority found in organizations. Here's Part II of a little catalog of authority, emphasizing informal authority.

Stone-Throwers at Meetings: I

One class of disruptions in meetings includes the tactics of stone-throwers — people who exploit low-cost tactics to disrupt the meeting and distract all participants so as to obstruct progress. How do they do it, and what can the meeting chair do?

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info