What Micromanaging Is and Isn't

Search around and you'll probably find dozens of definitions of the practice widely known as micromanaging. [White 2010] Most definitions range in length from 10 to 30 words. Their brevity perhaps contributes to some confusion about what micromanaging is and is not. And that confusion causes us to formulate ineffective responses to micromanagement. In some cases, when we incorrectly identify an instance of micromanaging as something else, we fail to respond at all.

Some definitions describe micromanaging in terms of the motivation of those who engage in the practice. To apply these definitions, we must rely on somehow recognizing the inner workings of the mind of the person who is micromanaging. Often this is expressed in terms of relative degrees of vision and control. While the vision/control model might be useful if we have enough information about the thought processes of the person in question, it's rare that we do have that information. That's why I prefer to think about the question of micromanagement in terms of observable behavior.

In what follows, I use the name Morgan (M for Micromanaging) to refer to someone engaged in micromanaging behavior. And since Morgan happens to be a gender-neutral name, I use pronouns of both genders to refer to her. Or him. And I use the name Terry (also gender-neutral) to refer to Morgan's target (T for Target).

A clear definition of this very complex pattern of behaviors does require more than 25 words. Here are three guidelines for clearer thinking about micromanagement.

Micromanaging is behavior

In Typically, supervisors are responsible for
setting objectives. Those who direct their
subordinates as to how to attain those
objectives are at risk of micromanaging.writing about micromanaging instead of micromanagers, I'm being deliberate about my word choice. Micromanaging is a behavior, not a person. While it's true that the micromanaging manager creates problems for the organization, he or she creates those problems not by merely showing up for work, but by engaging in micromanaging behavior. It's the behavior that creates so much trouble, not the person.

For supervisors of people who micromanage, focusing on behavior is an essential element of effective interventions. The micromanaging person isn't the problem; the micromanaging is. It's possible that in addition to micromanaging, Morgan also contributes constructively. While finding an acceptable resolution might be difficult or even impossible, the search must begin with attempts to change Morgan's behavior.

Micromanaging is interfering in someone else's work

Micromanaging is a kind of interference in someone else's work. If Morgan chooses to be subtle about his micromanaging, distinguishing the micromanaging from legitimate interactions can be difficult. That's why I prefer considering indicators of micromanaging behavior, rather than definitive attributes. Three indicators are particularly useful.

The interference goes beyond the job description

The content and substance of the interference is outside the span of responsibility of Morgan's role in the workplace. For example, Morgan's role as Terry's supervisor can include goal-setting and securing resources. But it typically would not include deciding the time of day Terry should set for a meeting Terry leads, or choosing a filename for a plan Terry is preparing. This indicator — which I call my-job-your-job — can apply not only to Terry's supervisor, but also to anyone else interacting with Terry.

The interference is in the realm of How not What

Morgan's interference in Terry's job is with respect to how Terry achieves the objectives of her role, rather than defining what the objectives of her role are. Typically, defining objectives for subordinates — possibly in collaboration with those subordinates — isn't micromanagement if it's properly part of the supervisor's role. But supervisors who take the next step and begin directing their subordinates as to how to attain those objectives are at risk of micromanaging. Certainly there are some exceptions. For some kinds of work — safety-related and highly regulated or choreographed activities come to mind — how work is performed is one of the objectives of the work.

The interference limits job performance

The time and energy spent interfering in the work of others leads to depressed work performance of the interfering party. For example, Morgan might feel obliged to attend every meeting chaired by any of her subordinates. Or she might feel the need to review every decision reached by every team led by every one of her subordinates. In a typical organization, these burdens can be so great that the organization cannot meet its objectives, not only because Morgan is such a bottleneck, but also because she hasn't been attending to her own real responsibilities.

Two misconceptions about micromanaging

Two widely held beliefs cause us to overlook common cases of micromanaging. One is the belief that micromanagement can occur only between a supervisor and a subordinate. The second is that micromanaging always involves an excessive preoccupation with details. Both are misleading.

Micromanaging isn't exclusively a supervisory error

The word itself, "micromanaging," contains manage as a root. That might account for the breadth of acceptance of the belief that only managers can engage in micromanaging behavior. But peer-on-peer micromanagement is common. It involves one co-worker interfering with another in the same ways as a micromanaging supervisor might. In some instances, the interferer is acting on behalf of — and sometimes at the behest of — the shared supervisor. In whatever form micromanaging occurs, it can be destructive to relationships.

Another mistaken belief: you can't be micromanaged by anyone but your own manager. "Skip-level" micromanagement involves micromanaging one's subordinate's subordinates. "Diagonal" micromanagement involves micromanaging one's peer's subordinates. These forms harm not only the target, but also the relationship between the interferer and the target's supervisor.

Micromanaging isn't always about detail

Many definitions of micromanagement include assertions about Morgan's preoccupation with "details" of the work of his subordinates. Difficulty and ambiguity arise because these definitions merely transform the problem of defining micromanagement into the problem of defining "details."

It is possible that Morgan might interfere in some way that most people would regard as a preoccupation with detail. But Morgan can also interfere with some portion of the work, delegated to Terry, but which is not a detail.

In my view, the distinguishing factor isn't the level of detail that captures Morgan's attention. The distinction is instead the definition of the roles of manager and subordinate. If Terry is responsible for executing a specific element of the work, and Morgan interferes with the execution of that element, then Morgan is at risk of micromanaging.

Micromanaging behavior is perhaps most pernicious when it appears to be something more proper, seemingly providing benefit to the target. When this happens, the target is more likely to accept the micromanaging as appropriate. Some targets, unaware of what's really happening, actually become accomplices in the micromanaging. They believe they're acting independently, even though the interferer is making choices that more properly are the target's to make. Instead of learning and growing, these targets become increasingly dependent. And when trouble comes, the targets are held accountable for the errors of the interfering party. Micromanaging is not benign.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Footnotes

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 Cognitive Biases at Work:

The Planning Dysfunction Cycle

Some organizations consistently choose not to allocate enough resources or time to planning for their most complex undertakings. Again and again, they decline to plan carefully enough despite the evidence of multiple disappointments and chaotic performance. Resource contention and cognitive biases conspire to sustain this cycle of dysfunction.

Motivated Reasoning and the Pseudocertainty Effect

When we have a preconceived notion of what conclusion a decision process should produce, we sometimes engage in "motivated reasoning" to ensure that we get the result we want. That's risky enough as it is. But when we do this in relation to a chain of decisions in the context of uncertainty, trouble looms.

Risk Acceptance: Naïve Realism

When we suddenly notice a "project-killer" risk that hasn't yet materialized, we sometimes accept the risk even though we know how seriously it threatens the effort. A psychological phenomenon known as naïve realism plays a role in this behavior.

Online Ethics

The array of media for exchanging our thoughts in text has created new opportunities for acting unethically. Cyberbullying is one well-known example. But sending text is just one way to cross the line ethically. Here are some examples of alternatives.

Lessons Not Learned: I

The planning fallacy is a cognitive bias that causes us to underestimate the cost and effort involved in projects large and small. Mitigating its effects requires understanding how we go wrong when we plan projects by referencing our own past experience.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.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