Picture yourself at work, feeling good about what you’re getting done, only to feel the weight of your boss’s constant scrutiny on every action you take. This was the daily reality for the employees of a software company that was led by a CEO who epitomized micromanagement.
I had been hired to uncover why things had deteriorated after such a great start to the company and to help the team get the business back on track. It was easy to see that the CEO’s technical prowess was undeniable. He had built the company from the ground up, written the original software code, and successfully launched the first products. But after some observation, it became clear that his ego, coupled with his past successes, had led him down a path of intense micromanagement.
Despite having assembled a team of experts, the CEO couldn’t resist the urge to control every aspect of their work. He dictated tasks, scrutinized every decision, and criticized anything that deviated from his vision. Even attempts at delegation were met with relentless interference and disparagement if other’s decisions didn’t align precisely with his expectations.
We’ve All Experienced It, but What are the Effects of Micromanagement on Individuals and Teams?
The effects were profound. Morale had plummeted as employees felt suffocated and undervalued. Creativity was stifled, innovation was hampered, and productivity suffered as individuals hesitated to take initiative or contribute their ideas. Meetings with the CEO had become dreaded events which were followed by gatherings where team members consoled each other and shared feelings of frustration and disappointment.
As the toxicity of micromanagement permeated the workplace, turnover had become inevitable. Employees had grown disheartened and disengaged, with some even ceasing to work unless explicitly instructed. This had only exacerbated the CEO’s micromanaging tendencies which created a vicious cycle of distrust and frustration.
The Solution to Micromanagement
Unfortunately, the CEO had believed that the solution to his company’s performance was even tighter control. The answer, however, was exactly the opposite. The antidote lay in Decentralized Command, a leadership approach that empowers teams to act autonomously and take ownership of their decisions. Instead of stifling creativity and demoralizing employees, leaders practicing decentralized command provide clear missions and trust their teams to execute them effectively.
Building a culture of decentralized command requires patience and dedication. By actively listening to their team, implementing their ideas, and resisting the urge to micromanage, leaders foster an environment of trust and respect. When individuals feel valued and empowered, they are more likely to excel, driving action, innovation, and success for the whole organization.
A Time and Place for Being in the Details
Of course, effective leadership requires balance, and there are instances when it may be appropriate for a leader to delve into the details. This level of involvement, however, should be the exception rather than the norm. Leaders who swiftly disengage once the situation is addressed, and explain why they got involved, can use these instances as both teaching and relationship-building opportunities. Without these explanations, involvement in the details comes across as damaging micromanagement, even if there are valid reasons for the actions. Effective leadership requires a balance between delegation and occasional involvement, but both must always be done with clear communication and trust-building at the forefront.
Steps to Fixing Micromanagement
It took some time for the CEO to course correct, but he was open to change and put some practices in place relatively quickly. He began listening more and talking less. It seems simple, but given how used he had become to making all the decisions and criticizing others, it took a great deal of self-discipline. With less input coming from the CEO, it didn’t take long before members of the team started sharing more of their ideas in meetings. When he did interject, the CEO also focused more on explaining the “why” and stayed away from telling people “how” or “what” to do.
It’s still a work in process, but when people began to feel listened to, respected, and trusted, culture change started to happen quickly.
Conclusion
The software company situation was extreme, but the negative psychological and performance effects of micromanagement happen even when less intense. Micromanagement may seem like a path to success, but it’s a silent killer that erodes morale and hinders performance. By embracing decentralized command, nurturing trust, and fostering good relationships, leaders can build a culture where employees thrive. In doing so, they not only empower individuals, but also set the conditions for innovation and success throughout the organization.
