Does micro-management can be considered as a disease that can be treated?

This topic has been around for many years and will probably continue to be around as long as man kind will exists.

Reffering to an interesting publication by Laure Eremia ...

... we can wonder if micro-management is still a problem and how it does impact workplace and middle managers when the V level is micro-managing.

How to define micro-management? Well, micro-management is a management style where a manager closely observes and controls the work of their subordinates, often to the point of excessive intervention and interference. Micro-management by top executives can have detrimental effects on middle management's ability to reach business objectives.

Firstly, micro-management can lead to a lack of trust and autonomy among middle management. If executives are constantly checking up on their subordinates, middle managers may feel that their abilities and decisions are not trusted, which can lead to a demotivated and disengaged workforce. This lack of trust can result in micromanagers taking over tasks that should be left to the expertise of middle managers, which can ultimately lead to a decline in the quality of work and missed opportunities.

Secondly, micro-management can create a bottleneck in decision-making. If middle managers are not empowered to make decisions, they must wait for approval from executives, which can slow down the pace of work and hinder the company's ability to respond quickly to changes in the market or customer needs. This can lead to missed opportunities and decreased competitiveness.

Lastly, micro-management can lead to a loss of focus on the bigger picture. Micromanagers tend to focus on details, which can result in a lack of attention to broader business objectives. This narrow focus can cause middle managers to lose sight of the larger goals of the company, resulting in a misalignment of priorities and a failure to meet key performance indicators.

So why would a V level executive move into a micro-management mode as it seems to be detrimental to the business performance? There must be a variety of reasons such as:

1. Lack of trust: If the executives do not trust their middle managers to perform their roles effectively, they may feel the need to closely monitor their work.
2. Perceived need for control: Executives may feel that they need to control every aspect of the business, including the work of their subordinates, in order to ensure that the company is on track to meet its goals.
3. Pressure to perform: Executives may feel pressure from shareholders, board members, or other stakeholders to deliver results quickly, and may see micro-management as a way to ensure that every aspect of the business is being executed with precision.
4. Fear of failure: Executives may be afraid of failure and see micro-management as a way to minimize the risk of mistakes or errors.
5. Lack of communication: If there is a lack of clear communication between executives and middle management, executives may feel the need to micromanage to ensure that their expectations are being met.

Regardless of the reason, micro-management can be counterproductive and lead to negative consequences. It is important for executives to recognize the value of delegating tasks to middle management and empowering them to make decisions, rather than trying to control every aspect of the business. This should not only improve the performance of the middle management team, but also create a more efficient and productive work environment.

So why micro-management can be considered as a disease in matrix organizations? There might be many various reasons but the few below can easily be identified in your organization if you think you are micro-managed.

1. Conflicting priorities: Matrix organizations are characterized by multiple reporting lines and cross-functional teams, which can create conflicts in priorities. Micro-management in this context can exacerbate conflicts and hinder collaboration, as managers may prioritize their own agendas and fail to see the bigger picture.
2. Lack of autonomy: Matrix organizations are designed to give employees a higher degree of autonomy and decision-making power, which can lead to better engagement and performance. Micro-management can undermine this autonomy by limiting employees' ability to make decisions and take ownership of their work.
3. Slow decision-making: Matrix organizations require a high level of collaboration and decision-making among various teams and stakeholders. Micro-management can slow down decision-making by creating unnecessary bottlenecks and increasing the number of approvals needed for tasks to be completed.
4. Low morale: Micro-management can create a negative work environment, with employees feeling demotivated, disengaged, and undervalued. This can lead to high turnover rates and difficulty in attracting and retaining top talent.
5. Inefficient use of resources: Micro-management can lead to managers spending excessive time on monitoring and control, rather than focusing on strategic initiatives and making efficient use of resources. This can ultimately harm the organization's ability to achieve its goals and compete in the marketplace.

In a matrix organization, where collaboration and agility are essential for success, micro-management can be counterproductive and harm the organization's ability to achieve its objectives. To avoid these negative consequences, it is important for managers to trust their employees, delegate responsibilities, and create a culture of empowerment and accountability.

The primary symptom of a micro-manager is often described as someone who wants it done exactly their way, basically the HOW, but provides little context, support, help or advice on the WHY. Such a person is likely to be focused on getting things done their way and may not provide enough context, support, help, or advice to the people they are managing. This type of manager tends to have a very narrow view of how things should be done and may not be open to feedback or new ideas.

Micro-managers who provide little context can make it difficult for their employees to understand the larger picture and how their work fits into the organization's overall goals. Without this understanding, employees may feel less motivated and engaged, which can lead to lower productivity and higher turnover rates.

Similarly, if a micro-manager doesn't provide enough support, help, or advice, employees may feel overwhelmed and unsure of how to proceed. This can lead to mistakes, missed deadlines, and a decrease in the quality of work.

Micro-managers who want things done exactly their way can also stifle creativity and innovation. Employees may feel that their ideas are not valued or that they are not encouraged to try new things. This can result in missed opportunities for the organization and a failure to stay competitive in the marketplace.

Overall, a micro-manager who provides little context, support, help, or advice can create a negative work environment and harm the organization's ability to achieve its objectives. It's important for managers to find a balance between providing guidance and giving employees the autonomy to make decisions and take ownership of their work.

Getting back to the initial question which was "Does micro-management can be considered as a disease that can be treated?", the good news is that if a disease it is, there must be a path forward to a cure... If you are in a micro-manager situation, you might want to consider encouraging, at your level and with some "courage", the following potential solutions to the problem of micro-management.

1. Establish clear communication channels: The first step in addressing micro-management is to establish clear communication channels between top-level executives and middle management. There should be transparency in expectations, and managers should feel empowered to make decisions within their domain.
2. Promote a culture of trust: Trust is critical in any organization, and it is important to promote a culture of trust between management levels. Senior leaders should trust their middle managers to make the right decisions, and middle managers should trust their teams to carry out their work effectively.
3. Provide training and support: Middle managers often need training and support to be effective in their roles. Investing in training programs, mentorship opportunities, and leadership development initiatives can help them feel more confident in their decision-making and reduce the need for micro-management.
4. Set clear performance metrics: To avoid the need for micro-management, it is important to establish clear performance metrics linked to the expected result that guide decision-making. This allows V-level managers to evaluate the performance of their teams without micro-managing every detail.
5. Encourage delegation: Finally, senior leaders should encourage middle managers to delegate responsibilities to their teams. This helps managers develop their own leadership skills and reduces the burden of micromanagement.

Overall, addressing the disease of micro-management requires a holistic approach that involves communication, trust, training, metrics, and delegation.

Now more specifically, if you feel you are being micro-managed, there are several steps that you can take (with courage) to address the situation:

1. Open communication: The first step is to have a candid conversation with your Manager. Explain how you feel and try to understand their expectations. Make sure to approach the conversation in a respectful and non-confrontational way.
2. Establish clear expectations: Try to establish clear expectations with your Manager about your role and responsibilities. Make sure you understand what is expected of you, and communicate any concerns or issues you may have.
3. Provide regular updates: To avoid micro-management, provide regular updates to your Manager, through regular 1:1 for example, on your progress and any challenges you are facing. This will help build trust and confidence in your ability to manage your workload.
4. Offer solutions: If you encounter problems, try to offer solutions to your Manager instead of just raising issues. This shows that you are proactive and solution-focused, which can help build trust and reduce the perceived need for micro-management.
5. Seek feedback: Ask for feedback from your Manger on your performance and how you can improve. This can help you better understand their expectations and identify areas for growth.
6. Finally, if nothing is working, you might want to speak to HR: If you have tried to address the situation with your Manager and you are still feeling micro-managed, consider speaking to HR. They may be able to offer guidance and support to help resolve the issue.

Remember, it's important to take a proactive approach and try to address the situation before it escalates. By establishing clear expectations, offering solutions, and seeking feedback, you can help build trust with your Manager and reduce his need for micro-management.

In conclusion, micro-management by executives in the industry can have a damaging impact on middle management's ability to reach business objectives. To avoid the negative consequences of micro-management, executives should trust their middle managers, empower them to make decisions, and maintain focus on the bigger picture to ensure the company's success.