Reverse micromanagement: Should've, Would've, Could've, Didn't leadership

I would say this one is the most toxic. Why? Because it is insidious, it doesn’t feel like toxicity, as it can easily go undercover of management activities. It can be easily disguised as performance review, feedback, post-mortem, etc. It also feels appropriate when we use it, because in a very superficial way we are told that this is our job, just check the one-pagers about reviewing performance or giving feedback.

*Awareness is the best learning tool, #pleasestopleaderships series brings some insight into the loooooong list of crappy leaderships we might use, explain why we might revert to them, and if possible provide alternatives.

How does it feel on the receiving end of the "reverse micromanager"?

How does this look? Well, simply put, any direction, guidance, opinion, advice, ideas, solutions, risks come after the fact. Even if you ask before embarking on a task, you get nothing, but you get a lot of “should’ve, would’ve, could’ve, didn’t” after you did the work.

No manager in sight while the work is being planned or done, a whole lot of manager after.

It becomes continuous stress where, in order to cope, you need to “read your manager’s mind”, you need to create scenarios in your head, you need to tip-toe and keep checking. You live in constant vigilance, which is incredibly stressful. This is one sure way to burn-out.

Because it is so insidious, and can be covered by “feedback” or “performance review” it can completely ruin your self-efficacy and professional confidence. One year with this, and you will start to believe it. You will start to feel like an impostor, start to question your expertise and your thinking. The problem is that this piles up, and you end up having this type of assessment from everyone where your performance is calibrated (your manager’s manager, the peers of your manager).

The reverse micromanagement can show-up in a multitude of ways, all of them toxic:

1. The benevolent - “I only want to give you feedback and help you grow”
2. The malevolent - “You are not meeting expectations, this is serious underperformance”
3. The manipulative - “I thought you were more competent than this”, “Maybe you are not mature enough”, “Maybe we overestimated your level/grade” “Obviously you don’t know how to navigate the org and what success looks like here”
4. The shaming/guilting - “You should’ve checked with me” “You could do better at keeping the org informed about progress” “stakeholder management something” “Why didn’t you ask for my help?” “Why didn’t you say you were struggling”

Awareness is the best learning tool, #pleasestopleaderships series brings some insight into the loooooong list of crappy leaderships we might use, explain why we might revert to them, and if possible provide alternatives. (Here is the non-exhaustive list we are working from)

What function does it serve for us?

I would venture a guess, but I invite you to also let me know if you have other hypotheses about what function this "leadership self" serves.

I would say we fall into this when we fail to acknowledge or we willfully ignore the complexity of work. Complicated things can be understood ahead of time, complex things are, … well, complex.

A lot of the times we refuse to spend the time and provide the flexibility needed to operate in this dynamic, partially discoverable or predictable environment, where solutions are nuanced, need depth, and are constructible.

It’s much harder to manage in complexity, complicated environments are very open to known management.

Because complexity requires us to manage differently, we tend to roll down the road the “thinking and inquiring”. At the end of the work, it is easier to be wise, as more info was made available through the work and through the results that made themselves visible.

Being in this environment, where everything is complex, requires a lot of effort and a lot of tolerance.

We need to tolerate the pressure. This whole push to make it faster, scale before it makes sense, simplify before you understand, innovate before you know what’s there, keeps us in a state of a sped up treadmill. A lot of the times we get annoyed or frustrated that things do not move fast, are not understandable in a one-pager, as we have a hard time managing that pressure, or we simply don’t know how, or are allowed to.

We need to tolerate the way it feels to not know, to not fully understand or anticipate, to have the patience for discovery, to put a lot of effort to go in depth, to postpone the high of “I’ve got it”. It is hard work to navigate this, to be able to take the discomfort, even other people’s discomfort, and do the right thing without a quick relief from the discomfort.

What is worthy of mentioning, is that usually we also treat ourselves this way, ranting on about what we could've, would've, should've, didn't do ourselves. It is rare the case where just the other party receives this toxic leadership.

So, what can be done?

Catch ourselves when we use this leadership self: The moment when we can notice ourselves is after the work is done, after a milestone has been reached, after a challenge or risk became reality.

How do we react? How does it feel? How do we act? Outside and inside of our heads.

Comment “ups” if you also made use of this.

What can we do if we see ourselves "would've'ing, should've'ing, could've'ing"?

Let’s try to bite our tongues after the fact. Let’s only discuss work, solutions, ideas only in the beginning or as work is being done. At least for a while. Because by not having the getaway of opinion when no opinion is needed, we will be incentivised to not avoid to put in the hard work of working with complexity.

One of my favorite quotes is "Bite your tongue so hard, you're tasting blood". Seems appropriate to limit this leadership self for a while.

Tracking the #pleasestopleaderships series here: