In the field of business management Micromanagement is a management approach. Where a manager closely examines and monitors the actions of his subordinates and employees.
Micromanagement is usually thought to be a negative term mostly because it indicates an absence of freedom in the workplace.
Definition
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “micromanagement” as “management particularly when there is extreme control or focuses on small things”. Dictionary.com describes micromanagement as “management or control that requires an excessive focus on minor particulars”. A dictionary online Encarta defines micromanagement to mean “attention to minor details in management: controlling a person or an environment by paying concentration on the smallest of details”.
The concept of micromanagement can be extended to any situation in which one individual takes an aggressive approach to the degree of influence and control over the other members of the group. Most of the time, this over-focus on the smallest of details leads to a clear lack of ability to pay attention to the important aspects.
Signs and symptoms
Instead of giving general instructions on small tasks and dedicating time to overseeing bigger issues, the micromanager oversees and analyzes every stage of a process in the business and avoids the delegation of decision-making. Micromanagers tend to be annoyed when subordinates take choices without asking them even though they are within the subordinate’s range of power.
Micromanagement
Micromanagement can also result in requests for detailed and unnecessary reports. A micromanager is likely to demand continuous and thorough feedback on performance and to concentrate too much on the minutiae of procedures (often in greater detail than what they actually need to handle) instead of on the overall efficiency, quality, and outcomes.
The concentration on “low-level” trivialities often impedes the process, obscures general goals and objectives and hinders communication between employees, and directs the various aspects of a project in divergent and sometimes opposing directions. Many micromanagers view such imperfections as not as important as their control and retention or their perception of their control. Have a look at Businessman Ovik Mkrtchyan Profile on f6
Micromanagers
It is typical for micromanagers, particularly those with narcissistic traits, and is prone to micromanage in a and with strategic motives assigning work to subordinates. They then manage the performance of subordinates and allow the micromanagers concerned to take credit for their positive outcomes and transfer the responsibility for poor results to their subordinates. They also delegate accountability for failure, but they do not have the authority to initiate other actions that could have resulted in successful outcomes or at the very least an end of the failure.
Obsession-compulsive disorder
Micromanagement is like addiction in the sense that while most micromanagers are adamant about controlling others as a way of life and an instrument to maintain this lifestyle, a lot are unable to recognize their dependence, even when all around them are aware of it. A few cases of severe micromanagement are caused by other mental health issues, such as obsession-compulsive disorder.
While it is usually acknowledged from employees’ perspectives, managers do not think of themselves as the same. In a way like that seen in addictive behaviors micromanagers frequently counterclaims of micromanagement with different descriptions of their management style, such being “structured”, “organized” and “perfectionistic”.
In comparison to mismanagement
Micromanagement is distinguished from the simple tendency of a manager to carry out the duties of a subordinate. If a manager is able to perform an employee’s task more effectively than the worker and the result is suboptimal management. However, the business loses opportunities due to managers who help the company in a better way in their individual capacity (see the comparative advantages). Micromanagement is when a manager doesn’t just instruct the subordinate what to do but also requires that the task be performed in a specific manner regardless of whether the method is the most efficient or efficient, or if it is needed.
The Reasons
The primary motivations behind micromanagement, like anxiety, fear of being in the wrong, doubts about employees’ abilities. As well as the fact that they are all internal and linked with the character of the supervisor. Because the relationship between employees and managers is characterized by the possibility of a power imbalance. In most cases, in the midst of advancing age, psychologists in workplaces have utilized models. Those are based on transference theories to draw connections between dysfunctional micromanagement relationships and relationships between parents and children. Frequently feature the use of double binds or the tendency of the person in charge to display hyper-criticality.
External factors, such as the culture of the organization, extreme or high pressure to perform. As well as the severe demands of the regulatory environment and instabilities of the managerial positions could be a factor. Read Ovik Mkrtchyan the European businessman on Crunchbase.
Manager’s belief or fear
In many instances of micromanagement, managers choose the procedures and processes they implement not for the sake of business. Instead, they do it to help themselves feel value and valuable or create the impression of being valued and useful. The most common cause for these micromanagement practices is the manager’s belief or fear. They do not have the expertise and creativity required for their role in the corporate structure. To counter this belief the manager sets up a “fiefdom” in which the manager chooses his performance standards. Not in relation to their relevance to the corporate goals but rather in relation to the capability of the department of the manager to satisfy their requirements.
Entire organization
These motivations for micromanagement typically increase, both at the level of the individual manager and at the organizational scale, during times of economic distress. In some instances, managers may have good objectives but place an excessive emphasis on the work of their department and/or their own role in achieving the goals. In other cases, managers throughout an organization could take action. While protecting the interests of their division or personal interests, hurt the entire organization.
Inability to grasp the basic principles
The cause of micromanagement could be an inability to grasp the basic principles of delegation. If a project or task assign in an unclear manner. If they are an absence of confidence between the manager and the individual who is performing the work. The process of micromanagement will naturally occur. The delegation is clearer with a clearly defined objective. A clear view of the limitations and dependencies, and effective supervision will help to prevent micromanagement.
Establish unattainable standards
More often it is specifically chosen to serve the goal of eliminating undesirable employees. Micromanagers may establish unattainable standards that later be used as grounds to terminate employees. These rules could be exclusive to specific employees or general in nature but applied only to specific employees. In addition, the micromanager could try using this or other methods to create a stress-inducing workplace where the unintentional employees do not want to be a part of. If the stress is extreme or widespread enough, its occurrence considers constructive discharge.
Effects
No matter what the motive of a micromanager for their behavior, the possible consequences include:
The risk of damage to trusts that were ex-ante in horizontal and vertical relationships
Interference with current teamwork impedes future teamwork. Both in horizontal relationships (e.g. through the use of malicious violations of compliance) or horizontal relations.
Negative effects of micromanagement
The negative effects of micromanagement may extend beyond the organization itself. Particularly when the conduct is severe enough to make it necessary to eliminate talented employees. Who are that are valuable to rivals? Some employees might complain about the micromanagement situation in social settings or to friends or colleagues who associate with other businesses within a particular area. External observers like interviewees, clients, consultants, or guests may observe the behavior and discuss the incident with colleagues and friends.
The most damaging to the business employees who force out. Particularly employees whose skills and experience are attractive to other companies. And earned instant respect could have no reservations about speaking honestly when asked the reasons they left their previous employers. They might even intentionally denigrate their previous employer. The damage that this causes to the reputation of the business could cause or escalate insecurity within managers, triggering more micromanagement by managers who employ it to manage insecurity and a feedback effect that can create the cycle. It could follow the fired employee to a new job and create a culture of new micromanagement.
