Micromanagement is a control tool often applied by the management of a given entity to monitor employees’ work as well as their efficiency in execution of their tasks. While having an element of control as a leader is essential to any given business, applying micro-management as a permanent strategy would definitely yield undesirable results in the long run. There are several negativities brought about by this form of management which nullifies its efficacy in any forward-looking business entity.
First, this form of management transfers accountability from the employee to the manager. This simply means any unforeseeable occurrences in form of risks are fully borne by the manager at the expense of the employee. In this case, micromanagement results in laxity and complacency on the part of the employee which negatively affects the general health of the business. It also creates a platform for incompetency among the employees which in itself is counterproductive to the business as well.
Secondly, micro-management bottlenecks the whole process of task execution given that the manager has to periodically review all employees’ work before progressing into the immediate tasks. It, therefore, lowers the productivity of the business as a whole and in the employee’s individual context. Micromanagement, therefore, ends up creating so many time lapses as employees await approval from the manager, time, which if better utilized would greatly increase the overall efficiency of the business.
The other way in which micromanagement negatively affects one’s business is through lowering of the employees’ morale. This is because, beside the monetary motivation, employees really crave for job satisfaction which entails being autonomous and accountable in their work while getting support from the management. Any management intervention erodes the employees’ confidence and demoralizes them, and as a result, they feel intimidated not to challenge the status quo. It is because of this same reason that some of the company’s most talented employees opt out of the business in search of a more challenging working environment that would allow them to unleash their potential and grow as well.
A micromanager also limits the thought diversification among employees since he or she insists on things being his or her own way. Unfortunately, a single person’s experience, ability, creativity, and style are limited to specific fields and hence in case of changes in the market dynamics, the same-old styles are less likely to prevail leading to losses which could have otherwise been salvaged had the management adopted an inclusive perspective in handling the changes in the market landscape.
Should the manager exit his or her position, the department or company is often left in shambles thanks to the failure to create a long-term, sustainable and predictable process which can be run independently without necessarily having him or her at the helm.
In conclusion, coming up with a comprehensively healthy work environment is quite an esoteric task. However, I believe it is very much doable given that others have done it before and it yielded impressive results. Going forward, managers should endeavor to spearhead an inclusive and dependent management strategy devoid of too much micromanagement of subordinates because this will instill a positive work ethic in form of accountability and responsibility which bolsters aggregate production of the company.