 (8).png)
4 weeks ago
3
ARTICLE AD BOX
Summary
Micromanaging is exhausting, but we often confuse the need to stay relevant with the need to be visibly in charge of everything. Resist it—micromanagement stifles initiative and creativity, instils fear and gets in the way of decision-making. All this weakens a team’s ability to function effectively
There are certain characteristics about ourselves that we accept, fight against or simply learn to live with over the passage of time. But then, there are those uncomfortable ones that creep in and linger until you desperately try to peel them off. Last month, I spotted one such trait in me while I was on leave. And here goes the story, with approximate time stamps.
Before going on leave, I left a schedule of reporting work for my team, with details of expected report arrival times marked and mailed to the editor and desk. My aim was to ease workflows and processes of coordination in my absence. Until then, I had labelled this practice as being organized.
That belief changed over a few days, but we will come to that later.
On a Friday, after sending out that mail, ideally I should have logged out for the next two weeks of leave. But I did not. I kept a close or very close tab on the stories filed, called the desk when there was any delay, checked with reporters on the status of their stories and used phrases like, “In our field, there is no work-life balance, there is just work-life integration.”
Two weeks went by, and the work happened on schedule. There were no surprises or shocks when I joined back. And why would there be? I already knew of all the hits and misses. However, it also meant that after 15 days of leave, I returned to work a bit foggy. That is because micromanaging is exhausting, which was exactly what I was doing. A trait that I am desperate to get rid of, now that I have identified it and experienced what it does.
“The bothersome boss who second guesses every decision a subordinate makes, frets about the font size of the latest progress report or inspects all of his employees’ emails not only frustrates and demoralizes his harassed workers, but seriously damages the productivity of the organization and, over the long run, may jeopardize the organization’s survival,” said Richard D. White in his 2010 paper, The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure.
In India Inc, where bosses tend to be young and out-of-turn promotions are an accepted way to retain good performers, should anyone be surprised that we may be bringing up generations of micromanagers?
The need to stay relevant is frequently mistaken for the need to be seen at work, be at the forefront and ensure that no slip-ups happen. This way, you simply do not learn to trust other team members and delegate decisions. In fact, if you delegate and then keep checking decisions, the team will soon read it as a non-delegation signal and quit taking any call without your approval.
In a classic little skit on non-delegation, a pencil is held up on offer to an unsuspecting colleague, who tries to take it, only to give up in exasperation as the offerer won’t let go of it.
It is not just a startup versus established multinational problem. Working in many parts of India Inc can feel similar to living in a large family where the head never retires and all decisions must be run past the top office. Even for those who have been granted final executive authority, it is common for calls to be made to the top just for affirmation in the guise of a casual discussion. In family-run businesses especially, few dare present the top with a fait accompli on significant matters.
Many who attain rock-star status in the business world are notorious for being micromanagers. Paul Graham, co- founder of Y Combinator, championed the concept of ‘founder mode,’ where the person who starts a business does not leave it to hired professionals to manage, but instead gets into the trenches even as the company expands.
But does that include double-guessing every decision taken by a team of skilled professionals? And by doing so, what if micromanagement gets set as the office culture, with micromamagers all the way down the order? Imagine how difficult it would be to work with an immediate superior who may be a rung above in the corporate hierarchy but not necessarily in competency.
Micromanagement is found to stifle people’s work initiative and creativity. Worse, micromanagers manage to instil fear, even if they don’t realize it. Many of them may not be too harsh on missteps, but the strictness of the oversight they exercise can be deeply detrimental to a team’s ability to function. What micromanagers often do not realize is that when a team knows their decisions will be monitored every step of the way, they slacken. Why bother putting in effort when the boss will want the work redone?
There are leadership models that both support and oppose this management style. Micromanagers can be successful, adept and efficient, no doubt. But without a team that willingly takes responsibility for outcomes, such success is often short-lived.
Micromanagement can be traced to a deep-seated need for affirmation of one’s relevance in a competitive world. That ‘no one is indispensable’ is a cliche that rings truer at a time when AI is eyeing jobs at almost every level. You may have saved the day many times, but others can do the same.
So, every now and then, learn to let go. The kids are alright.
The author writes on workplaces and education at Mint.
English (US) ·