The Fine Line Between High Engagement and Micromanagement

Leaders who go beyond traditional oversight, who dig into the details underlying a task, and direct how the assignment should be completed are said to be micromanaging the project and the people involved.

If this is the style in which they commonly lead others to get things done, they deserve the label of micromanager.

Micromanagers monitor even low-priority tasks and assignments and often give frequent feedback about what they believe are the right choices for executing them.

They typically obsess over minor details, want to be updated on every step and aspect of an assignment, and challenge the team member’s ability to effectively perform the task without their guidance.

The problems this style and approach create are legion.

When micromanaged, team members feel undervalued, underappreciated, and suspect in their problem-solving abilities. This is incredibly demotivating.

Because team members typically must wait for approval on the work they have completed, the leader becomes a bottleneck that brings progress and productivity to a crawl.

Such micromanagement robs team members of their autonomy over tasks, and the result is team members who sit on their hands and wait to be told what to do.

The dilemma for leaders who prefer to stay highly engaged is how to avoid crossing the line into micromanaging others.

Good leaders keep their eyes on and their hands off everything that is going on in the team. They can’t advocate for their team members or save a failing project if they aren’t up to speed. Other than declining to direct team members in their tasks, it isn’t always obvious how to stay abreast and highly engaged without appearing to overstep.

Highly engaged leaders set clear expectations and define what success looks like. They aren’t bashful about pointing out the obstacles they envision and offering advice about how they have seen others approach those challenges.

But then they hand off the assignment and defer to the expertise of those charged with completing it. They empower people by telling them that they care about the results, but not how they are achieved.

Engaged leaders stay abreast of the assignment by serving as a resource and sounding board to those involved. They check in on occasion with two questions: What should I know? And what can I do to help?

If and when they require more understanding, they ask about the facts or data, and not about the details. What is happening as opposed to how or why it has occurred.

In particular, they resist the urge to direct the action or tell people how to do things.

Good leaders are highly engaged but avoid walking on the dark side of micromanagement. They don’t get into the weeds because they have the self-discipline not to.

If they do dig in the dirt, they bring a shovel.

“Eyes on, Hands off,” unless the project needs to be saved. Then it’s “Hands on” all the way. There’s no middle ground. And that should happen only on rare occasions.

If you find yourself gardening more frequently, you are micromanaging people. Everyone loses when you do.