Something stuck out to me the other week, and I've been thinking about it since.
Following a Zoom call with a small firm owner and someone I met via LinkedIn, we spoke about a number of things about their time in the profession, what they had encountered and what they dislike.
We agreed on a number of things that the profession in 2021 could do without, and one of them is the concept of Micromanagement.
What is micromanagement?
Put simply, micromanagement is a management style where there is excessive control, oversight and attention to details as to the works and goings-on of employees. It is where the manager closely observes and controls everything an employee does in the business.
Think of a time where you've had a manager or more senior colleague breathing down your neck whilst you've been racking on with your job or a specific task that you've been doing, and then them calling you up on the minutest of things that you did in a way that suits you, but doesn't suit them. That there would be an example of the action of micromanagement.
How do we describe a micromanager?
Quite often we think of a micromanager as someone who has such a lack of trust in their employees that they feel they have to manage and closely observe their every move, even to the point of checking how many bathroom breaks they have during the day.
There is a term usually used to describe a micromanager, and that is "autocratic".
Autocratic tends to describe a person who is highly domineering, demanding total obedience, and takes no account of other people's wishes or opinions. Basically, they believe they're always right and won't allow anyone to question them or put across anything different to what they say goes.
When we see a micromanager in action, it can often present as:
believing in a top-down decision-making approach,
never happy with their employees' output,
constantly asking for updates on a task,
getting too involved with the work they have set for their employees to do, and
finding joy in correcting others and putting them down
Of course it is a manager's job to check that employees and agents of the business are doing the right thing, and making sure the work is getting done to the highest possible standard is part of the job. But channelling the focus into the minute and often irrelevant details and making sure the work gets done exactly how they themselves would do it, right down to the method, would be a sure sign of micromanagement.
Based on my experiences, and a general definition of the word, other signs can include:
focusing more on the nitty-gritty details than on the big picture, ie rather than the whole advice being given to clients, the focus is on how the employee found that advice. Maybe instead of finding the more relevant advice through LexisLibrarythat the manager uses, they found it through Practical Law (PLC),
dismissing the qualification and experience of others who may very well have had more experience at doing the role than some of the colleagues and has therefore gained experience as to what might be a more efficient way of working and fulfilling their duties (a bit like someone coming in from an external team to yours and telling you how to do your job when you've been the one doing it for however long its been),
failing to delegate work and keep it to themselves, despite it being more efficient to delegate,
getting too involved in petty issues that can demotivate a team, and
finding fun in correcting an employee and being right all the time, and
dismissing the journey they've been on to get to the answer, basically dismissing the learning that they have tried to give themselves to find the answer regardless of if the answer is right or wrong
I should stress that there is a difference between micromanagement and general good practice.
There can be a rule at work, for instance for junior members of staff like paralegals or legal assistants or similar, that an email or a piece of work doesn't go out to a client or counterpart or counsel or anyone else without it being reviewed by a senior colleague like a team leader or manager or solicitor. That could be because there is a "house style" in the format that emails and letters etc are sent out by the firm, or because it needs to be checked for accuracy of facts or tone, or because a more senior colleague might be able to spot something that a junior colleague didn't or can't as a result of that senior colleague having more practice and experience in knowing what to look out for.
That isn't micromanagement, that's just part and parcel of the training journey you are on when you are a junior member of staff.
That's not to say that it isn't present in a micromanagement situation, but that on its own isn't micromanagement.
There are even some companies where pieces of work like contracts get reviewed by a colleague before they are sent out to a client or counterpart to review. I've encountered that with some counterparts I've worked with. Unusual as they were qualified solicitors anyway, but understandable as there can come a point where one person can't see the wood for the trees and having a colleague and a fresh pair of eyes to look over something can be helpful to see if something has been missed, doesn't look right, or any spelling and grammar errors.
What does all of this result in?
Often, not a lot of good. Think of these points here:
Low employee morale and high employee turnover - morale drops because an employee doesn't feel like they are trusted or valued by management, and when they don't feel valued to do the role that they were taken on to do then they leave for a manager and workplace that trusts them to do the job well. As the old saying goes, "employees don't leave bad jobs, they leave bad bosses"
Job dissatisfaction among employees - this is linked to the point above in a sense. Low morale, no desire to want to be at work, seeing work as a chore and just as something to pay the bills, not wanting to invest in your work self there, y'know!
Less productivity and creativity - employees who are told to only do a task the manager's way will mean a lack of diversity of approaching work, which can mean stifling creativity and innovation. This is bad for business because businesses need to continue to innovate in order to remain competitive. Also, if an employee is told to not use their own ways of approaching work and to instead only use their manager's way, then that will again affect their morale because they don't feel trusted enough to use their own initiative to complete the work, and it will in turn hamper productivity due to that lack of feeling valued and trusted.
Loss of trust in the manager - if the manager can't trust employees to do their job well and in a way that works for them and for the company, then why should the employees trust the manager to manage them well? Trust goes both ways in a genuinely good working relationship: employer trusts the employees to fulfil their duties, and the employees trust the employer to provide a safe workplace, agreed pay, career progression, good management, and everything the employee needs to do a good job.
Here's a big one as well ........ employees develop a dependency on the manager. This point here is going to have a huge impact on the employee in the immediate term and for the future. When an employee who have been micromanaged for so long is then told they can be independent or have a degree of autonomy in how they do the work, it becomes scary! All of a sudden autonomy, something which should be liberating, becomes overwhelming and intimidating! Because for so long all that employee has known is micromanagement, it becomes like a safety net of sorts and its not surprising if that employee retreats back into that safe zone.
But here's the question - why do micromanagers micromanage?
At its core, micromanagement is about power and control.
Controlling people assert their power at work by managing absolutely everything around them, including the people. Everything must be to their satisfaction, everyone must be on standby for them at all times during the day, everyone must do things the manager's way and no other way, otherwise the controller flips out and makes others' lives miserable.
It is not the same as, say, being quite rigid or overly particular in the way you like to do things because micromanagement has consequences for the people it affects.
Maybe the desire for total control comes from past traumas where the person hasn't felt in control or had agency over themselves, perhaps from an abusive childhood or growing up being bullied?
Maybe it is because they are scared or insecure and think that this is the way to get respect in the workplace?
Maybe they themselves were micromanaged and that's the only management style they have?
Maybe they're inexperienced and are going overboard
Is it worth trying to change a micromanager's behaviour?
Maybe, maybe not. Difficult to say.
But as a follow-up, is it worth changing your behaviour to try and cope with a micromanager?
This brings up a whole different line of conversation about why you shouldn't change who you are just to make someone like you, but it is very much a personal judgment call to make here.
It is possible to change behaviour but it is going to take a lot of time, patience and resilience.
So what could you do to cope with micromanagers?
Assess your own behaviour - maybe you're doing something that is giving your manager reason for concern? Try and find out their values and approach.
Understand your manager - by understanding what they're trying to achieve and by finding a common goal, you may find that you can help them a lot easier.
Challenge your manager - ask for regular 1-to-1 supervision meetings. During these, you can both agree to do something that helps both of you reach your goals, or that makes your life at work easier and won't affect the desired end result. This could be doing something your own way rather than theirs because you know how to do a task your way and their way involves a process that is uncomfortable for you. And if your manager doesn't follow through on the agreement after this meeting, gently remind them of what you agreed.
Keep in contact - good communication helps everyone, keeping your manager up to date with a progress update frequently helps the both of you, even if it is just a quick email to say something like "did this, that happened, will try another approach".
Micromanagers might not realise that they're doing it, nor might they realise the impact it can have on the employee and on the wider team. Once you have gained some trust and some goodwill with them, it might be worth pointing this out to them. Maybe they'll accept it, maybe they won't. Maybe they'll make a good effort to change, maybe they won't.
Ultimately the call is yours as to whether you feel, if you are being micromanaged, you can cope or not. If the answer is that you can't, then perhaps it might be time to consider your options.
Think of it this way: we spend on average 40 years of our lives "at work". Don't we deserve to enjoy it and be happy?
Be safe and be well! :)
P
Credit: Photo timage by Icons8 Team on Unsplash