I was once explicitly told that I was micromanaging about 8 years ago. It hit me hard because until that point, I never saw myself as a micromanager. But before we proceed, let's understand what micromanaging actually is.

---

According to Claude Sonnet 3.7:

Micromanagement refers to a management style where a manager closely observes, controls, or reminds subordinates of their responsibilities, rather than giving employees freedom to work independently.

Key characteristics of micromanagement:

• Excessive attention to minor details
• Constant monitoring of employees' work
• Reluctance to delegate authority
• Frequent requests for updates and reports
• Taking back delegated work when it's not done exactly as the manager would do it
• Making decisions that should be made by subordinates
• Discouraging independent decision-making

Micromanagement is generally considered ineffective as it can lead to decreased employee morale, reduced productivity, increased turnover, and prevents the development of skills and autonomy in team members.

---

Ok, great, let me start with this one: "Taking back delegated work when it's not done exactly as the manager would do it." Is the manager good at this task? Is the manager better than the individual at this task? Does it make sense for the company to achieve the best outcome? Does it make sense for the manager to execute the task instead of waiting for a second possibly wrong solution, allowing the individual to move on to other things? Is it bad if the manager clearly explains why? What if the manager takes time later or in the moment to explain why the current solution is inadequate?

I think it's too shallow to consider something bad all the time.

In complex tasks and projects, there are many levels of complexity, and everyone is not equal—people have different skillsets.

So my first argument is: When it's a skill issue, there is no such thing as micromanaging.

Secondly, leadership is about trust. I once heard a great sentence about "sales": Sales is a transfer of enthusiasm. I believe I can say the same about a leader's relationship with individuals: Leadership is a transfer of trust.

So my second argument is: When there is no trust yet, there is no such thing as micromanaging.

I still have a third argument: in most cases, leaders have many things going on, so if there is skill and trust, I find it very hard to believe that someone wants to micromanage people.

Two other thoughts to wrap up:

• Micromanagement is an output, not an input: when the leader realizes that the job is not being done correctly or on time, then they start to "micromanage." I would call this getting the job done instead of micromanaging, but ok.
• I've never found a star player complaining about micromanagement: this was where all my thoughts started. Why don't star players complain about that? It's because they rarely suffer from this as they are skilled enough to do their work properly, so leaders just leave them alone.

We live in a weird era where people complain quite a lot about things like "micromanaging" instead of focusing on getting things done. If they did, the "micromanager" would be gone or never there in the first place.

Enjoy your weekend and stop complaining about micromanaging. Or if you are a leader, remember it's your role to ensure the expected results. So if necessary, be a "micromanager." No guilt.