Discussion on:

You might be a micromanager if. . .

We have become the swinging door. People come and go. We look good from the outside but once you get inside, its like the article. Most of us just want to do our job but we spend so much time in meaning...being managed that we can't get anything done.

Hey Guys and Gals,
Some of you are missing the big picture just like the Manager you want to put on a spit and roast every so slowly! Yes, I have worked for the Marquee de Sade of Micro Management. He delt such management pain that It is impossible to understand how he couldn't have known he was doing it!!! SO in that lies your answer! Folks the answer lies in setting the right expectations for the project in the beginning and getting by in from everyone and MAINTAING GREAT COMMUNICATION throughout the project. Perhaps you could proceed in this fashion. In a team meeting perhaps one of you could say "everyone seems a little down or stressed at this point in the project(dept,group), let's elect a Morale officer!" Appoint this personno matter how much you struggle to do it. Then in each meeting get your 5 minutes, hopefully in the beginning so it sinks in throughout the meeting, and orfer sugesstions on how to improve moral! The suggestions will be ones clearly picked to soothe the particular pains and also to STEAR THE PROJECT INTO THE LIGHT. GO TO THE LIGHT MY CHILDREN! THERE IS SAFTY IN THE LIGHT! Look over your project management books and your heart and gut feelings and have the project group(dept)get together WITHOUT THE MANAGER INVOLVED and pick out solutions that can help in your situation(S) and have the morale officer present them in the meeting (Theory:Don't shoot the messenger!), get the manager to try a few of them. The manager can't falt you for your positive attitudes and S/he won't fire the whole department. S/He won't like all of them but keep trying! Modify accepted ones to make them work better, Things won't change in a day if they are that bad, but move bit by bit in the right direction. This is a way of teaching the manager to use some tools S/he doen't have!!

and have missed the point. Once a micromanager has achieved his or her status, there is no changing their ways of mishandling their people or their projects. Setting their expectations is useless and a perfect definition of Catch-22. If you set their expectations and meet them, they take the credit. If you don't meet them, whether it is your fault or not, you are to blame. Re-read the article and take off your rose colored glasses. A Morale Officer?? Give me a break.

Let's call s/he a spokesperson, Group OD, Mouthpiece, etc, and that role can rotate to a different person each management meeting. Here is the point: The manager will start to see that the group is meeting and functioning TOGETHER separately on its own and coming back with improvement suggestions(these can be suggested for the manager/ment too!)each time they meet with him/her. That plus the fact that the group and the suggestions now represent a whole group entity instead of frightened individuals ripe for picking off or elimination certainly adds strength to any cause. They suggestions that are presented reflect group consensus and therefore require further thought by the manager. There is some safety in numbers. We are assuming in this discussion that the people complaining in this discussion are not being micro managed for their incompetence. The Manager is nothing without a department, using this mode of response, S/He can't fire everyone and can't single out an individual for punishment. It may not solve everything but it can help in the correct direction. In other worlds diplomaticly gang up on him!

Let me put this as succintly as possible:

IF YOU NEED ANY KIND OF MORAL OFFICER OR PEP-RALLY, THEN YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT STARTING AT THE TOP.

... a Marine squadron I was in who needed, and had, a 3-person "Rumor Control" department.

We had an embroidery shop out in town put together VMA(SW)-XXX patches to indicate our status as a Sunny Weather Attack Squadron.

I disagree. Communication is great if you can not request a status every 30 minutes. If you want status, ask at the end of the day, and do it through a database. Don't STOP production and stuff everyone in a meeting room every 30 minutes wanting to know what the status of a project is.

Don't hover over the employee. I had a manager who wanted to Micromanage me and he and she wanted to go down the entire list of things that had to be done. My response: "Your so f-ing smart, do it yourself." I never seen the manager again.

There is responsible project management, that takes into account reasonable time expectations, and then their is the backassed way of project management. Overtime, overbudget, and nothing to show. The later is backassed. Do it right the first time and you wouldn't have to hover.

I've always been the type of employee that requires very little supervision, that's when I work my best is when folks just leave me alone to my work.

I have no problem working with others, as long as I'm not constantly *micromanaged* on a project.

Like The Admiral hinted to ...its extremely annoying when someone bugs you for a status update every 30 minutes, or when they physically walk into your office/cubicle area every hour to check on you like you are some damn kid or something.

I feel like saying "Gee, you must be so busy if you have all this time to keep asking the same questions over and over and to be constantly coming over here.".

I don't mind a manager asking for a status check twice a day -- say in the morning to set the tone of what needs to be done that day and then late afternoon just before going home. I'm fine with that. Anymore is just someone who is clueless on how to manage a team productively.

If you can't take the time to check your spelling and grammer then you need micro management. Check the replies they ignore your lack of skill, but age and schooling has it's virtues.

FYI, it is "grammar" not "grammer."

That can easily changed with our "Edit Post" functionality.

That's "grammar", not "grammer"...also, correct punctuation would be nice, not to mention flow.

Ok, last time I looked, "grammer" was spelled "grammar". You need a comma after that word no matter how you spell it. The next sentence is a run-on that *could* be salvaged with a semi-colon (this one ";") after the word "replies". You also use it's (it is) where you mean "its". Pot, kettle, black. (Idiom, not intended to be a complete sentence.)

The title of your reply is a good example of a comma splice. It should be two sentences.

When I started on my new job, I had a project manager who used to breathe down my back and made my life miserable. One day I got thinking, "there's got to be some way to get around this guy!", and decided to always be two steps ahead of him, to always anticipate what's coming and have it ready before he asks.

Its been five years since then, my manager is chief technology officer, and I have a great relationship with him. He still micromanages every now and then, but never with me.

More, he listens to me when I discuss issues like these, and I have an opportunity to get the feelings of his other colleagues across to him, without hurting his pride.

Its worked marvellously for me, maybe it will for you too.

work (or have worked) for someone like this. I do and it's unreal just how bad it can be. I came from the Chicago market where I ran successful consulting groups and businesses. My boss right now has to tell me what to do, how to do it, and why it's all wrong. She has no clue how bad she is, but thinks that the world cannot revolve without her constant interference - er, direction. She even threatened to write me up for insubordination one time (when did I join the Army????) when I pointed out a serious mistake she made that jeopardized the project (she had previously replaced me with herself as the project manager because as the PM I wasn't that interested in the PMBoK, but rather was more interested in process and risk and quality!!).

Trust me, open communication will NOT help. It is all about her/him and anything that gets in the way will be dealt with - sometime in very severe ways.

Almost couldn't stop laughing when reading this article. We had a manager who precisely fitted the description. He actually micromanaged a once vibrant company into the dust - it no longer exists.
I actually sat in on a meeting where his entire development team stormed out because he was interfering in every single page of an e-learning course they were developing - the subject? Delegation!

The article is right on point. I work with the person described in the article on a daily basis, and frankly - I am over it. My only hope is that our Executive Committee recognizes this before she runs the division into the ground.

My boss is the classic micromanager, she has to know everything that's going in in both the department and the company I work for (a public housing agency). She can't stand not being in control of what's the agency is doing, even if it's not her department...case in point last week she went to a Unix training seminar on a software product she never uses, had no familiarity with, and didn't use in her department. She refused to send the 2 people that extensively used the software to the trainingclass because she needed to be in control. I asked her what she learned in the training (I don't use the software either, but as the network administrator, I pushed for the other 2 to go) and when she planned to train the 2 users on the changes in the software. She just mumbled and said she would have to look at her schedule.
I've found that most micromanagers are very insecure people; they have no confidence in their own abilities, therefore they think that everyone is as incompetent as theyare.
The only solution I've found is never tell them any additional information or details...it drives them crazy!

If all of the employees who report to your boss write correspondence the way you do, I can see why she has no confidence in her employees. Your idea to withhold information from her to drive her crazy...that's mature! There are ways to work with amicro-manager. Figure out what it is that makes them feel secure and provide it. Micro-managers are a part of corporate culture. Deal with it!

Queengeek, you're right. Withholding information isn't the most mature thing in the world to do, but sometimes it's the only option. Micromanagers need information like other organisms need light and air to survive. I worked on a team that was micromanaged and the offender was luvy-duvy with someone in upper management and was protected. The team decided (each on our own at first, later as a group) to simply stop copying the micromanager on emails, stop forwarding emails, and stop volunteeringinformation in meetings. Eventually the micromanager was exposed for being out of the loops, and moved (not canned as would have been deserved). The team got a new manager that turned out to be a much better leader. As for how to cope with the bums, check out the advice and comments posted here:
http://www.techrepublic.com/article.jhtml?id=r00320020709jed01.htm

I don't know about the rest of you, but I think that withholding information from the boss is likely grounds for termination just about anywhere. I agree that working for a micromanager is not pleasant, but how about NOT WORKING AT ALL!!! I happento like having that paycheck every two weeks.

The way I got past my micromanaging boss was by letting her micromanage me until she realized that I do the job very well and she doesn't need to stay on top of me to get the results she wants. Sheand I get along just fine now.

I have found the less the micromanager knows, the better off you are.
I am the Web Administrator for a midsize corporation. I report directly to the IT Director (micromanager). I have to keep him informed on every little thing I am doing duringthe day. If I pick my nose, he wants to know when, how long, and if I was successful. (Those of you being micromanaged, you understand) I have found that the more detailed I get in my explanations of problems or situations, the more confused he gets (he is not web development savvy) and the more he tells me I don’t know what I am talking about, and the worse my situation gets. So, I give him the bare minimum that I can, then he does not get confused and I don’t get yelled at.
The main article for this thread, describes my manager to the tee. I wish I could get him to read it!

If you have a Micromanager, and they are micromanaging every piece of information that there is, then holding back information until such time as it is relavant is a plausable way to manage the micro-manager.

The worker can better determine what their needs are at the grunt level than the micromanager does at the 10,000 foot level. We have had three micromanagers and all of them were fired because they took too long to do a project.

Rather than bringing knowledgable people in, and let them do their job, the micro-manager was doing everyone's job. It got to the point where people did not do anything.

Our last manager hired the right people, let them do their job, and when something arose, we called the manager and let him know what the deal was and that the customer is going to call.

He never got called.

The micromanager? Never was off the phone.

I guess I needed to clarify myself...since she needs to know everything that goes on in the company (especially in other departments that don't report to her, but have incidental contact with me) she needs to know what is going on at all times. She overheard (eavesdropped really) a discussion between myself and another dept. manager about a software purchase that she knew nothing about, she told me after the manager left that I should talk to her about it...long story short, it delayed the purchase of the much needed software by 3 months while she thought about buying it. Micromangers over manage, but they are also awful decision makers, that's why I tell her as little as possible!

The "Withhold Info" tactic is actually very effective, but perhaps those words are not a good way to describe the tactic. A better term may be "alter communication style." The primary problem with micromanagers is that they need to act out parent-child roles with their staff. The majority of their communications are instructions for how to do the obvious or usurpations of the decisionmaking that you should have. They inevitably use language that positions you as the junior or servant. In thesesituations, you have to take steps to discreetly assert that you are not the child. And that usually starts by not acknowledging every memo they send, even if you do act on it. Think of it this way, each reply you send is a "Yes, Mommy, Daddy" they are waiting for. Also, examine your communications and reduce or eliminate voluntarily reporting on your proposed or actual interations with peers. To the micro-manager, all of this checking in and copying of emails equates to the child asking the parent permission to visit / play with so-and-so. Your team probably has regular status meetings or written reports. Save all, or most of, your reporting for those events -- and then keep it short and to the point. Avoid discussing oending decisions. You must keep in mind that anything communicated to the micro-manager is perceived not as info but as a request for their input whether you really wanted it or not. So it is in your interest to examine every situtation very closely and ask yourself, "Do they need to hear from me on this?" "Do I need to acknowledge this now or just act on it when the time is right?" If you do need to communicate or respond to something, pay attention to how you package your message -- minimize it to the essentialfacts and eliminate any social niceties that could reinforce your manager's superior-inferior perceptions.

What you say about the psychology of micromanagers is dead-on. Years ago I was a senior tech in a small IT support company. the president used to run a real estate agency and then a retaurant. ONce -- and I mean one time -- his partner made a mistake, and from that point, that was it, this guy took over both sales (which he had been doing) and technical management. Only problem was, he knew nothing about technology, and depended on his demoted business partner to "translate" what we techies said into language he could understand. On top of that, of the four of us, he was the LEAST bright. Can you imagine this poor schmoe, having to handle three independent-minded and tech-savvy --and exceptionally smart -- technicians? Within five months he managed to get rid of all three of us (drove us all batty) and even replaced his partner with a new partner before he gave up, sold the biz, and went back to selling real estate. Final irony: Revenue Canada nailed him for tax evaison three years later.

I have found that after years of working with various types of micromanagers that by knowing what your role is up front in a project, making sure that you do it correctly, and staying one step ahead of the "micro" by having your work done ahead of time as much as possible, ultimately you will be recognized for what you do, not them for what you do. Ghost writers, workers, etc. always surface when the management somewhere up the food chain acknowledge that the micromanager could not possibly have done a particular job, therefore if you have done it, and consistently do it right, you can work with and pass the micromanagement dilemna. Works for me!

And besides, if you do your job, the micromanagers themselves will eventually get off your back too.

I do try not to micromanage folks, but I confess that some times I do because of the culture here. Before me, there was no management and people pretty much did what they wanted and in their own sweet time. It was hard to turn them around specially because I got promoted into the position.

I stayed very consistent with the expectations I had for the team. I am sure I was driving them crazy at times, but eventually things worked out.
One thing that I did, I wanted everyone to understand that I was being so particular because I wanted us to change the way we did things and make things better for our customers. NOT because I wanted to make their lives miserable. I think it worked. No one seems to hate me... I think... I hope

All I can say is that we all have choices. If you don't like your manager, leave. If you don't like having manager's ask you for updates, or the status of something, perhaps you should leave. Start your own business. Then you may have a different view...or god forbid, become an involved manager.

I just have to say that I found that post to be rather limited in view. There is a difference in being an "involved manager" and being a micro-manager. If you dont know the difference, then maybe you should step back and read the original article again with a mirror near-by. I work for the US Navy. My current chain of command is the typical convoluted mess that makes up much of the military. I have a series of 3 officers above me who are perfect examples of what the article refers to. None are experts, or even knowledgeable in network administration. Yet all three have felt the need to sit down and explain what they want this network to do and in what time frame. All three also could not understand when I explained that their expectations were unrealistic and proceeded to explain why, and it has now become my fault that they arent able to hold up my work to their superiors and say "I did this". They refuse to accept my explanations based on the fact that I am not a network administrator by designation, only as a collateral duty that I enjoy, I am actually designated as a Mechanic. (One well on his way to a degree in computer sciences and with 5 years experience in Net Admin though). My only goal at this point is to survive with my sanity intact until the end of this tour, as I do not have the option to just leave. The withholding information option is the one I resort to the most, and it tends to keep them off of my back, as if they dont know anything is going on then they ignore me.

That they ARE micro-managers. In my experience (and I've worked for significant two micro-managers in my career) it is both a matter of trust on their part, and fear of being wrong.

1. Trust: The Micro-Manager doesn't feel as if he/she can trusthis employees to make the right decision without him. He feels he must be involved in all decisions so as to keep from having projects/tasks go awry.

2. This is the "fear of being wrong" that I mentioned earlier. In my experience, a micro-managers biggest fear is not being able to answer a question from a superior. They don't understand that they don't need to be the expert on everything and are afraid of giving the answer: I don't know, but I will find out.

As an aside, micro-management is not a bad thing in every situation. A micro-manager can get away with it when the group is small, or the tasks are very detail oriented (though this isn't fun). Micro-managers are often useful in turning around an employee who is failing in certain areas.

Remember: micro-managers often succeed to a point where the very same management style becomes a detriment. This is the so-called "Peter principle". Those of us who have, or will work for a micro-manager must learn how to manage THEMas well.

In re: item 1 - the worst part about having a micromanager not trust the people who work for him/her is that they often end up being a cause for why a project go awry. I found that our director really was half the problem why the IT department had a bad rap - guilt by association.

In re: item 2 - my boss never understood when I would say to her, "Why isn't it OK to say I don't know, go ask so-and-so or I'll find out for you." I really think you hit the nail on the head with fear. I alwaystold her "So what what they think. They are a SMALL part of your life." Keeping closed ears and a closed mind gets you nowhere.

Having had the sad experience of working for one of these, I have to say that I feel that a micromanager is poison to your career development.

If you give up and let them tell you everything then you get dinged for not having initiative. If you work around them then you get dinged for keeping them in the process.

Being blunt and telling them that you don't need to be micromanaged can either give you breathing room or get you fired. You have to take your chances on this one.

I don't have much advice to give on this one and yes I'm bitter regarding them. The only thing I can tell people when I hear about this is to get out as quickly as you can.

When I manage a project, I give it away and don't meddle. But if the project falls apart or my team asks for help, sometimes the only way I can catch up, or find out where the problem lies is to walk back through the development process from the beginning. Like most guys my process is probably different from someone else so I make changes as I go along. This sometimes gets viewed as micro- managing but the truth is, since I dont hover over a project it's the only I can get up to speed when I have to be involved.

You said it all when you said you gave a project away. That's delegation. Asking for an explanation of how it got to where it is also isn't micromanagement. That's understanding.

If you assigned the project but made it a requirement that you had to sign off on every step in the project, that would be micromanagement.

Sounds to me like you're just being thorough.

Personally, if a project is falling apart I *like* someone to go back over the steps with me to see what we may have missed or where we went wrong. Something had to have happened or the project wouldn't be in trouble. In my opinion, at least.

I've found that it's often difficult to know where the line is between knowing what is going on with your people and micro-managing. I try to keep a buffer between myself, as a project manager, and the various development areas (analysis, development or quality). My belief is that a manager should be involved in decisions but that the implementers should be given the opportunity to work the solutions without being pushed in one direction. Certainly there may be factors that lead a manager to choose a direction (cost, timing) but the development teams that I have worked with seem to thrive when they have a chance to decide for themselves.

I agree that the manager needs to be involved in milestone decisions or those that affect the project itself. The manager doesn't need to be involved in *every* decision.

If you hand off a project you lose a certain level of control. That's what handing it off means. If you can't give up that control then you either need to be the project manager or you need help learning delegation.

One lesson I learned as a manager - it may not get done exactly the way I would have done it, but as long as it gets done correctly it's good to go.

Explain the project clearly, have good goals, and good team members. A winning combination.

To me, it's a given that micro-management is not advisable or feasible. The pace of technology means you're not the "expert" in many areas you now manage. One of your staff is. On the flip side, you have to equip your staff with clear expectations and this includes proper project management and above all, communication. I have a great side kick that I don't need to micro at all, but it took three years of effort to get him to the point where I believe he listens properly, establishes needs fromothers ad delivers. The staff all tend to be..."leave me alone and I'll do the job", this may be, but set it up right in the first place.

I am a new manager. I don't really know the fine line between micromanaging and letting the staff do their job. Based on the postings I have read about this so far, I am feeling that maybe a lot of people may think I am just that. An awful, spitefulperson. However, I totally agree that direction needs to be in place and that sometimes a manager most follow through in order to assure that a job is beeing done. In my way of seing it, I am doing my job by helping a person who is not performing toexpectations get there.
Has anyone here ever thought that maybe, just maybe, you are not doing what is expected you to do and that is why you are being micromanaged?
Honestly, I do all I can to keep the lines of communication open with the folks I work with. I can only hope that someone that finds me annoying that they would step forward and say it.
After all, if micromanagers like information, then they would probably like to be told that too.

"I can only hope that someone that finds me annoying that they would step forward and say it."

Ah, an idealist. Most of the people being blasted in these posts are SOOOOOO insecure that they would take any hint of criticism of their management style as a personal attack. How about this: Go to HR and say "My manager is micromanaging me and needs help and I don't know how to effectively communicate with him or her." Oh yeah, then HR "counsels" the manager, who then calls the employee a whinerand takes retribution at review time. I've been fortunate enough to have worked for a couple of micromanagers who responded positively when I had a face-to-face meeting and said, "Please let me prove to you I can do my job..." But I think those kinds of people are rare. When promoted to "manager" far too many people think to themselves, "Gee now I know everything and I'm in the manager's club - I'm set!" There's no communicating directly with people who have that mindset. They're truly lost causes.

That given your comments I am not a micromanager.
Just a poor new manager who is trying to figure out how this whole managing thing is suppose to work.
Thank you for your reply!

If you can answer these questions correctly, you're probably not micromanaging.

* Do I set expectations and then let people meet them?

* Do I allow for flexibility and creativity in solving problems or completing assignments?

* Do I provideguidance and direction rather than solutions?

* Do I monitor but not interfere when things are on plan and on schedule?

* Do I hire the best people I can and then let them do what they're good at?

If you answered 'yes' to these questions (assessing yourself honestly) then you're probably not micromanaging.

There are those people who think that ANY questioning of their methods or reasoning is micromanaging but that's another story completely.

If you want to learn how to manage, watch various mothers with a toddler looking to walk soon. A good mother lets her child toddle, wobble and fall, but not when near stairs or the fireplace. A bad mother never lets go of the kid's hand, screams when the child may tumble, and rushes in with Sound and Fury if the baby sqeals after falling. That latter child is doomed. The kid just wants to walk. And to blame a kid for not already knowing what it is he's trying to learn is bad motherhood (and management.) Almost every project your team is required to do has a learning component... give em space to go boom.

You know, a lot of people are reluctant to say something for fear that the manager will become more of a micromanager. If someone was honest with you would you really try and change the way to hadle situations with this person? If you have already micromanaged someone, chances are you have made that person not trust you. And as anyone knows building trust is a hard thing to do.

Being a manager is fine, but if you can not lead your people, I am afraid that you will continue to be a micromanager. You stated that you are doing your job by helping people who cannot perform to expectations. Whose expectations are these? Do you have certain regulations or standards in writing that are company driven or are these standards set by you? As a manager you are providing a service to your employees and if you do not take care of them how can you expect for them to take care of you. It all falls back on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
http://www.accel-team.com/motivation/theory_01.html