Have you ever considered the differences between managers and micromanagers? Over the last 30 years of my career, I have had the honor of being led by many different styles of managers and I have had the honor of leading many teams. From these experiences, I have learned that being a micromanager limits trust, stifles creativity and brings down morale. Some managers think they are doing well in managing their respective teams and their team members enjoy working for them, but the reality is they would rather look to leave the team or the organization for a manager who appreciates their skills, talents and expertise.

Effective managers know how to maximize their greatest assets, their team members. They promote a culture of teamwork and trust. Not only do they instill trust, they also earn trust by inspiring team unity, loyalty, transparency and collaboration. They support the needs of their team, and they go the extra mile to motivate their team. They build strong relationships with their team members that are built on trusting and caring values. If you have a caring and trust-based relationship with your team, they recognize that your feedback and coaching is done with value to the team member and not as manipulating tool. When managers are giving recognition, it is not seen as they are trying to get “more out of the employee” but to show that you genuinely value them personally. Employees produce more when trust factors are high. The more a leader micromanages, the more individuals begin to breakdown and feel untrusted. Team members want to work for leaders who instill confidence in their team. When trust is lost, productivity goes down and people do not see their work as fun or rewarding. This leads to employees looking to work elsewhere. Individuals don’t quit their jobs, they quite the people that manage them.

When team members are initially hired, they feel like they were hired because they brought something to the table such as skills, talents and insights to their particular work and or area of responsibility. The skills, talents and insights are what fuel individual’s creative juices. Micromanaging stifles creativity and eventually team members pull back from being independent. They begin to be “gun shy” and feel they have lost their ability to work independently. When a manager second-guesses decisions, employees will stop taking initiative to act if they feel a manager is going to just come along and undermine any actions they take. Employees begin to feel like they can no longer do their job without asking for permission or they will only do what they are told to do. Employees should be given some discretion to think and act on their own. A manager’s role is to encourage and support an open decision making environment while giving them the tools and knowledge they need to make adequate decisions.

Micromanaging is almost equivalent to bullying. At first, a micromanaged employee will try his/her best to please their manager. Eventually over time, the team member will become less communicative, productive and motivated, thus bringing down their initiative to go the extra mile, decreasing productivity and lowering morale. Managers should have the autonomy to oversee, guide, coach, give clear directions and guidance, but when this goes to overseeing every detail of a project, team members will shut down and not want to produce or will only produce the minimum expectation of the task at hand.

Great managers who are not micromanagers know how to build relationships, empower team members, and focus on what team members do well in order to build a strong team around them. A strong team member produces more, is more engaged and is willing to stay longer in an organization. Managers that help their team grow and develop their individual strengths are more likely to engage their team members better, thus adding capacity for their members to develop and apply more strength in their respective tool kits.