“My boss micromanages everything.”
I hear some version of that complaint fairly often. Someone describes a boss who wants to know what they are doing, when they are doing it, how they are doing it, who they are talking to, what they said, and why they didn’t do it the way the boss would have done it. The natural reaction is to conclude that the boss has a control problem. Maybe. But before we decide that the boss is a micromanager, I think there are a few questions worth asking.
One possibility is that the boss hasn’t really made the transition from doing the work to leading the people who do the work. This happens more often than you might think. Someone is very good at a particular job, gets promoted into a leadership position, and then continues doing the job through everyone who now reports to them. They know how to do the work, so they have difficulty letting someone else do it differently. What looks like leadership is really an experienced worker trying to keep doing the job they were promoted out of. The skills that made someone successful in their previous position do not necessarily translate into the skills required to lead the people who now perform that work.
Another possibility is insecurity. A person who is uncertain about their own position may try to compensate by controlling everything around them. If I need to know everything that is happening, approve every decision, and be involved in every detail, I can convince myself that I am still in control. The problem is that control is not the same thing as leadership. A leader who needs to personally touch every decision has created an organization that depends on the leader rather than one that has learned how to function effectively without constant intervention.
Many years ago I learned that if my supervisor had to come and find me, then ask, “Hey, Steve, what’s going on?” I had two problems.
But there is another possibility that doesn’t get nearly as much attention, and that is the possibility that the employee isn’t communicating very well. I’ve learned over the years that when faced with a lack of information, people tend to fill the vacuum with bad news. If I don’t know what is happening, I will probably imagine that something is going wrong. If I don’t know whether you are making progress, I may assume you aren’t. If I don’t hear from you about a problem, I may conclude that you haven’t recognized it. And if I have to repeatedly ask you for information, I may eventually start asking for it more often.
From the employee’s perspective, that can feel like micromanagement. From the boss’s perspective, it may feel like trying to find out what is going on. Those two perspectives can exist at the same time, which is why simply accepting the employee’s description of the situation doesn’t necessarily tell us what is actually happening. The complaint may be accurate, but it may also be a description of a communication problem that neither the boss nor the employee has properly identified.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a leader asking questions. Leaders need information. A leader who never asks questions, never checks progress, and never wants to know what is happening isn’t necessarily giving people freedom. That person may simply be disengaged. The question is what happens after the question is answered. If your boss asks where you are on a project, you provide a clear answer, your boss acknowledges the information, and you are left alone to do the work, that isn’t necessarily micromanagement. If your boss asks the same question three times a day, insists on approving every step, changes your decisions without explanation, and refuses to let you exercise reasonable judgment, we may have a different problem.
The same thing applies to keeping your boss informed. If you know your boss needs a weekly update and you consistently provide one before being asked, you have reduced the need for your boss to come looking for information. If you know there is a problem and say nothing until your boss discovers it, you have created an information vacuum. Your boss may respond by asking more questions, and you may then complain that your boss is micromanaging you. From your perspective, the boss is constantly looking over your shoulder. From the boss’s perspective, the boss may be trying to determine whether you are aware of a problem that you haven’t mentioned.
That is how the cycle develops. The boss wants information, the employee interprets the questions as interference, and the employee communicates less because the questions are annoying. The boss gets even less information and becomes more concerned, so the boss asks more questions. The employee becomes even more convinced that the boss is a micromanager, and the boss becomes even more convinced that the employee cannot be trusted to keep them informed. So far it looks like wiping your nose with a hula hoop. Everybody gets to be right, and everybody contributes to making the situation worse.
There is also a leadership responsibility here. If I expect people to keep me informed, I need to tell them what “keep me informed” actually means. How often do I want an update? What decisions can they make without me? What kinds of problems do I want to know about immediately? What information can wait until the next regular update? If I haven’t established those expectations, I shouldn’t be surprised when people and I have different ideas about how much communication is enough. A leader cannot reasonably complain about a lack of communication while leaving the other person to guess what information the leader wants.
This is one of the reasons I distinguish between managing things and leading people. We manage stuff and things. We manage systems, processes, schedules, budgets, equipment, resources, projects, and other things that make an organization work. We lead people. People aren’t systems, and they don’t become more capable simply because we exercise more control over them. If I have to control every decision you make, I haven’t really given you responsibility. I’ve given you a list of instructions and reserved the right to second-guess you.
Leadership requires something different. It requires establishing expectations, giving people the authority necessary to meet those expectations, providing the resources they need, and then allowing them to do the work. It also requires accountability. Delegation doesn’t mean disappearing, and trust doesn’t mean abandoning oversight. Asking for information doesn’t automatically mean micromanaging. The leader still has a responsibility to know what is happening and to intervene when intervention is necessary. The challenge is knowing when intervention is necessary and when the leader is simply unable to let go.
So if you think your boss is micromanaging you, there is an experiment worth trying before you reach that conclusion. Start communicating before your boss has to ask. Tell your boss what you are working on, what is progressing, what isn’t, what decisions you have made, and where you need help. If something has gone wrong, don’t hide it. If you see a problem developing, raise it while there is still time to do something about it. Give your boss enough information that there is no vacuum to fill, and then pay attention to what happens.
If the questions decrease, you may have discovered that your boss wasn’t trying to control you nearly as much as you thought. Your boss may simply have been trying to get the information needed to lead. If the questions don’t decrease, and your boss continues to insert themselves into every decision and every detail even after you have demonstrated that you are capable, accountable, and communicative, then you may have a genuine micromanagement problem. Either way, you’ve learned something useful because you have tested the situation rather than simply accepting the label.
The point isn’t to determine whether the boss or the employee is the villain. The point is to understand what is actually happening. Sometimes a micromanager is really a person who hasn’t learned how to stop doing the job they were promoted from. Sometimes a micromanager is an insecure leader trying to protect their own position. Sometimes the person being micromanaged is overreacting to reasonable questions, and sometimes the employee has created the very behavior they are complaining about by failing to communicate.
Leadership isn’t about controlling everything. It is about creating the conditions in which people can take responsibility for doing what needs to be done while everyone understands what is expected, what information needs to be shared, and who is accountable for what. When those conditions exist, people have room to do their jobs, leaders have the information they need, and neither side has to spend the day wondering what the other person is thinking.
That, to me, is a much more useful conversation than simply asking whether your boss is a micromanager.
If you have a problem you’d like to discuss in a confidential, no-obligation Zoom visit, you can self-schedule it by clicking on this button:
Use this form to be notified about new articles as I publish them!
Author’s Note: The content provided in this article is designed exclusively for educational and informational purposes, reflecting opinions shaped by decades of leadership training and organizational consulting experience. It should never be interpreted as formal professional advice. By reading or engaging with this material, you acknowledge that no professional-client relationship is established and that these insights do not substitute for tailored guidance from a qualified professional familiar with your specific circumstances. Consequently, readers are strongly advised to seek independent counsel from licensed legal, financial, medical, or other appropriate advisors before implementing any strategies or making decisions based on these perspectives. Ultimately, you assume full personal responsibility for any actions you choose to take or omit as a result of reading this material, releasing the author and publisher from any liability for outcomes arising from your reliance on the text.
