The negative impact of micromanaging

This is a cautionary tale about the negative impact of micromanaging on a team’s productivity, effectiveness, and morale. The executive in question added a new project during a slow season, but his attempts to compensate for the increased workload by being more hands-on turned out to be counterproductive. He interfered with every aspect of the project, creating more work and confusion for his team, who were already under stress due to the added responsibilities.

The executive’s micromanaging also led to a parallel increase in mistakes and a decrease in everyone’s effectiveness. He even went so far as to read all communication to and from his company regarding the project, which added hours to his workday and further fueled his frustration. When he called out one of his team members for being “too polite” with a representative of a partner company, it eroded her self-confidence and caused her to be less productive. The outcome of the project was satisfactory, but the team was exhausted, burned out, and morale hit an all-time low. The executive could have avoided this by letting everyone know he was available if needed and by trusting the team to get the job done. Instead of micromanaging, he could have partnered with his team members, especially key players like Nicole, to see better results.

In summary, micromanaging may seem like a way to stay on top of things, but it can have negative consequences on productivity, effectiveness, and morale. Trusting and empowering team members is a better approach to achieving desired outcomes.