I’ve never heard a single person anywhere, working in any industry, declare a love for being micromanaged. Furthermore, I’ve never heard a single person proudly claim to be a micromanager. The simple fact is that we all hate to be micromanaged, and we all cringe at the accusation of being guilty of the transgression. Micromanagement is a four-letter word in our business culture.

But regardless of how many letters we need to spell it, what is micromanagement, anyway? Is it always bad? And how can we identify when a management style has crossed the line?

Over the last year, I’ve had many conversations with employees and lead­ers in a variety of organizations about different management styles, in an attempt to understand if micromanagement is ever really called for, and how to identify when a management style goes bad.

When I began in earnest to consider this leadership issue, I wrote down my personal perceptions of micromanagement, placed them in a sealed envelope and put it in a drawer. This past week, when I felt I had done sufficient research, I reviewed my notes and compared my current perception to my prior notes.

The contrast was startling.

A year ago, my general perception of the concept of micromanagement was all negative, all the time. Micromanagement was a bad thing, always, anywhere and everywhere. And I am not alone in that perception. In fact, every definition I could find of the term “micromanagement” had two things in common: a description of a close and controlling management style; and a severe negative connotation attached to the definition. There is no doubt that the universal opinion of this concept is as negative as mine was one year ago.

Over the course of my research, however, my perception has evolved and changed slightly. I have come to believe that micromanagement can be a bad thing, but not always. When it is bad, it is really bad. But in certain circumstances, micromanagement can be the ideal management style. The real learning opportunity for managers is to decipher when such a close style is called for, and how to employ such a style without reinforcing its nearly universally negative perception.

Is Micromanagement Always Bad?
I enter this discussion with the following assumption: Every management opportunity represents some combination of many variables – company, industry, product, employees and business circumstances, to name a few obvious ones. Every situation, therefore, is different. The leader who applies a “one-size-fits-all” management style does so at his or her own peril.

If we agree on that basic premise, then despite the nearly universally negative con­notation of the concept of micromanagement, there are clearly some situations where a close management style is warranted. Some situations require a hands-off approach; let’s call it “macromanagement.” Other situations require a more intense, closer approach, which we collectively refer to as “micromanagement.”

When is Micromanagement the Correct Style?
There are three major variables that will determine when a close management style is called for – trust, risk and time.

A loose management style inherently gives autonomy to the employee. Autonomy is all about trust. The more I trust you, the more I am willing to give up control. Trust needs time and shared experience to develop. Some situations are so new that sufficient trust has not yet developed. Perhaps the employee is new. Perhaps a pro­cess is new. Until trust develops, it is not necessarily inappropriate for a manager to maintain a close management style. In fact, many employees will appreciate the clearer guidance that comes with close supervision in new situations.

Second, the greater the risk or the reward, the more likely a good manager will choose to keep a close eye on the situation. If you are managing a project that will receive close scrutiny from senior management, or that holds great risk or reward for the organization, you give up control in exchange for increased personal risk.

Finally, in certain situations, the timeline is so short and crucial that as a manager you must maintain a close management style to make sure the critical timeline is met.

A manager holds ultimate responsibility for the success of a project, and in many situations, trust, risk or time may make a micro style appropriate.

The Risks of Micromanagement
Before concluding that this issue of The Beacon is a call for more micromanagement, let me be clear. Yes, I do believe there are times when a close management style is appropriate. However, such a style carries significant risk and should be employed with great caution.

There is a reason why the concept of micromanagement is universally viewed as a bad thing. It can be suffocating. It can inhibit growth, both for the employee or the project. It can be demotivating. It can reduce innovation. And it can prevent your employees from taking ownership of their work or the outcome. Micromanaged employees can feel trapped. They can feel unappreciated. They can feel untrusted. All of these things can and will cause employees to feel less connected to their work and to the company. The net result is that they won’t be motivated to innovate.

Great management requires the ability to persuade your people to own their own work and their own success. As Warren Buffett once wrote, “Nothing motivates like honest-to-God ownership.” When we micromanage the people around us, we run the risk of taking away their ownership of their own work.

How Can We Micromanage in a Positive Way?
Since there are times when a close management style is required, and since such a style carries great risk, then how can we balance that challenge? The key is communication that manages expectations. I do believe that under the circumstances listed above, a close and intense management style can be appropriate. But whenever such a style is employed, it must be accompanied by a thorough communication strategy with the following components:

1. We must communicate why we are managing so closely. Regardless of the reason – trust, risk or time – the reason (or reasons) must be effectively communicated to those we manage. They need to understand why such a style is being used.
2. We must communicate how the employee can cause a change to our style. Is there something they can do to gain more autonomy, like earning more trust? Or will your style continue until the end of the project, regardless?
3. We must communicate when our style will change. Will you manage employees closely until the positive quarterly results come out? Will you manage them closely until they have been through one sales cycle? Or will you manage them closely until you both feel that they are comfortable in their new position and ready to take on greater ownership?

In my work with clients in every industry, I continually come to the same conclusion. With an appropriate communication strategy executed effectively, your colleagues, employees or clients will understand and accept many things that otherwise would be unwelcome. A clear communication strategy is an integral part of every management challenge.

We are living and working in difficult economic times. There is great risk today for every company and every professional. And during periods of great risk, it is easy for a manager to convince himself that a close and intense micromanagement style is necessary. And it may be. But know that such a style carries great risk. And know that a clear communication strategy that outlines the why, how and when of your management style will keep your employees motivated, invested in the work, and productive.