Micromanagement kills
Tight deadlines. Big expectations. A high-visibility project.
We’d done the work to set realistic timelines, shared our process openly, and aligned on how we’d get there. But before we even started the discovery work, our project sponsor — a VP in charge of analytics — questioned our estimates and asked why so much foundational work was needed.
I explained: our application didn’t have all the required values, some were rarely used in our app, and session-level storage would be needed. We also had to design in a way that met our existing standards for performance, security, and architecture.
What came next was a wave of unsolicited, uninformed suggestions and a demand for a meeting to review the design — despite the fact that we already have architecture reviews, peer-reviewed code, detailed wiki documentation, and regular checkpoints built into our process. We work transparently. We collaborate. We follow Agile principles: high-level estimates early, spikes for discovery, evolving design.
There’s a mental toll in having to re-explain decisions and processes that are already documented — especially when it happens before discovery work is even done. It’s second-guessing that disrupts the planned flow. When you’re pulled into ad-hoc conversations instead of sticking to agreed checkpoints, focus and momentum take a hit.
When timelines are tight, deviating from the process we agreed on affects the whole team. As a servant leader, I try to protect my team from slipping into reactive mode. But pressure for quick answers often pushes us away from the most efficient path.
I care about everyone’s input and understand the pressure leaders are under — especially when they’re not as close to the day-to-day details. But when I’m micromanaged, it puts me in an uncomfortable position.
I’ve noticed that when leaders are stressed, they often slide into micromanagement. This can be especially damaging when teams are high-performing and competent. If they’re told how to do the work without recognition of the quality they’re delivering — even when outcomes are strong and peers respect them — it feels like running with extra weight just to finish the race, only to be told we’re not running with the “right” stride despite crossing the finish line successfully.
If you want to help the situation and avoid eroding team trust, make sure these principles are shared with all stakeholders:
Stick to the structured checkpoints for updates and decisions, and let discovery and design happen before requesting detailed answers.
Acknowledge that the team has a plan and the skills to execute it, and resist the urge to revisit decisions unless there’s truly new information.
Save questions and feedback for planned meetings, avoiding last-minute interruptions that derail focus.
Recognize good outcomes and the extra responsibilities taken on, offering constructive suggestions without undercutting the work or process.
Don’t pass down the pressure you’re receiving from above, and keep feedback focused on the work — not on mirroring treatment you’ve experienced.
Have an open conversation about what’s changed and reaffirm shared goals so it feels like we’re on the same side, not working against each other.
Micromanagement rarely comes from bad intentions — more often, it’s a symptom of pressure, urgency, or fear. But the damage it causes to trust, focus, and team morale can last far longer than the crisis that sparked it. Returning to process, showing trust, and recognizing good work are the first steps toward getting everyone rowing in the same direction again.
Micromanagement kills trust, momentum, and morale — and once those are gone, results are soon to follow.
