One of the biggest downsides to micromanagement is the barrier it creates to turning high achievers into high performers, writes Travis Schultz.
Ever wondered what a micromanager might say if you asked them whether they exert too much control over the way their subordinates do their job? “Not me”, perhaps? Or possibly, “I just provide a lot of guidance to my troops.” But one thing is for sure, micromanagers are seldom aware of their controlling behaviours and, almost universally, have little insight into the harm they are doing to both organisational culture and the employees they manage. As bad as narcissism, and worse than aggression, in 2025 micromanagement is the number one symptom of “substandard supervisor syndrome!”
Over 15 years ago, a study by H.E. Chambers found that 79 per cent of respondents had experienced micromanagement in the workplace, and a staggering 85 per cent thought that the practice could have a negative impact on employees. Perhaps more tellingly, 91 per cent of the micromanagers themselves were oblivious to the fact that they had staff who had resigned because of their nitpicking leadership style.
A more recent study by Ryan and Cross (albeit with a small sample size) found that among Millennials, 89 per cent thought that it was an undesirable character for managers to take all responsibility, and 73 per cent of that generation said they valued opportunities to make their own decisions.
If micromanagement is such a destructive leadership and management style, why do organisations, and particularly professional service firms, not develop systems and processes to identify the micromanagers and provide training and guidance in leadership best practice? Those of us in Queensland would no doubt be cognisant of our obligations as employers under the code of practice which, since April 2023, requires management of psychosocial risks in the workplace!
Much has been written about the negative impact of micromanagement, and most academics agree that it:
After all, who wants to be treated like a 10-year-old at work?
While I accept that all these consequences are real and valid, to me, one of the biggest downsides to micromanagement is the barrier it creates to turning high achievers into high performers. There’s plenty of data out there to suggest that high achievers dramatically outperform the average worker. I read with interest an article in the Harvard Business Review by Ruth Gotian in which she suggested that high performers are in fact 400 per cent more productive. Imagine what a team of those would do for value creation in an organisation!
Among the key attributes of high performers is their desire for autonomy and trust. According to Gotian: “They seek recognition, growth opportunities, and autonomy.”
She said “by implementing targeted actions – focused on appreciation, challenge, advancement, and trust – you can create an environment where these indispensable team members remain engaged and motivated”.
It seems that micromanagement is kryptonite to emerging high performers.
My thoughts are that mutual trust and confidence is essential for effective leadership. And openness, transparency, and honesty are the bedrocks on which the necessary foundation of credibility is anchored.
Leaders in professional services firms need to train, trust, support, and corroborate. Train the team in how to perform their role. Trust them to do it effectively and to come to you in times of uncertainty. Support the subordinate with adequate resources and ongoing professional development, but corroborate through genuine check-ins (“show me”, rather than “tell me”) that all is well. As the Russian proverb, popularised by Ronald Reagan goes, “trust but verify”.
As in most aspects of leadership, autonomy and supervision are a question of delicate balance. Get it right and the team hums. Get it wrong, and you’ll risk a lot of red ink and be knocking down the recruiters’ doors!
Travis Schultz is the managing partner at Travis Schultz & Partners.
