This episode delves into the intricate psychology underpinning micromanagement, a pervasive issue that can significantly hinder organizational effectiveness. We articulate six principal factors driving leaders toward such behavior, including a lack of trust, insecurity, and the influence of organizational culture. Furthermore, we explore how these psychological and environmental elements can adversely affect team morale and productivity, ultimately compromising the health of the organization. Our discourse is supplemented by practical strategies aimed at recognizing and mitigating these micromanagement tendencies, thereby fostering a more empowering workplace environment. Through this examination, we strive to illuminate the pathways to more effective leadership practices that empower teams rather than constrain them.

Explore the psychology behind micromanagement with Dr. C and Dr. D as they dissect why leaders micromanage, the impact on teams, and how organizational culture shapes these behaviors. Hear real examples and practical advice for leaders, employees, and those struggling with their own micromanagement tendencies. Discover strategies for building trust, creating clarity, and moving from control to collaboration in your workplace.

Welcome to Leadership Dissected, where we examine the details of leadership strategy, workplace culture, and decision making through the lens of behavioral science.

I'm Dr. C. And I'm Dr. D. With our experience as business leaders and PhDs in business psychology, we dig into the latest research trends and practical strategies to help you survive at work.

In this episode of Leadership Dissected, we are dissecting the psychology behind micromanagement. Explore the various factors that drive leaders to micromanage.

We discuss six key reasons why leaders might fall into this behavior, ranging from lack of trust to organizational culture.

We'll provide insights into how these underlying psychological and environmental factors can have on team morale. Productivity and overall organizational health.

Will also help with strategies for recognizing and overcoming micromanagement tendencies, helping foster a more empowering work environment. So let's cut into this topic. Dr. C. Let's talk about micromanagement.

I think where we got to start is defining what does micromanagement mean. Sometimes people feel that they're being micromanaged for various reasons, such as manager or leaders.

Really intrusive, directing a person to how to do things step by step, being overly involved, needing extra communication. Dr. D. I'm curious. In your experience, how would you define micromanagement from being a leader and someone who's been led in the past?

I usually step away from a definition and go towards symptoms. When I see a micromanager, I see someone who doesn't communicate what their needs are, opts to do it themselves rather than let other people do it.

And when they do ask other people to do it, they want it in only their way. It has to fit exactly their expectation or they're going to redo it and do it themselves. So it really falls into three categories.

The ability to communicate what they need, the flexibility to allow for a person to inject their own creativity and their own approach into the work product, and the ability to let go and let somebody else actually do something. So those three rules are violated, then somebody's probably a micromanager.

No, Absolutely. I think I want to dig into this piece of communication.

I think with a lot of leaders, there's this assumption that their team members can read their mind.

They have this idea of what the outcome is going to look like, but sometimes lack the ability to clearly define what is it that this person is asking for? What are expectations? What are the outcomes that they're really looking for?

So I think when it comes to communication and leadership, micromanaging a lot of times comes from that inability to create clarity around what the expectation really Looks like, yeah.

So this tendency that people think that they've explained a concept well enough or given detailed enough instructions because when a person understands something themselves, there's this fundamental bias that they believe that everybody understands that same thing to the same level. Good communicators really do over explain.

Sometimes leaders have this tendency that they believe their team members can read their mind and make these assumptions based on what their expectations are.

This creates some challenges for team members because when reality doesn't match what's in the leaders thinking, perception or assumption, this can force a leader to feel like they have to dig in further and question more and to an extent, micromanage the process to make sure that their expectation matches reality.

Yeah, and I usually, I think a couple of components to leadership that when a leader. So a leader has usually had a lot of time to think about a subject and a lot of time to contemplate on a subject before they give some instruction.

Or they might have had a lot of conversations with other leaders about a particular problem or a challenge that there's in the leader's mind who needs some support from their team or from other teams. They've built up some base level of knowledge, some deeper level of knowledge, and have maybe even achieved some level of consensus.

The challenge is that leaders don't, when they're then relaying the information to their team and asking for instruction, they don't provide the same level of contemplation or detail.

They tend to give a task and they say build this or do this or do it this way without giving a lot of the reasoning that led them to that path of actually making that request. So the person who's receiving the task doesn't have enough information they haven't had the time to contemplate.

They may not understand the problem as fully as the leader that's giving them the instruction.

So they might not be able to deliver in the same way that leader would because they have less information, they have less background, they have less understanding.

What it sometimes feels like is you're trying to put together a puzzle without the actual image that you're trying to put together.

So for managers, leaders, they have the box of the puzzles and they come to their team members and here's a handful of pieces put it together without a lot of communication and a lot of clarity around what are we actually doing? What's the purpose of this? What's the goal of this?

And for a lot of team members, what also creates this sense of micromanagement is not understanding the purpose or the why of the work? Because for them, it's just being handed off to them. And Dr. D, I'm going to hand you this puzzle, put it together.

I'm not going to tell you what the puzzle is. I'm not even going to tell you how many pieces it is in my head.

I know I have the box in my office, so I can tell you what that final product should look like. But for our team members, set them up for fail.

And then our intervention as leaders, as managers, is to start to micromanage because it's not coming out the way we want it to come out.

Yeah, it's almost. To take your analogy a little bit further, it's almost not that you're giving somebody a piece of puzzle to put together.

You're saying, hey, there's a missing piece to this puzzle.

Or, I have eight missing pieces to this puzzle, and I need you to build the piece and put the image on it and make sure that it's cohesive within the biggest puzzle.

But then walking away and not giving all the information about what quadrant of the puzzle it is, what is the overall picture that we're trying to build? What's the shape that we need? Of course it's not going to be correct, but that in itself is not micromanagement.

Micromanagement is the phrase that I hate to hear, which is, it'll just be faster if I do it myself.

I am 100% guilty of that. Early on in my leadership career, it was mainly because we're using a puzzle analogy.

I was recognized for putting together puzzles really quick, really well. So I know how to put puzzles together. And early in my career, I was thinking, well, you don't know how to do it, so let me just do it.

And what ends up happening for leaders, for managers, is one piece of work starts to pile onto other pieces of work, to other pieces of work. And there's an impact to team members. We're taking away their ability to do their work.

We're also trying to force them to not be creative, to not have autonomy in how things are getting done. But more so, if it's not my way, then it's wrong. If I'm not getting every piece of information the way I want it, then it's wrong.

And that was something I had to really develop the ability not to go that route early in my career. And a lot of that was not realizing that I was being micromanaged for part of my career.

When someone says, oh, every email, you need to send it to me before we Send it out to anyone. That is micromanaging, that is not trusting the person to be able to put the message together that you want to convey.

And often when I would do that early on in my career, my leader, my manager would just rewrite it, and it's like, okay, so why even have me write it in the first place? And that brings up a lot of different feelings, a lot of different implications to how people are impacted by micromanagement.

I think that email example is a really good one because particularly when somebody's early in their career, they might not know the tone, the tempo, the tenor, the message. They might not just have their skills developed yet. Intuition that comes from having experience.

The challenge with business is that so many first drafts are put out as the final draft. And if something is important, it takes some level of iteration.

If a person writes an email and you want to make sure, because of the audience or for whatever reason that I want to review it before it goes out, you should allow for enough time to allow for feedback cycles. So, Dr. C, please write this email going to here, but I'd like to see it before you. It's going to an important audience.

There are a couple of key things I want to make sure, politically, wherever it goes, it's going to land the right way.

So let's go over it together or let's look at it, and then I will give you some feedback on any improvements that might make it palatable and teach you why those things are important.

If, as you said, send the email, the person just rewrites it and there's no feedback, then you didn't actually learn anything from it or understand why that person rewrote it. Or they could just be a micromanager and want to do it their way. Exactly their way.

I think there is a balance. People are very quick to jump to this person's micromanaging. Are they micromanaging you?

Are they?

Or are they actually giving you feedback and holding you accountable? So there's this balance. And sometimes people are quick to throw around micromanagement because it's a catchy phrase.

People have an idea of what it means, but also attribute it to, I may not have a good relationship with my leader or my manager, and they're asking to check my work because maybe I have some performance challenges. Then all of a sudden it feels like I'm being micromanaged because person's actually checking my work now.

So there is a little bit of a distinction I think that people have to make when it comes to what is micromanagement and what is manager managing.

You and what is collaboration? Some people. So I was on a consulting project with other team members. I was the more experienced person on the team. We developed a work product.

We divided the work up, people put real effort into the work product. It came to me, I reviewed it. I would say, hey, we need to edit it this way, this way, this way, that way. I then heard feedback.

What, you didn't like my work? What's wrong with it? We have to make sure it's cohesive across all these other parts.

Lots of reasons, but it didn't really matter because the folks I was working with, at least one of them, all they heard was my first draft wasn't perfect. I was expecting that my first draft was the finished product. And my expectation was, there's collaboration around this.

Well, the other person got discouraged and left the work to sit because they were discouraged. I ended up having to then redo the work. And it did make me look like a micromanager.

Because we had a client deliverable, we had to satisfy and deliver a work product. So without clear understanding of the evolution of work development, it can create misunderstandings about what is micromanagement.

And then in a pinch, somebody just has to get the work done.

Absolutely. And I think that's important to understand it.

Feedback is received in a lot of different ways and we have to really stress how we communicate expectations, how we communicate the vision, the goals, because people are going to interpret it within their frame of reference. So I think in that example, that person framed it as, hey, in my experience, if I just go ahead and submit this, people accept it.

It's almost like in school, once you submit a project, you get a grade, and whatever grade you get, you move forward. But when it comes to work, it becomes more challenging because some of the pieces of work are longitudinal, so they're not just one and done.

Yes, we do have a lot of one and done projects. Often it's a component that's built upon the next piece.

If we don't have a good foundation for feedback, for communication, it can create this perception and a lot of times can create people starting to practice micromanagement because now it's a little bit of that trust challenge where you were supposed to deliver but you didn't. So it's harder for me to trust you to actually deliver it. It's safer for me just to do it.

So we have six reasons why. I think there's actually a seventh reason embedded in here, which is, is it really micromanagement?

I think the Test that we have to ask ourselves is, are we expecting that this one. Is there a reason why somebody else is getting involved? In your email example, was there somebody who was getting involved for a reason?

Everybody's different circumstances where that person is in their career, there's just so many different challenges to that. But really, was that person trying to give you feedback or was that person just a micromanager?

I think the person was likely just a micromanager, but you have to. That person wasn't communicating clearly enough. If they weren't to say, this is why I need to review it.

This is why they were operating on a set of assumptions that were different than your own. So I think the real first question is, is micromanagement really happening?

I think for both leaders, managers and team members, they need to take a step back and, hey, look at what is causing this, what at the root of this.

And I think there's this assumption that we have all the pieces, but the reality is, 95% of the time, we probably have half of the pieces and we're trying to make the deliverable deliver.

So often, maybe even the leader doesn't have all the pieces. The leader doesn't have all the pieces. And they're operating with limited information as well. And so they're trying.

Their name is on it just as much as the person that they've delegated it to. So we've talked about, and I think this gets into the first reason, which is the lack of trust and need for control.

If I'm somebody who doesn't trust in other people's abilities and I have a strong need to make sure that because my name is going on it, it's going to be important, and therefore it has to meet my own personal standards and I don't trust another person, then I'm probably just going to do it myself. And that's going to give the projection that I am a micromanager, I receive work.

I don't believe that the other person that I would delegate it to would do a good enough job. Therefore, I do it myself. That is a lack of trust and a need for control. Reason for micromanagement.

Absolutely. And I think in previous episodes we talked about there's a risk tolerance to trust.

So if people aren't willing to let go and take a risk, yeah, they're going to want to control more. They're going to want to make sure this is executed the way that they want them to execute.

They may have that additional information that can't be shared with other team members. Like I recall, there was a project I was working on, very confidential, very high risk project for organization.

But I couldn't share what this project was with my colleagues. I could only ask them for pieces that I needed delivered.

That becomes a real big challenge because not only it's not that it can't trust you, it's that the organization has to control some of the messaging process. And if we're not able to share what that does is that also starts to erode to trust and it now becomes, well, I trust you a little bit less.

On the other side, the control might be protection. We might micromanage team members because we're trying to protect our team members.

We know that the expectation of deliverable has to be at this certain level. And if we know there's a skill gap there, we may micromanage, be overly controlling, overly involved in an effort to protect a team member.

I think that's a good example of that consulting project I was talking about. I was working with the clients directly. Again, I had probably more experience than the other members of the team.

The collaboration was draft revision, draft revision, client review, revision. But there was an expectation that at least one person on the team, that the first draft was the finished draft and that no other edits should happen.

Now, I wasn't satisfied with the final draft. I don't believe the client would have been satisfied with the final draft. So it got reworked.

And that need for control wasn't out of a lack of trust, it was out of one of our others, maybe a need for perfectionism.

But that need for control definitely did come from wanting to present the right information in the best way so that we maintain trust with our client.

Absolutely. It's a tough balance because we want people to be successful, we want our team members to be successful.

But there's also that need for control and the need to be successful. And we sometimes struggle with, yes, I'm going to let this person take the risk, try to do it, let them fail.

Problem is there's situations where people can't always be let fail. I do a lot of work with healthcare. Person failing can adversely affect someone's life or take someone's life.

So there's that risk tolerance and sometimes there is a need for micromanagement in these spaces.

Not so much the negative connotation of it, but more so creating these more strict checks and balances and creating a space to actually hold people accountable.

Yes.

So when thinking about the need to control, in your experience, Dr. D, what can people do to help foster that to reduce that rationale to micromanage.

I think explaining more honestly, I think over communicating the why. Now you brought up the example of you were working on a project that you couldn't share. I've done a lot of M and A work, mergers and acquisitions.

Oftentimes those are very confidential and you can't explain. But you can explain that I can't explain.

When I'm doing that M and A work, people usually know that I am responsible for a confidential project and I built up trust in other parts of the work that I do that they'll share the information without asking a lot of questions. So if micromanagement is the result of a lack of trust, then trust building is the solution.

And the best way to build trust is to communicate as much as you can within the bounds of what you can communicate and over communicate. And don't just say it once, say it many times.

It takes sometimes three or four times explaining something for somebody to really understand what you're asking for.

And if you are concerned that the person that you're delivering a message to doesn't understand or doesn't understand fully to your level, explain it again or ask them for feedback. Use active listening to hear what it is that they intend to deliver and make sure that it fits the explanation and the need that you're delivering.

If you're leading somebody who is a micromanager and that micromanagement seems to be based on a lack of trust, it's your job as a leader to help that person develop trust within their team so that they can perform better and maybe let go. So it really comes down to either communication or coaching.

And I think you bring up a great point in terms of how often you gotta create clarity, create this messaging, this communication. I know previous studies showed that people have to hear things seven times before it actually sticks.

I think more recent research is showing that people need to hear it almost 15 times and they have to hear it in different ways and experience it in different ways, not just the same email over and over 15 times. Because that doesn't really create someone looking at that email.

What it does is it sets this expectation that you're going to hear it over and over and over the same way. And that starts to become micromanaging.

I think of the movie Office Space where the opening scenes are really person forgets to attach a cover sheet to his report. Not only does he have his manager come, but he has his other managers come to ask him the same exact thing and reiterate the same thing.

Micromanagement I think it's important to understand doesn't just come from one person. At times you can have micromanagement for the same tasks from multiple people, from your peers, leaders, the organization.

So it's really important that we do foster distrust, understanding of our need for control and our ability to release control. Sometimes this happens where we have this need for control because there's some insecurity or there's fear of failure.

I think as leaders it's tough content with that. It's tough to make sure that we have this tolerance to actually fail because it gives us an opportunity to learn, grow.

Yeah, we talked about and this leans so far into the, into the trust category as well because if I'm feeling insecure as a leader, I'm going to overcompensate. And I think overcompensation comes from the idea that I have to get involved in low risk items.

That email, for example, if somebody says I need to review every email before it goes out and they're doing that to everyone on their team. That intuition that you had about well why do I even need to write the email in the first place?

If every email is going to get reviewed and rewritten, if that's happening with everybody on the team, every email is not that important. Why does the manager need to review or the director need to review every email before it goes out? That sounds like a symptom of insecurity.

That person is feeling like they're maybe under scrutiny, maybe they have imposter syndrome or imposter phenomena where they feel like they have to control the situation to demonstrate that they're good enough to do the role that they're in.

I think you bring up a great point about imposter syndrome.

Really think about how a lot of people are first promoted into a leadership role or a managerial role, supervisory role because they're good at their job, not necessarily able to translate to other people being able to do the job and leading people to do the job. So sometimes there's that insecurity of brand new to this managerial role.

I'm going to go ahead and over index where I feel comfortable, where I feel secure and that's doing my old job. But in a way that you're essentially taking away your team members ability to do the work.

So for a lot of leaders there's this pressure to be successful. There's this pressure that if you fail or if a team member fails, it's a reflection of you. So for some leaders they over index this.

Let me make sure people are Doing the work right to the point where it does become micromanagement.

And it's important to also understand that living in this environment of failure, fear of failure, or this insecurity actually increases the risk for someone being burned out. It increases this not just for themselves, but you can burn out your team.

People leave managers who so fearful of people failing that they're not allowing people to actually have this opportunity to grow. Because failing actually helps us grow. It's an opportunity for us, but it's that risk tolerance.

If we're able to have that risk tolerance of, yeah, it's okay to fail as long as we learn from those mistakes and it's not becoming a big adverse reaction to it, then we're going to be more comfortable to do that.

With that being said, organizational culture, the environment that's built around that, plays a big role in the amount of pressure or the amount of fear. Failure really plays into people micromanaging.

Yeah. If someone ever describes a culture as you're either up or out, that is a fear of failure.

When someone says we have to keep progressing, there is, you can make a mistake once because you don't make it a second time because you're probably not with the organization anymore. You're not creating a culture where people feel confident taking risks or putting their neck out there or innovating.

It actually erodes self confidence. And so a culture that is endemic of risk aversion and high pressure, you have to perform at your top level at all times.

That sends the message that I have to do it myself. And it reduces the ability for somebody to collaborate.

It reminds me of in different cultures, they showed us in different ways.

I think what comes to mind is in Japan, where if you're not performing, you get a death by the window, which you can think of all the implications behind it. In the US we think, hey, I got a desk by a window, that's a good thing. But culturally for organization Japan, that's not a good thing.

That means that you're pretty much on your way out or you're going to have to see yourself out without them actually letting you go. But I think that's important that we understand for a lot of organizational culture, we can foster that behavior.

We can create this high pressure environment to be successful. But the risk to it is you're going to create an environment where micromanagement is the norm.

Because again, a lot of times your team's success is attributed directly to your success, which makes sense. But that over indexing of micromanagement, of giving Too much feedback or too much control.

Mind you, that feedback is probably more opinion and criticism than actual actionable feedback. We have to take that step back and look at the environment of what are we creating.

Are we creating a safe environment that encourages people to take calculated risk and learning from those mistakes or we trying to aim for perfection, which. Which actually it's one of those other areas that creates micromanagement is actual people who want to be perfectionists. I wonder.

I often think there are a couple of reasons for the need for perfection in work.

One is that there's a real reason for it, that you want to put your best foot forward for a client or for a customer, or that you're trying to make a name for yourself on a project. There's some reason why you're putting a high level of self focus and individual focus on a project or an outcome so that the work can be perfect.

The challenge with that thinking is often by doing it all yourself or by thinking that you can make it perfect by you being more involved, you're actually cutting other people out. Or a person might be actually cutting another person out of the collaboration that could make the work product better.

Everyone has their own point of view. They can't consider every point of view.

The honestly hubris that one person by me getting involved in doing it myself can make it perfect is ridiculous.

Yeah, I have very strong opinions when it comes to perfectionism in the workplace. There can't be perfectionism.

I think if things are perfect, I always worry something's wrong because the reality is, is I don't think we can truly get anything perfect. We can get it into tolerable specs where we can get almost there, but it's never going to be perfect.

The perfectionism, and this is where it creates a lot of stress for people, is they're going to dig in and find something wrong. We don't always have all the perspectives that we need and I tend to tell my team I only know what I know.

So when we get into this perfectionism, I like to say perfectionism trap. We're setting ourselves up for failure.

Yeah, perfectionism is an interesting thing because perfectionism I agree with you, can never be achieved. You can always strive for perfect, but you're never going to get it.

As soon as you hit send on the email, you're going to find the typo that you missed. It's just going to happen. There's always something that is going to be wrong.

My favorite is when you put, don't put it BCC for everyone.

And people start replying, all that is an imperfect outcome. The thing about what people sometimes say, oh, that person is a perfectionist.

Sometimes they might be over indexing, overcompensating and putting more effort into something that is necessary and that comes out of ambiguity.

They might be uncomfortable with the idea of something being unanswered, some risk that hasn't been considered, some outcome that they feel is undeterminable, so they put more effort in than is necessary. And that comes down to a risk tolerance thing as well.

A lot of people, I would say most organizations don't understand the risk tolerances of the leaders that are making decisions. And risk tolerance goes a long way, particularly when there's a high stakes project.

If there's a low risk tolerance and the outcome or the options are ambiguous, People tend to lean towards perfectionism because they're trying to answer all these questions and figure out what the outcome's going to be.

And they put too much effort into rather than just picking a stake, moving in that direction, getting lots of collaboration and feedback and bringing it to the work so that it represents a lot of voices and everyone's thought processes rather than just their own.

They want the outcome to be perfect rather than it to reflect the appropriate amount of risk and to clear up just enough ambiguity so that you can make a decision and go in the right direction.

I think a lot of that comes from our previous experience. I think for many managers and leaders at one point or another have experience micromanagement.

And a lot of times there's an expectation for things to be perfect.

So we take these behaviors, we take this experience, and if you don't have as extensive experience as a leader as managing projects, managing other people, we're going to assume that that's the right way to do it. We're going to assume if we micromanage, if we hold full control, that's how things get done.

And a lot of times we have leaders that we've experienced that are micromanagers that treated us in that fashion. We also look at, well, they got in that position, somehow they got to that level in the organization through this behavior. So it becomes a natural.

Well, let me replicate the behavior because that's apparently in this organization that's shown success. But those negative experiences, those negative leadership practices can be a little bit malignant.

They're going to grow, they're going to become more harmful.

Because now you're creating a whole organizational culture around micromanagement, around setting these high expectations that are really unachievable. If we're always striving for perfection.

I think of the Agile model where it's really about making iterations, being okay with imperfect perfection and moving forward. When people are micromanaging where they're looking for perfection, a lot of times they're actually getting stuck.

And this is where that behavior, that control piece of the manager, the leader go, well, if you're not doing it right, I'm going to do it now.

I like the idea of fail fast and iterate. That's a great way to get through a problem quickly and recognize that I don't have all the answers.

I've got to find where the failure point is so that we can make it a little bit better next time and get some feedback and get some insight about that.

It's funny that you talk about exposure and I think it's not just what you experience as your previous boss, boss in your past or boss in your formative years about the expectation of micromanagement, that that person made it into that role and therefore they're successful. I think sometimes that's family culture.

I think that's sometimes how people were raised, that there is an expectation that the output that you have has to be so good. For any of these reasons that we talked about, you can't trust other people. Therefore you have to do it yourself. You have to be perfect.

Because my expectation of you as a child or my parents put that expectation on me that I had to be perfect. These things run much deeper than just my exposure at work or even organizational culture.

Because an organizational culture can be completely open, trusting, give you the opportunity to fail, collaborate and iterate. And yet people will still micromanage.

And so there is an individual component to this in their personality could be driven by ego, it could be driven by stress. There are a lot of reasons why someone will micromanage and not all of it is because of the culture or the environment.

I think it's important to remember that a person's personality plays a huge part in whether they have a tendency to micromanage and the level of stress that they're under.

They might not be a micromanager all the time, but under stress their micromanagement tendencies come out and they tend to shut off collaboration and lean into just do it themselves. And sometimes that's been successful for them and it's been positively reinforced.

I think it's important that we do talk about that reinforcement. People are going to utilize behaviors that they've gotten a positive response for.

I actually think of person had a closer relationship with a couple years back who very much felt that they had to micromanage their work life because felt they had to over index their control, their micromanagement when it came to work, their personal life. And a lot of it stemmed from not having that acknowledgement growing up and starting to receive it in the workplace.

Parents were a little bit more detached. But a lot of times people over index this behavior of micromanagement because that reinforcement has happened.

The person is getting the recognition that they maybe were lacking, which in turn also feeds that ego, feeds that you're doing the right thing by doing this behavior because things are getting done. But that's very much setting a person up for failure long term, and also for burnout.

Because again, we can't keep reinforcing these behaviors because what ends up happening is you start creating this toxic environment, you start bringing in the wrong personalities. Instead of it being a collaborative environment, People feel like, I need to narrow my scope, do what I need to do.

Otherwise my recognition, my authority, my power is going to be taken away from me by my manager. And a lot of times with the micromanagement, it's going to be taken away anyway.

So it's important to understand that organizational, broader culture also impacts this. If we're creating this environment, people then question, oh, why is there people being micromanaged?

Why do we have a revolving door where people are leaving unsatisfied, but the organization is driving this organization is creating the environment where if things are not done to specifications of a certain person, certain leader, then they're a failure, they're not done at all. Which also creates this environment of picking and choosing what's actually going to be worked on. Yeah.

And a conundrum.

Because an individual leader can corrupt a corporate culture, an intended culture, they can create an atmosphere, your organizational atmosphere can be corrupted by a leader who is a micromanager.

And if that goes unchecked, uncorrected, uncoached, unresolved, and that continues, then people tend to hire people like themselves and look for and reflect their own individual traits in those that they want to work with.

Therefore, a powerful leader in an organization with micromanagement tendencies will hire other micromanagers because that's the way they're used to working, and that's the type of leader that they want to work with.

So your entire culture can be one of micromanagement because one leader has enough influence to hire other people like them and it becomes part of their culture. But I think the question is, Dr. C, if it is part of your culture, how do you solve that.

The very first step is try to understand what's at the root of it.

What's the root cause of creating this environment where people feel like there's a need to micromanage, understand that sometimes it's based on trust. That fear of failure, there's that high level anxiety for performance.

A lot of that really comes from creating clear expectations and understanding of what is the goal, what is the vision.

And I think that's where a lot of leaders struggle is taking these concepts, taking these ideas, creating a vision of what the expectations are going to be for the team. I think the crux of a lot of relationship issues, a lot of management issues, a lot of leadership issues, is people are just not good communicators.

There's this expectation that people are going to understand your context, understand the way that you say the words and think the same way.

So as leaders and team members, we gotta take a step back, we gotta ask questions, we gotta figure out if we're getting actually clear to what is it that we need, what is the outcome that we're aiming for. But also understanding a lot of the why behind some of the behavior.

Yeah, those why's I've heard through the conversation were one, is it really micromanagement or is it collaboration? Is it accountability? That's really the first question that you have to answer.

Another reason is, as you mentioned, lack of trust and need for control. Another reason is insecurity and fear of failure, perfectionism and low tolerance of ambiguity.

Experience, previous experience, whether it's exposure from previous bosses or from childhood or the way you're raised or your family. Culture could be personality or ego driven. And the thing that trumps all of them is organizational culture.

I heard that communication is important, over communicating is a solution. Trust building is a solution.

Sometimes coaching and maybe even therapy is necessary to overcome these deeply ingrained traits that might be driven by personality. And most importantly is the culture in which you operate.

I believe in purpose driven culture and that if you're oriented around the purpose and you're working on the big things in the right way, that motivate people and inspire people to show up to work and deliver for your customers or your clients and for each other, that reduces the amount of ambiguity and risk around what people are working on and why they're working on them. And it makes it easier to coach and support each other so that people don't feel like they have to micromanage.

I agree, and I think it's one of those things where the conversation needs to continue People have to continue this open dialogue to understand why people are micromanaging. To your point, sometimes it's not about the work, it might be about the person and the person needs that additional support.

So having this open dialogue is going to be really important. If you go to show description, you have a chance to ask questions.

And I would encourage people ask questions about micromanagement, what's working, what's not. In the workplace. We have to have these dialogues too.

Leaders need to be comfortable, to take a step back and understand what am I contributing to this, what are these preconceived notions that I'm creating? Whereas I like to say what's the story I'm telling myself of why I need to do this.

So before we close, Dr. C, I'm going to ask you to give three different people advice. One, a leader who is leading somebody who is a micromanager.

What would you, what approach would you take to an employee who works for a micromanager and wants to see a change? And three, you recognize you're a micromanager but you're not quite sure what to do?

Sure. Let's start with the leader. Leader recognizing that one of their managers is a micromanager.

I always like to ask the question of what your team members contribute to this. It gives you a good understanding of how the person is framing their work, how they're framing their involvement with other people.

The other piece is I need to ask how comfortable this leader is to actually take a step back, to give up a little bit of control. And it may be because there are some gaps in their team members skill sets.

There might be some gaps in this manager leader skill sets where they are having this fear, this anxiety.

So as a leader and you're trying to address someone being a micromanager, it's one, setting clear expectations with them, clear expectations of what you expect from their team in a sense of what you want to see contributions from, but also helping that leader celebrate the wins of the team. Opposed to we just got it done.

Now if you're working for a micromanager, first you need to practice a little bit of self care because being micromanaged is tough. But you also have to take a step back and understand is this micromanagement or am I interpreting it as micromanagement?

This is where it's important to have that open dialogue, really asking for clarity around expectations, asking for clarity around what your deliverable is going to be. We also have to demonstrate our abilities and we have to take that risk to speak up and say hey, here's my abilities. Here's where I am good.

Here's where I lack some skills. Leader, please support me. Help me understand so I can do it in a way that you feel comfortable.

Now, if you find yourself being a micromanager, first step is acknowledging that you're a micromanager. That's the toughest part, is acknowledging the behavior, taking a step back and being very introspective around.

Why do you feel you have to have this level of control? Or why do you not trust your team to be able to do the work so very much? If you find yourself being a micromanager, take a step back.

Be introspective, but also get feedback. Be willing to listen to that feedback from either your leaders, but also your team members, your colleagues, your peers.

A lot of these behaviors are very visible, but they're visible to everyone else but ourselves. So we want to take that step back. Really. If you need that support, get the support you need. Whether, as Dr. D mentioned, get some coaching.

If there's something that's a little bit deeper rooted. I encourage people, talk to a professional, to work through those challenging areas. But the most important piece is don't do it alone.

You got to get support. You got to work with your leaders, with your team members. That's the only way you're going to change some of these behaviors.

Terrific wisdom, Dr. C. And on that note, I think we're done here. Let's close it up. I am Dr. D. And I'm Dr.

C. We'll continue dissecting leadership to bridge the workplace and psychology.