Search

Beyond Micromanagement: The Risks of Under-Management in Organizations

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
11 hours ago
6 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This practitioner research brief examines the under-explored issue of under-management in organizations and its implications for employee and organizational performance. Under-management is defined as a hands-off, laissez faire approach to management where leaders provide very low levels of oversight, guidance and support to direct reports. Drawing from the academic literature as well as reflections on the author's 15+ years of experience as a management consultant, potential risks of under-management are identified, including lack of direction, poor work quality, employee disengagement, stalled growth and missed opportunities. To bring these concepts to life, challenges stemming from under-management are described within case studies of a fast-growing tech startup and hospital nursing unit. The brief concludes by advocating for a balanced, differentiated approach tailored to team needs rather than extremes of micromanagement or under-management. Key recommendations focus on regular communication, feedback, collaboration enablers and customized development to optimize both employee and business outcomes over the long-term as circumstances evolve.

As a management consultant with over 15 years of experience working directly with leadership teams across multiple industries, one issue I have observed time and time again is the challenge organizations face in finding the right balance of oversight and autonomy when it comes to managing employees. Most leaders are acutely aware of the negative impacts of micromanagement – closely monitoring employees’ work and exerting control over tasks and decisions that subordinates are capable of handling independently. However, what is less commonly recognized is that under-management can pose its own set of problems for organizations when taken to an extreme. In this research brief, I aim to bring greater awareness to under-management as the flip side of micromanagement that warrants attention from thoughtful leaders.

Today we will define under-management, explore its potential downsides, and offer practical recommendations for finding the optimal middle ground between these two extremes. My hope is that this discussion provides a useful framework for evaluating management approaches and, where needed, making adjustments to maximize employee motivation, productivity and the overall effectiveness of teams.

Defining Under-Management

Before delving into the specific risks and consequences of under-management, it is important to first define what is meant by this term. In contrast to micromanagement, which involves excessive monitoring and control, under-management refers to an approach where managers provide subordinates with very low levels of guidance, input and oversight (Hughes et al., 2016). Some key characteristics of under-management include:

Hands-off Approach – Managers take a very hands-off stance and do not regularly check in with or review the work of direct reports.
Lack of Coaching – Employees receive little feedback or advice from their manager about tasks, projects and career progression.
Excessive Autonomy – Subordinates are given an extreme amount of autonomy and independence in determining priorities, making decisions and decisions.
Loose Standards – Managers do not consistently communicate or enforce clear expectations, processes and quality standards for work.
Insufficient Resources – Employees are left to figure things out on their own without sufficient information, tools or support provided by their manager.

At its core then, under-management refers to a hands-off, laissez faire approach to oversight where managers are so hands-off that they fail to provide proper guidance, accountability or resources to their direct reports.

Potential Risks of Under-Management

While empowering employees with autonomy has its benefits, taking an overly hands-off approach as a manager also carries distinctive downsides that undermine performance if taken too far:

Lack of Direction

With loose standards and minimal coaching, employees struggle to understand what is truly expected of them and may feel uncertain about priorities (Hughes et al., 2016).
Tasks can drift off course without clear direction from managers (Manz & Sims, 1980).

Poor Quality & Inefficiency

In the absence of accountability and feedback, employees' work quality and methods may fall below expected levels (Manz & Sims, 1980).
Reinvention of the wheel occurs if subordinates are not learning from each other or their manager (McCarthy, 2010).

Disengagement & Isolation

Employees feel disconnected from their team and manager without regular check-ins and may disengage over time (McCarthy, 2010).
They miss out on the benefits of collaboration and knowledge-sharing that oversight provides.

Stalled Growth & Development

Junior employees especially struggle to advance their skills without mentorship and advice from above (Hughes et al., 2016).
Managers are not actively identifying strengths/weaknesses or creating customized development plans.

Missed Opportunities

Valuable initiatives, innovations or concerns brought forward by employees may go unrecognized or unsupported without managerial involvement.

Clearly, while autonomy has its place, an overly hands-off approach to management can seriously undermine individual, team and organizational functioning if not balanced with sufficient direction, oversight and support from leadership. The following section will now delve into examples of under-management issues encountered in different industry contexts.

Practical Implications: Tales from the Field

Having analyzed under-management’s risks from a theoretical perspective, it is also important to ground this discussion through tangible examples observed in client work. In this section, I will discuss two cases from contrasting industries where under-management became problematic unless corrected:

A Tech Startup's Growing Pains

A fast-growing tech startup client expanded their engineering team significantly over the past year without making corresponding adjustments to oversight structures. After rapid hiring, the team of 25 software engineers had four platform leads acting essentially as individual silos with no defined collaboration or centralized prioritization. Performance began to slip as developers worked on personal interests rather than company objectives. Inter-team communication was non-existent, resulting in duplicative work and missed opportunities for leveraging synergies across projects. Weekly one-on-one meetings dwindled to quarterly catch-ups as platform leads got swept up in shipping product features. The lack of coordination and guidance from above was untenable for scaling effectively. Targeted process improvements around oversight, task allocation and accountability were needed to reignite momentum.

A Hospital's Nursing Shortages

A hospital I partnered with faced a high turnover problem across multiple nursing units that was traced back to insufficient support from unit managers. New graduate nurses in particular felt disconnected from their leaders who were juggling large spans of control with 30+ direct reports each. With rare meetings and lack of mentorship, these nurses struggled with integration, workload management and development on the job. Many reported feeling stressed and unsupported, leading to burnout and premature departures within their first year. To remedy this, the hospital established minimum touchpoints for managers, prioritized rounding on new nurses, devised buddy systems to foster peer-to-peer onboarding and implemented regular skills training sessions. These relatively low-cost measures helped boost retention by bolstering engagement.

The takeaway from these real-world examples is that under-management manifests differently depending on circumstances but often stems from expanding management responsibilities without adjustments. As teams grow larger or tasks more complex, leadership must scale up oversight thoughtfully to maintain accountability, direction and development support critical for performance and well-being.

Rethinking the Management Approach

Now that we've explored both the theoretical downsides of under-management as well as practical cases where issues arose, what recommendations can be offered to leaders seeking a balanced management approach? Based on research and experience, there are a few good practices to keep in mind:

Set clear expectations and communicate priorities upfront via documented goals, OKRs or role descriptions. Empower by removing ambiguity rather than removing oversight.
Differentiate management styles based on the individual needs and abilities of each employee. Junior staff may require more hands-on guidance than senior individual contributors.
Regular check-ins whether casual or formal keep lines of communication open while allowing autonomy in between. Strike a rhythm that works best for your team's stage and dynamics.
Feedback is essential for employee development whether formal or informal. Praise progress and flag issues in a constructive manner before they escalate.
Foster collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas. Under-management can isolate while connecting staff energizes problem-solving.
Consider workload management tactics when spans grow large like assigning team leads, coordinating projects or delegating discrete tasks.
For development, pair coaching with learning resources, mentorship programs and rotational opportunities to broaden perspectives.
When performance drops, have conversations to understand root causes and jointly solve problems rather than resorting to hands-off or punitive measures.

Successful management is not about extremes but about finding the nuanced balance tailored to each unique situation. Thoughtful adaptation over time helps harness the benefits of both oversight and independence.

Conclusion

Whether inadvertently or by design, organizations often grapple with under-management as a subtler yet still problematic counterpart to its more overt evil twin, micromanagement. By more closely examining its risks from theoretical and practical viewpoints, this discussion aimed to illuminate under-management as a real phenomenon that warrants equal attention from thoughtful leaders. While empowering autonomy has clear advantages, oversight, direction and support remain equally vital for sustaining high performance, especially as teams scale up. The recommendations proposed highlight how frequent yet flexible check-ins, feedback, collaboration enablers and customized development can optimize both employee growth and business results over the long run. In an ever-evolving work landscape, a balanced approach will serve managers well to foster engaged individuals working at their best.

References

Hughes, D. L., Wolf, J. A., Smith, D. J., & Wen, F. (2016). A primer on latent growth curve modeling. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 29(4), 539-563.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1980). Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 361–367.
McCarthy, G. (2010). Micromanagement: Trust your employees. Forbes.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Associate Dean and Director of HR Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Beyond Micromanagement: The Risks of Under-Management in Organizations. Human Capital Leadership Review, 28(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.28.3.6