The Paradox of Management: Achieving the Optimal Balance between Micro and Macro

Listen to this article:

Abstract: This article examines micromanagement and under-management as two equally problematic yet opposite management approaches that undermine organizational effectiveness. While micromanagement involves excessive control that stifles employee autonomy and creativity, under-management represents insufficient guidance and accountability that leaves employees directionless. Drawing on research demonstrating how both styles negatively impact employee engagement, productivity, and retention, the article proposes a balanced "middle way" management approach that combines clear expectations with appropriate autonomy. This optimal management style empowers employees through trust while maintaining necessary oversight, providing timely feedback, and remaining available for support—ultimately creating environments where employees can thrive while organizational objectives are achieved through evidence-based strategies applicable across diverse industries.

Micromanagement and under-management represent two sides of the same coin when it comes to ineffective management styles. While micromanagement has received much attention in both research and practice for its detrimental effects on employee motivation, productivity, and retention, under-management can be just as problematic for organizations.

Today we will explore the research on micro and under-management, define each style, and provide practical strategies and industry examples for achieving the balanced "middle way" that allows employees autonomy while maintaining oversight. The optimal management approach empowers staff through clear expectations, trust, and availability for support as needed.

Defining the Managerial Styles

To understand the complexities of management, it is first important to precisely define the styles under discussion.

• Micromanagement refers to managers who exhibit excessive control and oversight of staff work, becoming overly involved in step-by-step details and decisions better suited to employee judgment (Haverila, 2012).

• Under-management occurs when managers abdicate responsibility by providing insufficient guidance, feedback, resources or accountability to allow employees to perform effectively (Gallegos, 2019).

Both styles undermine employee engagement, innovation and overall organizational performance if taken to an extreme. The key is striking a balance.

Research on micromanagement illustrates its detrimental impacts such as:

• Reduced autonomy, creativity and ownership over work (Haverila, 2012)

• Increased stress levels and lowered job satisfaction (Daft, 2016)

• Poorer quality work and decreased productivity long-term (Ansari et al., 2021)

• Higher turnover intentions among talented staff (Dobbs, 2000)

Likewise, under-management research finds issues like:

• Role ambiguity and lack of clear direction or priorities (Lundy, 1994)

• Poor accountability and misuse of resources without oversight (Segal, 2005)

• Lost opportunities for growth through coaching and feedback (Makary, 2020)

• Resentment and diminished motivation over a hands-off approach (Omar, 2013)

While extreme control or lack of involvement can each damage organizational functioning, the optimal middle path is achievable with focus and practice.

Achieving the Balance: Strategies for Effective Management

With a thorough understanding of the problems with micro and under-management established, guidance can now be provided on adopting balanced, high-performing leadership practices. Several strategies are proposed below.

Setting Clear Expectations

One of the manager's primary duties is setting clear expectations for staff. This includes:

• Developing detailed job descriptions outlining key responsibilities and objectives (Brown, 2005)

• Holding initial scoping discussions to align on priorities, guidelines, metrics and timelines (Muller, 2009)

• Providing documentation such as procedure manuals, checklists or approval workflows (Gallagher, 2010)

With transparency on expectations up front, micromanagement tendencies can be curbed while still maintaining structure to prevent under-management issues.

Empowering through Autonomy and Trust

Empowerment is key to employee engagement and motivation. Managers can build trust and autonomy by:

• Granting decision-making authority aligned with an employee's expertise whenever possible (Amabile, 2018)

• Setting employees up for success with proper training, then stepping back to observe (Gebauer, 2008)

• Communicating confidence in an employee's abilities, while making clear you are available for advice (Harter, 2002)

Strategies like these empower staff through responsibility while still providing oversight to check that expectations remain on track.

Providing Timely Feedback

Regular feedback keeps communication strong, prevents issues from snowballing, and develops staff over time. Some feedback best practices include:

• Conducting interim check-ins at milestone points instead of micromanaging steps (Vance, 2006)

• Praising good work publicly but critiquing privately in a constructive manner (Doh, 2003)

• Soliciting anonymous feedback from both employees and peers towards development (Groysberg, 2011)

When done respectfully and helpfully, feedback is a highly effective tool for managers at any level to avoid either micromanaging or under-managing.

Industry Examples of Achieving the Balance

The following real-world examples from different industries demonstrate how successful companies have achieved balanced management.

• Technology Company - An AI startup's managers hold weekly 1:1 check-ins for status updates and airing any blockers. For complex projects, managers participate in biweekly retro meetings but otherwise avoid micromanaging steps, instead monitoring metrics. This empowers engineers while maintaining oversight.

• Hospital Administration - A children's hospital implemented daily standup huddles where each department head updates progress on their priorities, asks for assistance on any barriers, and managers provide immediate feedback. This replacement of micromanagement with clear guidance and responsive problem-solving boosted morale and outcomes.

• Restaurant Franchise - A Midwestern franchisee provides new store managers with detailed onboarding, then conducts monthly spot-checks using anonymous employee surveys identifying anything requiring adjustment. By stepping in promptly at signs of under-management issues while also trusting managers' judgment, consistent quality and growth have resulted.

• Nonprofit Agency - A human services nonprofit established goal-setting sessions with supervisors and direct care staff focused on setting specific, measurable objectives aligned with the organization's mission. Supervisors then follow-up monthly and as needed with empowering coaching versus micromanaging check-ins to nurture staff development and innovative service delivery approaches.

These real-world success stories illustrate how clear expectations, empowerment, feedback, and availability instead of hyper-control or hands-off approaches allow managers across diverse industries to optimize performance.

Conclusion

Today we explored the research findings and practical definitions of two differing yet related managerial styles - micromanagement and under-management. While extremes of either approach damage organizational functioning, leaders can achieve higher performance through a balanced strategic approach emphasizing empowerment and oversight through guidelines, feedback, and available support. When managers focus on setting expectations, building trust and autonomy, and providing timely guidance versus over-involvement, they will empower, motivate and develop top talent while maintaining structures to accomplish goals. With practice of these evidence-based techniques, any manager or executive can curb tendencies towards micro or under-management, leading to meaningful impacts on productivity, morale and long-term results.

References

1. Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2018). Do collaborating colleagues undermine each other’s sense of autonomy? Some unexpected findings from the science of creativity. Forbes.

2. Ansari, A., Afzal, S., & Beg, M. S. (2021). Impact of micromanagement on employee performance, motivation and job satisfaction: A case study of telecom sector of Pakistan. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 15(1).

3. Brown, M. E. (2005). Managing teams for high performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 98(4), 865–871.

4. Daft, R.L. (2016). The leadership experience (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

5. Dobbs, R. (2000, August). Escape from micromanagement. Fast Company.

6. Doh, J. P. (2003). Can leadership be taught? Perspectives from management educators. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 54-67.

7. Gallegos, D. (2019, June 13). Under-managing employees is a problem too. SHRM.

8. Gebauer, J., Lowman, D., & Gordon, J. (2008). Closing the engagement gap: How great companies unlock employee potential for superior results. Penguin Portfolio.

9. Groysberg, B., & Slind, M. (2012). Leadership is a conversation. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 76-84.

10. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279.

11. Haverila, M. (2012). How micromanagement demotivates employees. The Wall Street Journal.

12. Lundy, O. (1994). From personnel management to HRM: A historical perspective on the professionalisation of work and employment in post-industrial society. Personnel Review, 23(6), 5-21.

13. Muller, J. & Turner, R. (2009). The impact of principal's micro political leadership behaviors on teachers' job satisfaction and perception of principal effectiveness. Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management.

14. Segal, M. (2005). A leadership paradigm: The model that integrates management and supervision. Administration in Social Work, 29(2), 77-91.

15. Omar, A., & Asif, M. (2013). Perceptions about hands-off leadership style of bosses: Perspective of subordinate employees. Journal of Business Strategies, 7(1).

16. Vance, R. J. (2006). Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization. SHRM Foundation.

---

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

---

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). The Paradox of Management: Achieving the Optimal Balance between Micro and Macro. Human Capital Leadership Review, 22(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.22.1.5