Why Micromanaging Is Driving the Most Creative Employees Out

Photo by Matt Ridley on Unsplash

Creatives see the world in spin, drawing upon diverse experiences and perspectives to solve institutional problems in novel ways. For the creative, challenges are invitations to try something new, nudging their team to reconceptualize how they get work done. Creatives are authentic in their presentation, intrinsic in their motivation, divergent in their thinking, and unafraid to break with tradition in search of innovative solutions to problems hampering progress. Though most employees bulk at managers who exert tight controls, creatives are particularly susceptible to the negative fallout and are more likely to disengage or exit their organization if they lose autonomy (Wang and Cheng, 2010). For the creative, micromanaging siphons away the freedom required for big thinking.

The Impact of Micromanaging on Creatives

Micromanaging is the excessive control of the minutiae of daily assignments. Leaders who micromanage often seek standardization, pushing their colleagues to carry out tasks in a prescriptive way aligned with the micromanagers’ preferences and values. To maintain strict control over the process, micromanagers may construct hierarchies, direct interactions, withhold information, or become unsettled by opposing opinions. They tend to be externally motivated and overly concerned with how they are perceived by higher-ups, making them reluctant to back innovations that jostle the status quo (Goldsmith and Reiterate, 2007).

When presented with new ideas, micromanagers default to “no,” creating a culture of disengagement and mistrust. Such feelings wreak havoc on what Amabile and Kramer (2007) describe as employees’ “inner work life,” or the emotions employees experience based on their perceptions of work relationships and events. In fact, their research shows that when employees compared their “best days with their worst, the most important differentiator was being able to make progress in the work” (p. 80).

Micromanagers impede forward momentum by stifling employees’ performance fluidity, restricting their ability to call upon their unique perspectives and expertise to efficiently solve problems. Since creatives tend to be high in self-efficacy, believing they have the power to enact positive change, these roadblocks dampen their morale and stymie their willingness to engage (Mascaro, Palmer, Ash, Peacock, Escoffery, Grant, and Raison, 2021).

To further complicate matters, micromanagers, per their own discomfort with difficult conversations, often enforce a culture of toxic positivity where meetings are spent celebrating accomplishments and downloading information that could have easily been delivered via email, making room for more pressing matters. When questions or challenges are publicly raised, micromanagers shut the conversation down, later following up with their self-imposed solution that is not open for debate.

This forced positivity and unwillingness to engage in difficult conversations pertinent to the organization’s success, creates a disconnect between what the creative is thinking internally and allowed to express externally (Jeung, Kim, and Chang, 2018). This conflict between experienced and expressed emotions creates a cognitive dissonance that manifests as emotional labor, leading to disengagement and burnout (Hochschild, 1983).

What Managers Can Do to Help Creatives Thrive

Creatives need managers with a strong sense of self, a healthy curiosity, and a willingness to stretch and grow. Unfortunately, often the talents that made managers successful in their previous positions, such as content knowledge and pristine organizational practices, are not the skills necessary to lead and inspire people (Goldsmith and Reiter, 2007).

Micromanaging is the outward expression of internal insecurities, fearing judgment and rebuke. To combat these insecurities, it is helpful for managers to practice showing up as their full selves, ditching the platitudes and company jargon in favor of authentic communication. Studies show that high-performing teams engage in off-task conversations and use humor and sarcasm to connect (Friedman, 2023). Furthermore, contrary to popular opinion, meetings filled with niceties rarely inspire innovation, as Amabile and Kramer (2007) aptly attest, “Our research shows that the most important managerial behaviors don’t involve giving people daily pats on the back or attempting to inject lighthearted fun into the workplace. Rather, they involve two fundamental things: enabling people to move forward in their work and treating them decently as human beings” (p. 81).

Micromanaging is an attempt to control for surprise outcomes, narrowing the scope of acceptable results. Unfortunately, such an approach squelches curiosity, an essential precursor to innovation. Increased task autonomy, however, invites creatives to break out from the bureaucratic fog and envision new systems. Consequently, this opportunity to investigate novel landscapes spurs employee engagement and increases creative performance (Wang, 2020).

Career Essential Reads

How to Cope With Not Receiving Recognition

Mind the Gap: Bridging the Intergenerational Divide at Work

Micromanaging creates a protective shield around managers, insulating them from critical conversations and critique. Leaders who micromanage often struggle with what researchers call uncertainty avoidance, or the fear of the unknown. In contrast, creatives embrace uncertainty, enthused with the possibilities embedded within not knowing the answer (Wang, 2020). To help micromanagers negotiate their discomfort and grow in new ways, research suggests managers routinely invite employee feedback on how to better support endeavors and more effectively clear roadblocks encountered while trying out new ideas (Fisher, Pillemer, and Amabile, 2018).

Sometimes all it takes to break the micromanaging habit is the curiosity to learn a new approach, the courage to give it a go, and the introspection to ask for feedback on how to do it better.

Instead of Micromanaging

1. Instead of serving as a gatekeeper, model intellectual risk-taking, and ethical decision-making in service of the greater good (Grego-Planer and Baker, 2022).
2. Instead of dictating the process, collaboratively discuss the intended goal and then invite employees to get there on their own terms (Fisher, Pillemer, & Amabile, 2018; Zhang, Jex, Peng, and Wang, 2017).
3. Instead of blaming, shaming, and covering up problems, get curious about what transpired, transparently share information, and work together towards a solution.
4. Instead of recycling the same rule followers to lead projects and committees, give disrupters an opportunity to shake things up ( Zhang, Jex, Peng, and Wang, 2017).
5. Instead of spending meetings downloading announcements and patting each other on the back, ask your creatives to lead critical conversations on tough topics essential to moving your organization forward.
6. Instead of disciplining employees for speaking out, engage them in authentic conversations about their ideas (Yang, Li, Liang, and Zhang, 2019).
7. Instead of speaking in platitudes and jargon, say what you actually mean and then ask for an honest response (Grego-Planer and Baker, 2022).
8. Instead of insisting employees operate within their confined roles, support team members’ passion projects, knowing these are often the seeds for organizations’ greatest innovations (Silva and Silva, 2023).
9. Instead of enforcing a strict hierarchy, flatten the organizational chart and encourage diverse collaborations (Amabile and Khaire, 2008).
10. Instead of writing quarterly evaluations, ask employees to evaluate you, sharing specifically what you should do more of, what you should do less of, and what you should try to do for the first time (Goldsmith and Reiter, 2007).