Create an Annotated Bibliography
Canner, N., & Bernstein, E. (2016). Why is micromanagement so infectious? Harvard Business Review, Web.
Canner and Bernstein recognize that micromanagement can spread through to organizations in which objectives and accountability are intricately connected. The authors try to elucidate the issue of micromanagement from an ownership and sponsorship retrospective. The manager delegates a task to an employee the grant ownership of the set of outcomes related to the project deadline and related constraints. Therefore, the staff’s role is to determine how they would deliver the goals while operating within the specified constraints. In the case that the manager overall supervises the work from a distance while offering guidance, they are regarded to be a sponsor. Nevertheless, if they become overruling or direct how the work should be handed, they are assigned the title of a micromanager. Micromanagement has been identified to have a ripple effect on the chain of command, especially in traditional organizational structures. Nevertheless, changing the organizational structures has been shown to have a limited effect on its erosion, therefore, Canner and Bernstein recommend that managers should set clear targets to facilitate effective delegation, there should be a clear understanding of a task’s goals and objectives, and sponsors should provide effective oversight.
Overall, this study illustrates micromanagement is associated with adverse employee performance. Moreover, the seriousness of the issue is exacerbated by the fact that this type of managing is infectious and can affect the entire chain of command.
Fischer, K. J., & Schultz, J. (2017). Covenant and empowerment: Integrative themes for organizational leadership and behavior. Organization Development Journal, 35(3), 43-67. Web.
The study investigates the influence of various types of leadership on employee relations and organizational health and success. The findings reveal that leadership styles entailing participative decision-making are associated with positive outcomes. Overall, empowering employees is critical to organizational leadership, structure, culture, and process (OLPSC). This was authenticated with the numerous empirical evidence that found a positive correlation between transformative and servant leadership and OLPSC. Fischer and Schultz utilized a conceptual approach to elucidate the theoretical basis for establishing a covenantal-empowerment diagnostic that can be utilized to assess the existence of covenantal practices and behavior within an organization. Nevertheless, the main limitation of the covenantal model that was identified is that it might not be effective in the current organizational context, although it proved so in the past. Overall, the authors ascertain that the concepts illustrated in the study might serve as a helpful guideline towards enabling organizations to gain competitive advantage by realigning their structures and processes.
This article provides relatively strong evidence of how employee empowerment elicited in transformative and servant leadership is crucial towards organizational health and success. Through empowerment and decentralization, employees can participate in decision-making, therefore, mitigating the effects of micromanagement, such as the cultivation of abusive power structures, workplace conflict, and deterioration of personal and professional relationships.
Homisak, L. (2017). Who’s in charge here? Podiatry Management.
Homisak points out the issue of micromanagement in the healthcare setting and its impact on employee turnover. Good managers are described as those who believe that the staff is self-directed and can efficiently perform their functions. They are effective in assigning responsibilities and know how to limit themselves from interfering with others’ work. However, in some instances, some face overwhelming supervisors who question their approach. Homisak recommends that employees who have supervisors showcasing micromanaging behavior should learn to stand up for themselves and justify their approach. This is because in most cases micromanagers are usually unaware that they are over managing and overwhelming their subordinates. Therefore, it is crucial to deal with the task head on as their micromanaging supervisors might be aware and change their stance on the issue. Homisak identified that most employers practice micromanaging because they lack confidence in their employees’ ability to perform the tasks at hand. He recognizes that this technique can begin unconsciously when individuals have genuine intentions to help and mentor others; however, it escalates over time.
This article provides strong evidence that micromanaging leads to employee turnover. However, it recognizes that such behaviors among managers might stem up from an area of genuine intentions where they were trying to mentor their subordinates, but it escalated over time.
Hotchkiss, D. (2007). Re-inventing boards that bore: Overcoming micromanagement. Ask Alban. Web.
Hotchkiss discusses the issue of micromanagement being extensive in the current workplace setting. He points out that although many managers criticize themselves for being micromanagers, they are still continuing with the same trend. He attributes this to the fact that individuals are generally more interested in minute issues that can be easily solved than the large ones. This is because it gives them a sense of achievement and gratification. Most managers develop micromanagement techniques as they lack delegation skills and do not how to spend their time. However, Hotchkiss recognizes that the solution is based on the managers or the board learning the art of delegation and knowing how to integrate more important and appropriate work on its agenda. This is achieved by the board to identify its objectives and matching it to the available resources. In simpler terms, managers must find a balance between authority and responsibility so that work is assigned to the best candidate, and the managers can free themselves up for more important tasks.
This article is relevant to my research problem as it provides strong evidence on the negative effects of micromanagement in the workplace, and it has identified the lack of delegation and time allocation skills as the cause of this problem. The article’s reliability and credibility are grounded on the fact that it was authored by a senior consultant who has specialized in strategic and financial planning and congregational governance.
Ridder, J. M., DeSanctis, J. T., Moorkerjee, A. L., & Rajput, V. Micromanagement creates a nonconducive learning environment for a teaching team. Journal of Graduate Medical Education.
This article delineates the negative effects of micromanagement in the healthcare setting. The authors acknowledge that micromanagement tendencies are centered on the feelings of personal insecurity among individuals. Although micromanagement in the hospitals is validated by patient safety and lack of experience among trainees, such supervision often hinders the trainees’ competence and autonomy and the attending supervisor-trainee relationship. Consequently, due to the absence of an emotional, cognitive, and psychological learning environment, the learner’s motivation is adversely affected. Micromanagement in this environment is considered a serious issue as it is supposedly ingrained in the curriculum, affecting undergraduate and graduate medical education. As a result, there is a need to mitigate the problem, and this can be achieved by encouraging self-regulation and self-awareness among the clinical faculty.
This article insinuates the adverse effect of micromanagement in the workplace. It has been associated with diminished morale by restricting an individual’s autonomy and competence and consequentially affecting professional relationships.
Osmel, D., Strauss, E. M., & Ortega, M. A. (2015). Micromanagement: When to avoid it and how to use it effectively. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 72(10), 772–776. Web.
Osmel, Strauss, and Ortega have identified micromanagement as negatively associated with teamwork, especially employee disengagement, which leads to reduced productivity. Although harmful, the researchers have revealed that it can prove to be an essential management tool in certain instances. However, to be on the safe side of the thin line, managers have to distinguish between setting goals and controlling every detail of a process. Overall, effective micromanagement means discerning when to get involved and when to stay out of the way. Furthermore, it is essential to note that it is only efficient when applied for a short period; however, it might provide an illusion of effectiveness that blurs the managers’ ability to recognize employee disengagement if used for a long. The study identifies that to minimize micromanagement, managers must comprehend its limitations, knowing when it is appropriate and adapting it to suit certain circumstances. Managers can compound the minimization strategies by performing frequent self-evaluations to assess their level of micromanagement.
This article provides strong evidence that micromanagement is detrimental to employee welfare. Moreover, the fact that it contains peer-reviewed and current information further cements the fact that the findings present are relevant to the present workplace setting.
Shufford, J. A. (2019). Micromanagement: The enemy of staff morale. Corrections Today, 81(5), 36-41. Web.
The study expounds on the centrality of staff morale in correction facilities. The authors have identified micromanagement as one of the primary contributors to low staff morale. It has been suggested that this level of management in such facilities stems from the lack of a role model, presence of toxic power-based management, lack of trust in staff, and lack of leadership training among supervisors. Hence, micromanagers have been regarded to be less empathetic, making it challenging for them to be team players. It has been associated with disempowerment, demotivation, and disengagement among the staff, which leads to high turnover rates. Furthermore, once embraced, it is difficult to eliminate micromanagement as it is not cognitively based but rather subconscious. Therefore, micromanagement has been established to lead to further micromanagement. Nevertheless, Shufford points out that the only way to eliminate micromanagement is by increasing empathy. Therefore, when supervisors become more empathetic, they are likely to become leaders instead of managers.
This study aligns with my research problem that micromanagement is associated with adverse effects in the workplace, and this falls mainly in the realm of staff morale. Furthermore, the fact that the article is current further acknowledges that the issue of micromanagement is rampant in the current workplace environment.
Weyand, J. (1996). Micromanagement: Outmoded or alive and well? Management Review, 85(11), 62-63. Web.
According to Weyand, micromanagement has been an issue of the past and has continued to the present. He regards leadership style to be a crucial component of an individual in their workplace setting. Generally, a leader has the responsibility of overseeing the direction and growth of their subordinates. Leadership has a spillover effect to only affecting their professional lives but also personal. However, micromanagement is regarded to be the least effective approach in all leadership styles. Although some individuals recognize that this form of management is better than having no management, it has been illustrated to diminish individuals and slow organizational development. It is particularly valuable in instances where no expensive training, no performance reviews, and no development programs are needed, and there are no questions regarding who is in charge. Nevertheless, ultimately, it deprives the staff of their self-respect and organizations of their future.
This article is relevant to my research problem as it recognizes that micromanagement continues to be a problem in the current work society. Furthermore, it has been associated with negative outcomes, such as depriving employees of their self-respect and slowing organizational development.
White, R. D. (2010). The micromanagement disease: Symptoms, diagnosis, and cure. Public Personnel Management, 39(1), 71-76. Web.
This article refers to micromanagement as an addictive organizational “pathology”. White notes that self-restraint is a limited soft skill among the leaders of today as they tend to over-scrutinize, over-manage, and over-frustrate staff. He describes an effective leader as one who can efficiently allocate tasks among employees; nevertheless, this is crucial in exercising self-restraint. Furthermore, the author repetitively employs the word, “nuisance” to describe micromanagers and regards them as a source of trouble in the current complex organizational environment. Micromanagers are characterized as leaders who question every decision their subordinates make, are obsessed with meaningless details, and take on too many projects, hence, overbearing themselves with work. Although many people dislike micromanagement, there are still leaders who embrace it, and White correlates this to the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory. The theory suggests that many managers evolve into micromanagers mainly because of their reluctance to delegate, and this arises from their lack of confidence in their staff. Nevertheless, the micromanagement “disease” can be “cured” by acquiring delegation skills.
This article provides strong evidence that micromanagement is associated with negative effects in the workplace, which is likened to an “organizational pathology”. It recognizes that even though there is extreme criticism of micromanagement, some leaders are continuing to embrace it; hence it is regarded as an addictive pathology.
Yost, L. (2013). Micromanagement (Part One): What it is, what it isn’t and what to do about it. Parks and Recreation.
According to Yost, the issue of micromanagement has been addressed in several management articles. The article first describes micromanagers as leaders who are over-involved in the work they have delegated to others and are providing input without considering those handling the task. In most instances, only parts rather than the whole task are delegated, resulting in subordinates’ disengagement. Furthermore, it has been identified to impede employee and managerial growth; consequently, teamwork is challenging to achieve as every employee must invest in the micromanager’s volume of ineffective tasks. In the end, this leads to second-guessing, diminished morale, and a lack of trust. Yost further elucidates on the concept of management, which comprises directing and controlling. Therefore, to prevent themselves from becoming micromanagers, leaders should learn to direct and control the right things at the appropriate level. A good manager should also be focused on the result of the task done by the staff rather than on the process done to achieve those results.
The article points out that micromanagement should never be confused with effective and directive management. This is because by highly concentrating on several tasks, the morale of the employees diminishes, thus reducing the probability of organizational success.