askST Jobs: How to tell if you’re being micromanaged or closely supervised. What’s the difference?

In this series, business correspondent Timothy Goh offers practical answers to candid questions on navigating workplace challenges and getting ahead in your career. Get more tips by signing up to The Straits Times’ Headstart newsletter.

How can I tell the difference between close supervision and micromanagement? Is it possible to ask for more autonomy without damaging my relationship with my manager?

There is a difference between a boss who checks in on employees and one who constantly hovers like a “helicopter parent” over them.

Employees should look at what their boss is actually doing and how the behaviour is affecting them, said counselling psychologist Padma Jairam.

Some signs of micromanagement include having to provide excessive updates, needing a manager’s approval for even small and routine decisions, and having work repeatedly rewritten or heavily edited without a clear explanation.

Micromanagers may also focus excessively on how work is done rather than the outcome.

“Employees may also catch themselves overthinking routine decisions because they are preparing for someone to question them,” said Padma.

But close supervision does not necessarily mean a manager thinks an employee is incapable of doing his or her job.

“Often, it could be about your boss’ own anxiety or fears. They could be worried about being blindsided or getting blamed for a team member’s mistake,” she said.

“Such behaviour could stem from a manager’s own anxieties or previous unpleasant experiences.”

Although this does not justify micromanagement, understanding what may be driving the behaviour could help employees respond without becoming defensive.

Padma said employees who interpret their boss’ behaviour as a sign of their own incompetence may become more anxious and, consequently, could make careless errors, which could give the manager even more reason to micromanage.

“It’s a loop that worsens the situation for both the employee and the boss,” she said.

“Understanding the so-called hovering as perhaps your boss’ own stress response, rather than a verdict on you, makes it a lot easier to respond calmly instead of getting defensive.”

To regain some autonomy, employees could start by communicating proactively, such as providing a brief update before their manager asks for one.

This could reassure the manager that a project is under control while giving the employee more space to get the work done.

Employees should also clarify expectations at the beginning of a project, including what a successful outcome looks like and how frequently their manager expects updates.

Trust may also have to be built gradually, said Padma. Employees could demonstrate their reliability on smaller tasks before seeking greater autonomy over more significant pieces of work.

If a manager continues to demand more updates than necessary, employees could try negotiating rather than confronting them.

Employees should also “pick their battles”, as they may not need complete independence on every task.

“It is easier to accept more oversight on high-stakes projects while negotiating for more freedom on lower-risk ones,” Padma said.

However, better communication may not resolve every case of micromanagement.

“If the boss’ behaviour feels punitive and is ruining your sleep or your confidence, or if nothing changes, no matter what you try, then that may not be something you can fix with better communication,” she said.

In such situations, employees could consider approaching the human resources department, a mentor or a senior colleague whom they trust for help.

“Reaching out for help is not a sign of weakness but recognising that the problem is bigger than you,” said Padma.

“Micromanagement can be annoying, but the good news is that it usually does not last forever... Most bosses ease up once they trust the outcome, and most people get that trust back faster than they expect once they stop taking the scrutiny personally and start treating it as something to work through.”

David Leong, managing director of PeopleWorldwide Consulting, said employees should not immediately assume that close supervision means their manager is a micromanager.

“Before labelling a boss a micromanager, ask yourself an uncomfortable question: Is the manager controlling by nature and always like that, or has something happened that caused the manager to lose confidence in me? Have I failed in meeting my goals and key performance indicators?” he said.

Where trust has been affected, employees may be able to regain some autonomy by demonstrating that they can be relied upon to deliver their work. “Autonomy is rarely won through confrontation and assurances. It is usually earned through predictability and performance,” said Leong.

When managers know that an employee delivers what they promise, flags problems early and does not create unpleasant surprises, their perceived need to closely monitor the employee should gradually diminish, he said.

Leong also noted that prolonged micromanagement could eventually become counterproductive.

“The paradox of micromanagement is that managers use it to reduce risk, or so they think. But prolonged micromanagement can actually create another risk: Employees stop thinking for themselves or, worse, lose motivation to work,” Leong said.

Therefore, employees should ultimately be given sufficient room to perform their roles while remaining accountable for their work.

“A good boss provides a direction and shows the boundaries; a micromanager wants to hold the steering wheel and decide how, where and what,” added Leong.

“The objective is not management without accountability, but enough trust for employees to do the jobs they were hired to do.”