It’s been more than four years now since COVID-19 shut down the world. It seemed weird at first, working in pajamas, but that strange feeling was quickly overcome by a peaceful sense of ease and convenience. Research showed that many employees were more productive than they were in the office, and many have resisted going back to a job that involves a long, daily commute.
Still in the news though are organizations that continue pleading for workers to return, some even threatening termination. But why?
There are some workplaces that require collaboration within and between groups working on different but related tasks. Those involving creativity or dealing with complex interactions, seem to benefit from in-person discussion and debate.
On the other hand, if the motivation for bringing employees back to the office is to more closely supervise them, the outcome will not likely be what’s expected.
Psychology Today just published an article entitled When Supervisors Supervise the Supervision of Supervisors. The article summarizes the findings of researchers who studied the U.S. Army as an example of a micromanaged organization. Among their findings:
- The practice of micromanaging can be harmful to employees as well as their workplace.
- Micromanagers and helicopter bosses monitor employees in excessive ways that promote a culture of distrust.
- Micromanagers lower productivity, increase staff disengagement, and contribute to employee turnover.
- Organizations supporting micromanaging bosses often drive away talent and foster mediocrity.
Those are not positive outcomes. Job satisfaction has long been known as one of the most important factors in retaining happy, productive employees – even more important than salary. Micromanaging thwarts workers’ sense of “purpose, mastery, and autonomy,” thereby lowering satisfaction and productivity.
Food for thought if you’re looking to gain insight into your management style and workplace culture.