Micromanagement on Employee Performance: A Killer or Motivator

Abstract

Purpose-This study aims to study the interplay between two variables-micromanagement and job performance-at Pearson Management Services Philippines, Inc. This study will also explore if micromanagement has positive or negative impacts on employee performance. Design/Methodology/Approach-Quantitative research and a predictive-causal approach were used to measure the interrelationship between micromanagement and job performance. Linear regression will be further employed to scope the parameters of the structural model. Findings-This study identified a strong and statistically relevant positive correlation between micromanagement and employee performance. It also revealed that micromanagement, typically viewed negatively, can positively impact employee performance in certain contexts. Research Limitations-This study is only limited to its target respondents, where all of them reside in Luzon. Moreover, this research study only gauges the level of micromanagement as perceived by the employees in a single department in Pearson Management Services Philippines Incorporated. This study can be replicated by other researchers in the future in different environments and situations. Practical Implications-This study's practical implications stress the importance for organizations to grasp the varied impacts of micromanagement on employee performance. By exploring both its positive and negative aspects, the research offers insights for refining leadership practices and creating a supportive work environment. Recognizing that micromanagement can sometimes be beneficial, this study encourages organizations to balance their approach to enhance employee performance and organizational success. Originality/Value-This study offers insights into how micromanagement practices influence employee outcomes in a local context. The findings will not only enhance understanding of the positive and negative impacts of micromanagement but also provide organizations with a nuanced perspective on its application, enabling them to make informed decisions that could improve overall performance and employee satisfaction.

Full text

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
312
Micromanagement on Employee Performance: A
Killer or Motivator
Joshua P. Galindez, Josephine P. Arias, Cresilda M. Bragas
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
College of Business Administration – Graduate Studies
Sta. Mesa, Manila, Philippines
Abstract. Purpose - This study aims to study the interplay between two variables —
micromanagement and job performance — at Pearson Management Services Philippines, Inc.
This study will also explore if micromanagement has positive or negative impacts on employee
performance.
Design/Methodology/Approach - Quantitative research and a predictive-causal approach
were used to measure the interrelationship between micromanagement and job performance.
Linear regression will be further employed to scope the parameters of the structural model.
Findings - This study identified a strong and statistically relevant positive correlation
between micromanagement and employee performance. It also revealed that
micromanagement, typically viewed negatively, can positively impact employee performance
in certain contexts.
Research Limitations - This study is only limited to its target respondents, where all of
them reside in Luzon. Moreover, this research study only gauges the level of micromanagement
as perceived by the employees in a single department in Pearson Management Services
Philippines Incorporated. This study can be replicated by other researchers in the future in
different environments and situations.
Practical Implications - This study's practical implications stress the importance for
organizations to grasp the varied impacts of micromanagement on employee performance. By
exploring both its positive and negative aspects, the research offers insights for refining
leadership practices and creating a supportive work environment. Recognizing that
micromanagement can sometimes be beneficial, this study encourages organizations to balance
their approach to enhance employee performance and organizational success.
Originality/Value - This study offers insights into how micromanagement practices
influence employee outcomes in a local context. The findings will not only enhance
understanding of the positive and negative impacts of micromanagement but also provide
organizations with a nuanced perspective on its application, enabling them to make informed
decisions that could improve overall performance and employee satisfaction.

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
313
Index Terms- Micromanagement, Employee Performance, Job Satisfaction, Employee
motivation
I. Introduction
Management style is the specific way a manager goes about accomplishing
organizational objectives. It consists of decision-making, organizing work, and
exercising authority. As stated by (George, 2016) Both the development of a company
and the general performance of its workforce are impacted by management styles.
This is not to be confused with leadership style; these two have distinct concepts.The
ideas of credibility and trust are entwined with leadership in terms of the success of an
organization and worker satisfaction.
(Merriam-Webster, 1989) defines Micromanagement as managing especially
with excessive control or attention to details. According to the study of (Ryan &
Cross, 2024) Every researcher has a different take on the leadership style known as
micromanagement. The consensus is it is a negative style, and it involves
domineering and extreme control. According to some, micromanagement refers to
managing someone or something unduly or excessively. (Sharma, 2024). Even in
Philippine politics micromanagement is seen as toxic. Senator Risa Hontiveros asked
the Senate to investigate the 2020 pandemic response in the surrounding provinces
and Metro Manila. The senator added that even at the barangay level, the Metro
Manila Council has intervened (Bajo, 2020).
An excerpt by (Chambers, 2009) elaborates that The phrase
"micromanagement" is highly subjective. What one person perceives as interference
and what another perceives as support and interaction are very different. Some people
view participation, guidance, and collaboration as interfering, manipulating, and
exercising undue control over others. There is a significant difference that exists
between the perception of the micromanagEE and the micromanagER. The gap
between the perceptions of the micromanagER and the micromanagEE is the ideal
environment for miscommunication, low morale, intense frustration, and decreasing
output. Everyone's level of job satisfaction decreases with increasing gaps.
As discussed by (Chambers, 2009) Examining the surroundings in which
micromanagement thrives is also crucial. The two key elements to take into account
are individual style and organizational culture. Certain organizations incorporate
micromanagement practices into their conventional ways of working. This kind of
behavior norm is usually established at the highest level of the company and spreads
throughout all divisions. Micromanagement becomes both the standard and a
preferred style to imitate if top management exhibits these behaviors and encourages
others to adopt them. The lack of alternative training among employees is one of the
main causes of the widespread adoption of micromanagement.
Micromanagement sets itself as the norm. However, regardless of the
corporate culture, people might also gravitate towards micromanagement.
Micromanagers are not villains with evil goals. It is sometimes learnt behavior that

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
314
has worked in the past. Many times, people struggle to successfully influence others
without coming across as "micro" in their interactions. Without training and
development, we all have a tendency to adopt the previous habits of those who
appeared to be successful. In reality, a lot of the inappropriate micromanagement
practices of today are holdovers from the once-encouraged autocratic and
authoritarian cultures.
In an article published by (Baylor University 2023) they stated that
Micromanagement undermines confidence and fosters an anxious environment.
Additionally, this may hinder workers' capacity for thinking critically, problem-
solving, and creative idea generation. This has a negative impact on employees
because giving them autonomy can indicate that employers believe they are capable.
Higher levels of involvement, a sense of ownership over their work, and job
satisfaction follow from this. Employees that feel empowered are more inclined to
take the initiative, feel important, and go above and beyond to accomplish collective
goals. When people are free to choose, they are more inclined to accept accountability
for the outcomes. This sense of accountability can spur workers to produce high-
quality work.
However as observed by (Sharma, 2024) Micromanagement also helps in
several areas. It boosts team productivity by assuring that every task is complete and
accurate. In the end, it can provide work that is quicker and more accurate by
lowering workflow errors. Having the best use of micromanagement at work can
reduce stress and feelings of overwhelm by giving employees clear expectations and
directions. Additionally, it might prevent misunderstandings amongst team members.
When done right, it can result in a more peaceful workplace where everyone is in
consensus. When applied properly, it can also help to ensure that everyone in the team
is operating within the parameters of their designated responsibilities. It is highly
useful for mentorship of new hires. By micromanaging the team in this manner, it is
possible to prevent oversights and waste less time and resources, all of which
contribute to increased efficiency.
Finding the right balance between freedom and accountability is essential for
effective leadership. It is critical for managers to give instructions and support, but it
is just as critical to avoid micromanagement's pitfalls. Through employee
empowerment, autonomy promotion, and trust-building, organizations may unleash
the potential of their employees. (Baylor University 2023).
The aim of this research is to identify various impacts of micromanagement on
employee performance. By assessing the positive and negative dimensions of
micromanagement, this study aims to impart valuable knowledge for organizations to
enhance their leadership practices and adapt a supportive work environment. Studies
on the detrimental impacts of micromanagement on employees and organizations are
prevalent, but there may not be as many on the possible advantages of
micromanagement when it is deemed to be helpful.

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
315
II. Review of Related Literature
1. Micromanagement in the Lens of Human Resources Management
The underlying problem in micromanagement is that extreme attention to
details to the point of madness often undermines overall productivity and morale have
split asunder. According to a SHRM research (Miller, 2020), micromanagement can
have a negative effect on a business by stifling employee autonomy and creativity.
This SHRM study emphasizes how, despite managers' perceptions to the contrary,
this technique frequently results in increased turnover and decreased job satisfaction,
even though some managers think it will improve accuracy and task completion. To
improve organizational outcomes and facilitate execution, the study suggests that
companies create a trusting environment within which people are given more
responsibility.
Micromanagement hinders staff advancing professionally and impedes
workflow. Miller (2020) wrote that this was not unusual: A micromanager can't see
the bad results of their actions, because they don't know what is really happening.
SHRM suggests that instructors offer classes for managers which help them recognize
the degree to which they may lean toward micromanagement, and what benefits come
from taking off a bit of distance. "In order to provide a platform for both self-
confidence and monitoring," Zhen said during one of these courses, "we must strive to
strike a balance." These programs are instrumental in encouraging this move towards
empowerment that benefits all concerned parties.
In her 2020 study, Mutabazi discussed the impact of scrutiny on team
communication. When employees are unable to make their own decisions there is a
decrease in free communication. People are afraid of being fired or otherwise made to
suffer consequences. They keep their mouths shut and talk only about work for fear
someone will take this as an excuse to get rid of them. Employees suffer from this
oppression of communication, but it also makes it more difficult for the group to work
together in harmony. The requirement for zero imperfection and unceasing
surveillance can raise workplace anxiety, possibly causing not just decline of
production but also an increase in absenteeism and staff turnover.
In order to build up a more motivated, trustworthy work environment, companies
need to adjust their methods. This is an article published on LinkedIn by Mutabazi.
The author advocates that management needs people who can not only supervise but
also prioritize results over processes and procedures. Training managers like this
promotes self-governance among workers and recognition of their achievements.
Thereby morale climbs, productivity soars and gives a better work atmosphere.
It is commonly known that micromanagement is an ineffective managing
approach that erodes employee autonomy, lowers job satisfaction, and increases
employee turnover. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)
conducted a thorough investigation that sheds light on the nuances of this managerial
error and provides suggestions for how to mitigate it (Marks, 2019). According to the

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
316
essay, micromanagers frequently have trouble delegating because they harbor a deep-
seated fear of losing control or encountering unanticipated consequences. Employee
creativity and invention may be stifled by this overbearing supervision, as they may
feel mistrusted and underpaid. In order to assist micromanagers in realizing the
negative effects of their actions and in learning to have faith in their teams' abilities,
SHRM advocates for the introduction of focused training and development initiatives.
The SHRM article also emphasizes how crucial it is to have a supportive
corporate culture that helps managers give up their demand for control and adopt a
more detached management approach. It suggests doable actions to lessen
micromanagement, including establishing clear expectations, giving constructive
criticism, and promoting managers' self-reflection. Organizations that foster an
environment that achieves a balance between control and empowerment can increase
employee engagement and produce better financial outcomes.
The COVID-19 pandemic has made micromanagement more challenging,
especially as businesses struggle with the complexities of remote labor. According to
SHRM, managers need to resist the urge to micromanage in these uncertain times
(SHRM, 2020). The article emphasizes how employees who are already coping with
the strains of a worldwide crisis may experience increased stress and anxiety as a
result of micromanagement. It makes the case that trust and adaptability are especially
crucial when workers adjust to new remote work arrangements where more traditional
kinds of supervision are impractical. In order to foster an environment of
responsibility, SHRM counsels managers to place more emphasis on defining precise
goals and expectations than on monitoring every stage of the procedure.
Micromanagement can be especially harmful in remote work settings where
trust and autonomy are essential. The dynamics of remote management are examined
by the SHRM, which emphasizes the necessity for managers to modify their
approaches in order to provide effective support for remote teams (SHRM, 2021). The
essay highlights how effective remote managers put results and outcomes first and
avoid micromanaging tendencies. These managers succeed because they establish
clear standards, communicate well, and use technology to keep in touch without
becoming overly nosy. In order to improve productivity and job satisfaction in a
distributed work environment, remote teams must be empowered and trusted to make
the transition from managing processes to focusing on results.
Additionally, according to SHRM, in order to effectively manage remote
teams, managers should hone their communication abilities and provide ongoing
assistance by giving staff members the tools they need to complete tasks on their own.
In addition to lowering the number of check-ins, this management strategy redefines
the caliber of interactions to make sure they are purposeful and encouraging rather
than directive. The difficulties brought on by geographical dispersion can be lessened
by remote managers creating an atmosphere that appreciates autonomy and promotes
self-regulation.

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
317
2. Employee Perception towards Micromanagement
Staff micromanagement lowers employee morale, as Jacob (2019) has
shown. When managers micromanage their staff, they often feel powerless. When that
occurs, they will gradually lose the ability to take pleasure in their work and go above
and beyond for a mission. They would be constrained to complying with their boss's
requests. In other words, they stop trying and become less committed.
Micromanagers block people from making decisions, whether on purpose or
accidentally, by letting their employees use their skills and knowledge to get the job
done.
Furthermore, in a micromanaged workplace, people work more or
exclusively with the micromanager, discouraging teamwork. Consequently,
cooperation disappears. As a result, workers could feel undervalued and disrespected.
Teamwork promotes enhanced communication, empowerment, and synergy to
complete tasks faster. Micromanagers make it difficult for teams to work together
since they can't or won't delegate duties, and they also have a tendency to criticize and
get too involved in other people's work.
In his investigation of the issue of micromanagement and its detrimental
effects on workers, Knight (2015) emphasizes that competent people frequently avoid
taking on leadership positions out of a concern of becoming micromanagers
themselves. Knight claims that micromanagement can result in an oppressive
workplace where workers feel their autonomy is being curtailed, which lowers morale
and lowers job satisfaction. Micromanagement methods can inhibit innovation and
decrease employees' willingness to take initiative, which can eventually hinder
organizational effectiveness. This is because they include frequent oversight and a
lack of confidence.
According to Knight (2015), the notion of micromanagement has a big
impact on how effectively individuals progress professionally and psychologically.
Workers who experience micromanagement usually feel devalued and disrespected
since their skills and knowledge are constantly called into question. This may result in
low motivation and self-esteem, which raises stress and disengagement levels. Knight
stresses that in order to increase productivity and create a more happy work
environment, firms must promote a culture of empowerment and trust that gives
employees the flexibility to use their abilities and judgment.
3. Impacts of Micromanagement to Employee Performance
According to Elizabeth Grace Saunders' 2016 paper in the Harvard Business
Review, micromanagement—which is sometimes perceived as a bad managerial
technique—occurs due to a number of psychological triggers among managers.
According to Saunders, managers who are anxious about losing control over results
may resort to micromanagement, which can spread throughout an organization. Their
extreme need for control may have originated from situations in the past where they
were under a lot of pressure to produce perfect results. When managers give in to
these temptations, they frequently become unduly involved in their staff members'

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
318
work, which reduces autonomy and frequently lowers team morale. According to
Saunders, if this tendency is not stopped, it not only stunts employees' potential to
grow as problem solvers but also feeds a culture of distrust and reliance.
A study by Saunders (2016), who examines the effects of micromanagement,
both employee and organizational health may be greatly impacted by this managing
approach. When managers concentrate on minute details rather than strategic
outcomes, the excessive oversight characteristic of micromanagement frequently
leads to an inefficient work environment characterized by frequent interruptions.
Additionally, since mid-level managers imitate the actions of their superiors, the
tendency to micromanage can cascade down the hierarchy and have a negative impact
on the entire firm. According to Saunders, it is possible to stop the spread of
micromanagement in the workplace by identifying the warning signals of this
negative managing style early on and addressing its basic causes, which include
anxiety and a lack of trust.
Then-CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, writes on the company's strategic
management approach—avoiding micromanagement in particular—in a 2011 piece
for the Harvard Business Review. Schmidt highlights Google's commitment to
selecting the best candidates and giving them the latitude to develop rather than
strangling originality with intrusive control. He makes the argument that Google's
ability to create an atmosphere where gifted people feel empowered to take initiative
and make judgments will determine how successful the company is. This managerial
style is consistent with Google's larger organizational culture, which promotes risk-
taking and supports employee autonomy. This helps the company stay at the forefront
of technological innovation and have a competitive advantage in a market that is
changing quickly.
Schmidt goes into more detail about the detrimental impacts of
micromanagement, pointing out that it lowers morale among staff members in
addition to impeding productivity. According to him, micromanaging managers may
have a negative impact on employee engagement and work satisfaction since it shows
a lack of faith in the abilities and judgment of their team. Schmidt, meanwhile, is a
supporter of a leadership style that focuses on setting clear standards and then getting
rid of extraneous barriers to help employees meet them. He contends that by
facilitating quicker decision-making and more creativity, this strategy not only fosters
a sense of accountability and pride among team members but also improves overall
organizational performance. Schmidt's explanation of Google's management style
serves as an example of how businesses may develop a culture of empowerment
inside the workplace and see notable growth and success.
Schmidt further emphasizes how Google's anti-micromanagement posture
encompasses more than just policy; it also includes institutional frameworks and
organized procedures that actively promote autonomy. The software giant, for
instance, has a 20%-time policy in place that encourages staff members to commit a
portion of their workweek to creative initiatives of their choosing that may not exactly

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
319
fit into their traditional job descriptions. In addition to encouraging invention and
creativity, this novel approach acts as a check on any possible tendencies inside the
organization toward micromanagement. Google not only encourages innovation but
also fosters a culture that values independence and trust by institutionalizing such
practices. This guiding cultural idea has been essential to Google's identity and
success, offering a marked contrast to the rigid, hierarchical management style found
in many traditional organizations.
Alexander Puutio (2024) explores the self-revelations of a self-described
micromanager in a recent Forbes piece, revealing the underlying causes and the
tactics used to break this destructive behavior. The candid story demonstrates how
deeply rooted beliefs about the need for continual supervision and a pervasive fear of
failing can be the driving forces behind micromanagement practices. But the article's
topic also offers a way forward, one that involves building trust, delegating more
skillfully, and concentrating on the broad picture rather than the details. Fostering an
atmosphere of candid criticism and open communication supports this transition by
gradually reducing the need to micromanage every aspect. Leaders who identify
similar tendencies in themselves and are looking for doable strategies to foster greater
autonomy within their teams may find great value in these insights.
Micromanaging at the managerial level has negative repercussions on an
organization's ability to build trust and foster professional progress, according to the
Forbes Coaches Council (2023). As stated in the article "Why It's Crucial to Avoid
Micromanaging Your Managers," leaders must empower their managers by allowing
them the autonomy to make decisions and successfully manage their teams. The
cultivation of empowerment among managers is crucial in establishing a proactive
and dynamic work environment, as it instills a sense of accountability and ownership.
The council goes on to say that by avoiding the temptation to micromanage, senior
leaders can boost organizational efficiency by facilitating quicker decision-making
and creativity at all levels, as well as the job satisfaction and engagement of their
managers.
The Forbes Coaches Council (2023) presents a practical strategy to
counteract micromanagement by implementing a range of tactical measures intended
to promote more autonomy and trust among team members. In their piece "5 Ways to
Stop Micromanaging Your Team," the council provides executives with doable
strategies to reduce their tendency toward micromanagement. These consist of
establishing unambiguous expectations, encouraging candid communication, and
emphasizing results above procedures. One other important tactic that was addressed
is employee empowerment, which increases competence and confidence by giving
workers the tools and assistance they need to make decisions on their own. Regular
feedback meetings are also stressed as a way to offer direction and acknowledgment
without requiring continuous supervision. These procedures not only reduce the
tension that comes with micromanaging, but they also raise morale and productivity
by fostering a more dependable and cooperative work atmosphere.

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
320
A perceptive piece on Forbes by Michael Peregrine (2023) reassesses the
management approach of former U.S. Jimmy Carter, emphasizing the dangers of
micromanagement. The essay clarifies how Carter's propensity for micromanaging
throughout his administration frequently led to inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the
administrative system. Peregrine contends that Carter may not have been as effective
as a leader because of his meticulous attention to detail and personal participation in
little operational matters when conducting his presidential duties. This analysis serves
as a warning about the dangers of micromanagement, implying that overly strict
control might hinder creativity and cause lengthy decision-making processes in
intricate organizations. The essay offers a historical perspective on how
micromanagement might affect organizational outcomes and the efficacy of
leadership by looking at Carter's administration.
According to Rachel Wells (2023), a positive workplace culture is essential
to reducing the detrimental effects of micromanagement. Wells emphasizes in her
Forbes piece how crucial it is to foster an atmosphere that values autonomy and trust
in order to combat the tendency toward micromanagement. She recommends that
managers concentrate on giving staff members a sense of ownership over their work
and empowering them by giving them authority. Leaders may help their teams solve
problems more creatively and independently by lowering the tendency to
micromanage. Wells also contends that creating a culture that inherently
disincentivizes micromanagement and raises employee satisfaction and productivity
requires open communication channels and reasonable expectations.
4. Relationship between Micromanagement and Employee Performance
Employee performance is greatly impacted by micromanagement, mostly
because of its psychological consequences on staff members. Studies have indicated
that an overabundance of oversight and control by supervisors can undermine
confidence and harm professional relationships. Employees who work in this
atmosphere frequently experience higher levels of stress and anxiety because they feel
under continual observation and pressure to live up to excessive standards. These
conditions may lead to burnout, which is characterized by a chronic state of emotional
and physical exhaustion and worsens the mental and general health of employees.
This poisonous dynamic typically results in decreasing productivity since employees'
creativity and efficiency are undermined by the time spent on meticulous
examination, which takes away from real work (Roggero, 2023).
Moreover, there is a connection between increased staff turnover rates and
micromanagement. Employees prefer better work conditions where they have greater
control over their duties due to continual monitoring and a lack of autonomy. A high
turnover rate costs the company a lot in terms of hiring and training new employees in
addition to costing it important talent. Additionally, workers who are micromanaged
are less likely to be content with their positions, which lowers engagement and morale
among all employees. This dissatisfaction may seep into the culture of the company,
fostering a generalized mistrust and unhappiness that may be difficult to overcome
(Coursera, 2023).

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
321
In times of crisis, like the COVID-19 epidemic, retaining employee
engagement and performance is contingent upon the use of good management
strategies. According to the Gallup study (2020), micromanagement may have a
detrimental effect on employee morale and productivity, particularly in remote work
contexts. For example, organizations that excessively monitor and control the
responsibilities and schedules of their employees may observe an increase in
employee stress, which can lead to decreased job satisfaction and employee burnout.
This was made clear during the pandemic when a number of businesses found it
difficult to modify their management approaches to accommodate remote labor,
which had a negative impact on worker morale and output.
Furthermore, the Gallup study highlights the value of autonomy and trust in
improving worker performance in times of crisis. Better results can be attained by
companies that allow their staff to make decisions and cultivate a culture of trust. For
example, during the COVID-19 crisis, companies that gave their workers autonomy,
flexibility, and clear communication reported higher levels of production and
employee satisfaction. These results highlight the significance of maintaining
employee performance and well-being by implementing a supportive and less
micromanaging approach, particularly during uncertain times.
5. The Psychology Behind Micromanagement
Micromanagement can seriously impair team productivity and morale. It is
frequently the result of a leader's underlying psychological issues. A Psychology
Today article claims that micromanagers fall short of their goals for a number of
important psychological reasons (Lipman, 2018). First, a manager's deep-seated need
for control—which is frequently motivated by a fear of uncertainty or failure—is the
source of micromanagement. They are compelled by this need to supervise every
aspect, no matter how minor, which causes inefficiency and annoyance among team
members. Furthermore, low confidence and poor interpersonal dynamics among team
members can emerge from micromanagers' lack of faith in their team's talents, which
further erodes productivity at work. The article also makes the point that
micromanagers frequently lack self-awareness and are unaware of the effects of their
actions on others, which keeps them from changing their management style to one
that is more productive. Knowing these psychological factors can help firms develop
management training and support programs that help managers overcome their
inclination toward micromanagement and create more empowered and independent
work environments.
Micromanagement is not just a surface-level managerial problem; it is also
intricately linked to psychological factors that negatively impact leadership actions.
Eight characteristics of micromanaging CEOs that can jeopardize a company's
viability are highlighted in a Psychology Today article (Robinson, 2020). These
characteristics include a low threshold for delegation, an intense fear of losing
control, an obsession with small details, and a propensity to demoralize employees.
Micromanagers have a psychological tendency to place an undue emphasis on process
rather than result, which frequently lowers productivity and creativity at work. They

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
322
also have trouble trusting others, which makes it difficult for them to build a
supportive work atmosphere and forces them to ignore the potential of their staff.
These traits suggest a widespread lack of confidence in one's own skills and mistrust
in those of others, which may fuel an unfulfilling and ineffectual cycle inside an
organization.
In mentoring and teaching settings where the development of autonomy and
critical thinking is crucial, micromanagement can be especially harmful. Effective
mentoring, according to the American Psychological Association (APA), is providing
direction that fosters the mentee's personal development and learning processes
without putting undue pressure on them (APA, n.d.). Micromanagement occurs when
mentors unduly prescribe the details of duties or decisions, impeding the mentee's
ability to learn and grow on their own. This conduct has the potential to damage the
mentee's self-esteem and prevent the acquisition of critical problem-solving abilities.
The American Psychological Association highlights that an effective mentorship
strikes a balance between autonomy and support, enabling mentees to make decisions,
feel the repercussions of those actions, and learn from them.
In addition, the psychology of micromanagement in mentoring environments
frequently results from the anxieties or inadequacies of the mentor. Mentors may use
more stringent controls on their mentees' activities if they feel under pressure to show
results right away or if they are afraid that their mentees won't succeed. This strategy,
though, has the potential to backfire by fostering dependency and decreasing the
mentee's desire to fully participate in the learning process. In order to support
mentees' professional development and self-assurance, the American Psychological
Association (APA) advises mentors to concentrate on developing a trustworthy
relationship that inspires mentees to take the initiative and share their views openly.
Micromanagement's psychological foundations can seriously harm an
organization's capacity to hold on to its most innovative workers. An incisive piece
from Psychology Today examines how inventive talent is often driven away by
micromanagement, which stifles their individuality and creativity (Namie, 2023).
Micromanagers tightly regulate decision-making and creative processes because they
are frequently motivated by fears and insecurities. This creates an environment at
work that is not supportive to creative thinking. Micromanagers' ability to restrict
their employees' responsibilities is a result of their distrust and fear of unanticipated
events. This behavior inhibits their potential to make innovative contributions.
According to the paper, these kinds of managerial techniques not only lower job
happiness and employee engagement, but they also encourage creative workers to
look for settings where they can reach their full potential without unwarranted
intervention.
Micromanagement can have significant and long-lasting psychological
effects on staff members, changing how they view their role and the workplace in
general. An article published in Psychology Today offers insightful advice on how
staff members might reframe what it means to be micromanaged and offers coping

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
323
mechanisms to lessen the stress it causes (Sapadin, 2020). According to the author,
managers' deep-seated fear of coming out as incompetent or their anxiety over project
outcomes are the main causes of micromanagement. Anxiety can result in
overcontrol, which inhibits the creativity and liberty of employees. Employees can
more effectively handle the difficulties presented by micromanaging situations if they
are aware of the psychological reasons behind a manager's actions. In order to
mitigate the adverse effects of micromanagement, the article suggests that staff
members give priority to building trust, setting limits, and encouraging transparent
communication. These coping strategies help the employee adjust while also
attempting to subtly influence the manager's behavior by demonstrating competence
and reliability, which might reduce the need for rigorous control.
Workplace micromanagement may have detrimental psychological impacts
on both the general health of a business and the wellbeing of its individual employees.
APA highlights this issue and points out that management styles significantly affect
employees' stress levels and job satisfaction in their study on workplace health and
well-being (APA, 2023). Because micromanagement undermines employees' feeling
of trust and autonomy, it can lead to increased stress levels among staff members.
Micromanagement is described as excessive control and tight supervision. Lack of
autonomy can decrease engagement and productivity and increase the risk of burnout.
The study emphasizes the significance of managerial strategies that place a high
priority on psychological safety because they help workers feel respected and trusted,
which in turn creates a more positive work environment.
Promoting workplace well-being and productivity requires a management
style that is less directive and more supportive. In order to foster a more happy and
effective work environment, firms should consider investing in leadership
development that centers around psychological principles, according to the APA's
findings. This entails realizing the negative consequences of micromanagement and
putting policies in place that support worker autonomy and empowerment. Businesses
can greatly enhance both the wellbeing of their employees and their operational
efficiency by implementing such strategies.
Micromanagement is a common issue in many businesses that affects worker
happiness and organizational effectiveness. A Psychology Today article (Sapadin,
2019) examines the psychological underpinnings of micromanagement and how it
varies from the experience of being dismissed at work. The research found that
managers' own anxieties about unpredictability and control often lead to
micromanagement, which makes them keep an excessive eye on employees. Staff
members may experience severe stress as a result of this management style since it
limits their freedom to make autonomous judgments and stifles their professional
autonomy. Workers who experience micromanagement usually report feeling
incompetent and underappreciated, which might lower their motivation and level of
involvement at work.

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
324
The psychological effects of being micromanaged are profound and affect
both personal and professional results. Employees who are under continual
monitoring may experience increased anxiety, a weaker work-life balance, and a
generalized sense of incompetence. An even more toxic work environment results
from employees feeling that their superiors don't trust them. The paper underlines
how crucial it is to comprehend these psychological processes in order to effectively
address and lessen the detrimental impacts of micromanagement. It implies that
supervisors should have a more trustworthy working connection with their staff in
order to provide an atmosphere that is conducive to employee autonomy and positive
reinforcement.
Organizational rules that support sound managing practices and managerial
self-awareness are both necessary to address the problem of micromanagement. It is
recommended that supervisors assess their own management style as well as the long-
term consequences of their decisions on employee morale and productivity. By
providing managers with resources and training that will help them become better
supervisors, businesses may assist this process. By cultivating a culture that values
autonomy, trust, and open communication, organizations may break free from the
cycle of micromanagement and create a more dynamic and supportive work
environment.
Micromanagement-related psychological stress has been connected to a
number of detrimental health effects, such as elevated anxiety and a higher risk of
depression. Evidence indicating workers who experience micromanagement report
higher levels of psychological discomfort may be found in the journal
―Micromanagement in clinical supervision: a scoping review‖ (Lee, Ahn, et al, 2023).
Their general well-being may be impacted by this distress, which has an impact on
both their personal and professional lives. According to the report, managers should
receive training that emphasizes empowering leadership styles, which provide staff
members autonomy in choosing the most effective means of achieving defined goals
while also establishing clear objectives. Such leadership behaviors have been
demonstrated to improve workplace health and productivity, lower stress levels, and
increase employee engagement.
The academic research from Lee, Ahn, and other researchers emphasizes the
necessity for businesses to reevaluate and possibly move away from
micromanagement techniques and toward more empowering managerial strategies. It
suggests that these types of changes are required to foster a positive workplace culture
that values workers' autonomy and well-being, which raises job satisfaction and
lowers employee turnover. The study serves as both a crucial window into the
psychological consequences of management styles and a call to action for businesses
hoping to improve employee relations and the workplace.
6. Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
The present study is based upon the Self Determination Theory of Richard
Ryan and Edward Deci. According to the theory, humans have three fundamental

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
325
psychological needs: relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Having these needs
satisfied results in the best functioning and wellbeing. This theory is instrumental to
explain how micromanagement undermines autonomy by excessive control. While
micromanagement may initially enhance competence by providing clear guidance,
over time it can prevent employees from developing their skills independently.
Micromanagement can also strain relationships between managers and employees,
reducing a sense of relatedness or connection and team cohesion.
The conceptual framework was designed by the researchers to study the
positive and negative impacts of micromanagement on employee performance. The
proposed diagram below shows the correlation between the independent variable,
which is micromanagement, and the dependent variable, which is employee
performance.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework of the relationship between
Micromanagement and Employee Performance.
Framework of Hypothesis
Research Questions
Based on the theoretical and existing literature, the research might pose
questions like:
 How do the respondents perceive micromanagement?
 What is the level of employee performance in the workplace?
 Is there a significant relationship between the perceived micromanagement of the
employee and employee performance?

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
326
Hypothesis
From these questions, we can derive the following specific hypothesis:
 Null Hypothesis (H0): the perceived micromanagement of the manager to the
respondents has no significant relationship to employee performance
 Alternative Hypothesis (H1): the perceived micromanagement of the manager
to the respondents has a significant relationship to employee performance
III. Methodology
1. Research Design
The research design used by the researchers is a quantitative method. This is
to justify the questions and support the study’s objectives, which is to recognize the
effect of micromanagement on employee performance..
According to (APA Dictionary of Psychology, n.d.) Quantitative research is
a kind of research where variables are measured with a numerical system, the
measurements are analyzed with a range of statistical models, and the links and
associations between the variables are reported. Understanding, characterizing, and
predicting the nature of a phenomenon is the purpose of acquiring this quantitative
data, especially through the creation of models and theories. Surveys and experiments
are two examples of quantitative research methods.
2. Population, Sample Size, and Sampling Technique
The respondents of this study are composed of 70 permanent coordinators
that are working in Pearson Management Services Philippines Incorporated,
Qualification Processing Department. The sampling technique utilized by the
researchers is Purposive sampling. As explained by (Nikolopoulou, 2023) A
collection of non-probability sampling strategies known as "purposive sampling" pick
units based on the characteristics you require in your sample. Simply put, purposive
sampling involves the "on purpose" selection of units.
This sampling technique, also known as judgmental sampling, depends on the
researcher's judgment to determine which people, situations, or events will yield the
most information to meet the objectives of the study.
3. Description of the Respondents
The respondents of this study were permanent coordinators that are working
in Pearson Management Services Philippines Incorporated, Qualification Processing
Department. The company is located in Mandaluyong City in Metro Manila. The
majority of the respondents also reside in Metro Manila. All of the respondents hail
from Luzon.
4. Ethical Consideration
To prevent possible discrepancies during the process, doing research
necessitates paying close attention to a number of aspects. Throughout the
investigation, researchers are required to follow ethical standards.

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
327
It is essential to guarantee that participants get the highest level of respect
and that their privacy and the confidentiality of their data are protected. It is
imperative that the researcher prioritize the vulnerability of study subjects and ensure
the confidentiality and security of any personal information participants may disclose.
During the trial, a fair distribution of risks and rewards will be given to each
randomly selected participant. Participants will be informed about the processes and
techniques of the study through explicit and unambiguous communication.
Plagiarism of any kind in the study material is not permitted at all. Only the
researchers, research adviser, and pertinent specialists will be keeping an eye on the
study's advancement, ensuring that any problems are dealt with honestly and ethically.
5. Research Instrument
The study will use a survey questionnaire to gather information about
micromanagement in the workplace. The survey questionnaire to be used was adapted
on the questionnaire made by Oktal, Kaan, Yucel, and Eray of Ihsan Dogramaci
Bilkent University in their paper ―Developing a Measurement Framework and Survey
for Micromanagement‖, which was published in December 2023.
The questionnaire was divided into two sections: one asking about the
respondents' demographics and the other including a list of comments concerning
workplace micromanagement that were broken down into three categories: (1)
Employee Perception towards Micromanagement, and (2) Employee Performance .
The first category was adapted from the mentioned paper above, while the second
category was formulated by the researchers.
6. Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers used self administered survey forms to collect data from the
respondents. A Google form was sent out to the respondents via online platforms. The
survey questionnaire contains 20 questions to assess the perception of employees
towards micromanagement, and to gauge their performance in the workplace. A
Likert scale with five points was used to measure each item.
7. Statistical Treatment
Simple linear regression is a statistical method used in this study to model
the connection between two continuous variables. Using the value of another variable,
referred to as the independent or predictor variable, the objective is to forecast the
value of one variable, known as the dependent or responder variable. Fitting a linear
equation to the observed data represents this relationship (Laerd Statistics, n.d.). This
linear equation is used in simple linear regression to explain the relationship between
the two variables. The equation is:
y = β_0+β_1 x +ϵ
Where:
 𝑦 represents the dependent variable, which is the variable being predicted.

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
328
 𝑥 stands for the independent variable, used to make the predictions.
 𝑏₀ is the intercept, indicating the value of 𝑦 when 𝑥 equals 0.
 𝑏₁ is the slope, showing the change in 𝑦 for each one-unit change in 𝑥.
 𝜖 denotes the error term, which is the discrepancy between the observed and
predicted values of 𝑦.
In conclusion, the goal of basic linear regression is to identify the straight line
that best fits the data points; this line is defined by its slope (β_1) and intercept (β_0).
IV. Results and Discussion
Table 1: Frequentist Individual Item Reliability Statistics of Employee
Perception towards Micromanagement
The reliability analysis for the variable "Micromanagement" was conducted
using Cronbach's alpha, a measure of internal consistency. The overall Cronbach's
alpha for the 10-item scale assessing micromanagement is 0.888, indicating a high
level of reliability. This suggests that the items are consistent in measuring the
concept of micromanagement.
In summary, the high point estimate of Cronbach's alpha and the minimal
changes in alpha values upon dropping individual items underscore the reliability of
this 10-item micromanagement scale. This consistency confirms that the items
collectively offer a robust measure of micromanagement in the workplace.
Table 2: Frequentist Individual Item Reliability Statistics of Employee
Performance

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
329
The reliability analysis for the variable "Employee Performance" was
conducted using Cronbach's alpha, a statistical measure of internal consistency. The
overall Cronbach's alpha for the 10-item scale measuring employee performance is
0.870, indicating a high level of reliability. This suggests that the items consistently
measure the concept of employee performance.
In summary, the high point estimate of Cronbach's alpha and the minor
variations in alpha values upon dropping individual items underscore the reliability of
this 10-item employee performance scale. This consistency confirms that the items
collectively provide a robust measure of employee performance, making the scale a
reliable tool for assessing performance in the workplace.
Analysis and Interpretation
Descriptive Interpretation
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Interpretation
1. I don’t make individual decisions
at the workplace all the time.
2.671
0.847
Observed
2. My manager controls most of my
work.
2.171
0.884
Not
Observed
3. I have to provide my manager
with frequent updates about my tasks.
2.5
0.913
Not
Observed
4. I receive a lot of unsolicited
advice about my work from my
manager.
1.757
0.77
Highly Not
Observed
5. My manager always oversees
even the most minor details of my
tasks.
1.857
0.873
Not
Observed
6. My manager does not trust my
decisions in the workplace.
1.414
0.625
Highly Not
Observed
7. I don’t often express my
individuality and creativity at work.
2
0.761
Not
Observed
8. My work is not open to new
developments or approaches.
1.686
0.692
Highly Not
Observed
9. My work environment is stressful
to me.
1.9
0.871
Not
Observed
10. I don’tt have a lot of
opportunities to take the lead in
projects.
2.057
0.759
Not
Observed
Micromanagement
2.001
0.502
Not
Observed

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
330
The survey responses provide a comprehensive understanding of employees'
perceptions of micromanagement. The overall micromanagement score of 2.001, with
a standard deviation of 0.502, indicates that employees generally do not observe a
high level of micromanagement in their work environment. The relatively low
standard deviation suggests a consistent experience of micromanagement among the
respondents.
The highest mean score of 2.671 (SD = 0.847) for the statement "I don’t
make individual decisions at the workplace all the time" reflects a significant
observation among employees that their decision-making autonomy is often
constrained. This score falls within the "Observed" range, indicating that employees
do feel some level of micromanagement in terms of their autonomy. This is further
supported by the mean score of 2.171 (SD = 0.884) for "My manager controls most of
my work," which is interpreted as "Not Observed," suggesting a moderate sense of
managerial control over employees' tasks. The requirement for frequent updates to
managers, as indicated by a mean of 2.500 (SD = 0.913), falls within the "Not
Observed" range, pointing to a moderate degree of ongoing managerial involvement
in daily activities. The perception of receiving unsolicited advice from managers, with
a mean of 1.757 (SD = 0.770), is "Highly Not Observed," indicating that this is not a
common issue among the respondents. Similarly, close oversight of even minor
details, with a mean of 1.857 (SD = 0.873), is "Not Observed," suggesting that such
micromanagement practices are not prevalent. A particularly low mean score of 1.414
(SD = 0.625) for the statement "My manager does not trust my decisions in the
workplace" indicates that employees "Highly Not Observe" a lack of trust from
managers. This perception of low trust can be critical in shaping how employees view
their autonomy and responsibility. The mean score of 2.000 (SD = 0.761) for "I don’t
often express my individuality and creativity at work" is "Not Observed," suggesting
that micromanagement may moderately inhibit personal expression and creativity,
which are important for job satisfaction and innovation. Furthermore, the perception
that their work is not open to new development or approaches, reflected by a mean of
1.686 (SD = 0.692), is "Highly Not Observed," implying that employees feel their
work environment is somewhat rigid and resistant to change. The mean of 1.900 (SD
= 0.871) for "My work environment is stressful to me" is "Not Observed," indicating
that some employees associate micromanagement with a stressful work environment.
Lastly, the mean score of 2.057 (SD = 0.759) for "I don’t have a lot of opportunities
to take the lead in projects" is "Not Observed," suggesting that employees feel they
have limited opportunities to take on leadership roles or responsibilities, which can be
an important aspect of their professional development.
In summary, the descriptive statistics highlight that micromanagement is
generally not observed as a significant influence in their work environment by the
employees. Key areas of concern include restricted decision-making autonomy and
moderate managerial control and updates. However, aspects such as unsolicited
advice, oversight of minor details, and trust issues are highly not observed as
significant problems. These perceptions provide valuable insights into how employees
experience and view micromanagement in their daily work lives.

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
331
Table 4: Statement of the Problem 2
Descriptive Statistics
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Interpretation
1. I feel confident in my ability
to perform my job tasks efficiently.
3.486
0.608
Better
2. I am satisfied with the quality
of my work.
3.4
0.623
Better
3. I effectively manage my time
to complete tasks by their
deadlines.
3.486
0.583
Better
4. I adapt well to changes in the
workplace and new challenges.
3.4
0.6
Better
5. I collaborate well with team
members to achieve common goals.
3.571
0.554
Better
6. I am motivated to perform
better at tasks.
3.386
0.708
Good
7. I demonstrate a high level of
accuracy and attention to detail in
my work.
3.4
0.6
Better
8. I consistently meet or exceed
the goals and objectives set for my
role.
3.343
0.611
Good
9. I am proactive in solving
problems and seeking solutions.
3.329
0.631
Good
10. I take initiative to go beyond
my job responsibilities when
needed.
3.3
0.645
Good
Employee Performance
3.41
0.432
Better
The descriptive statistics provide a comprehensive view of how employees
perceive their performance across various dimensions. Employees overwhelmingly
rate themselves highly in terms of job performance indicators. They feel confident in
their ability to efficiently handle job tasks, with a mean score of 3.486 and a standard
deviation of 0.608, suggesting a strong belief in their competence. Satisfaction with
the quality of their work is also high, as indicated by a mean score of 3.4 with a
standard deviation of 0.623, demonstrating their overall contentment with their work
outputs. Time management skills are another strong suit, with a mean score of 3.486
and a standard deviation of 0.583 for effectively meeting deadlines. Similarly,
employees adapt well to changes and challenges in the workplace, scoring 3.4 with a
standard deviation of 0.6, underscoring their ability to navigate dynamic work
environments adeptly. Collaboration with team members is rated highly, with a mean
score of 3.571 and a standard deviation of 0.554, reflecting their confidence in
working collectively towards shared goals. Motivation to perform better is strong,
evidenced by a mean score of 3.386 and a standard deviation of 0.708, indicating a
drive for continuous improvement. Employees also demonstrate high levels of
accuracy and attention to detail in their work, with a mean score of 3.4 and a standard

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
332
deviation of 0.6, essential for maintaining high standards. Moreover, they report
proactivity in problem-solving and initiative-taking beyond their job responsibilities,
scoring 3.329 and 3.3 respectively, highlighting their proactive approach to
challenges. Overall, these findings suggest that employees have a positive perception
of their performance across multiple dimensions, reflecting a capable and motivated
workforce.
Table 5: Statement of the Problem 3
Model Summary - Employee Performance
Model
R
R²
Adjusted R²
RMSE
1
0.954
0.91
0.908
1.04
The model summary shows a high correlation (R = 0.954) between
micromanagement and employee performance. The R-squared (R²) value of 0.91
implies that 91% of the variance in employee performance can be explained by
micromanagement. This high R² value indicates a strong explanatory power of the
model. The adjusted R² of 0.908, which is very close to the R², suggests that the
model is well-fitted, and that the addition of other variables would not significantly
improve the model. The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 1.04 represents the
average deviation of the observed values from the regression line, indicating a
relatively good fit.
Table 6: ANOVA
Model
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
p
1
Regression
752.232
1
752.232
695.601
< .001
Residual
74.618
69
1.081
Total
826.85
70
The ANOVA table provides further evidence of the model's significance.
The regression model shows a very large F-value of 695.601 with a corresponding p-
value of less than 0.001. This indicates that the overall model is statistically
significant, and that micromanagement significantly predicts employee performance.
The sum of squares for the regression (752.232) compared to the residual sum of
squares (74.618) demonstrates that a substantial portion of the variability in employee
performance is accounted for by the regression model.
Table 7: Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Standard
Error
Standardized
t
p
1
Micro
management
1.589
0.06
1.848
26.3
74
< .00
1
The coefficients table highlights the specific contribution of
micromanagement to the prediction of employee performance. The unstandardized

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
333
coefficient (B) for micromanagement is 1.589, with a standard error of 0.06. This
means that for each unit increase in micromanagement, employee performance
increases by 1.589 units. The standardized coefficient (β) is 1.848, indicating a strong
positive relationship between micromanagement and employee performance. The t-
value of 26.374 and the p-value of less than 0.001 further confirm that this
relationship is statistically significant.
Hypothesis Testing
Given the p-value is less than 0.001, which is much lower than the standard
significance level of 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis that states the perceived
micromanagement of the respondents has no significant relationship to employee
performance. Instead, we lean towards the alternative hypothesis that perceived
micromanagement of the manager to the respondents has a significant relationship to
employee performance
Relationship between Micromanagement and Employee Performance
The analysis reveals a positive relationship between micromanagement and
employee performance, as indicated by the positive coefficient. This suggests that
higher levels of micromanagement are associated with higher levels of employee
performance according to the data collected.
In summary, the regression analysis indicates a strong and statistically
significant positive relationship between micromanagement and employee
performance, suggesting that, in this context, micromanagement may play a crucial
role in enhancing how employees perceive their performance. The study's findings
suggest that micromanagement, typically viewed negatively, can positively impact
employee performance in certain contexts. This implies that organizations might need
to reassess their management practices, considering that appropriate levels of
oversight can enhance task completion, accuracy, and guidance. However, it remains
crucial to balance this with employee autonomy to avoid potential drawbacks like
reduced morale and creativity. Tailored management approaches, informed by the
nature of tasks and individual employee needs, along with ongoing manager training
and regular performance assessments, can help optimize the benefits of
micromanagement while mitigating its risks.
Rationale for Potential Impact of Observed Micromanagement on Employee
Performance
The regression analysis indicates a significant positive relationship between
micromanagement and employee performance, despite the absence of direct
observation of micromanagement behaviors in the current dataset. The unstandardized
coefficient (B = 1.589) suggests that for every unit increase in perceived
micromanagement, employee performance increases by approximately 1.589 units.
This finding implies that if employees were to observe explicit instances of
micromanagement in their work environments, the potential enhancement in
performance could be even more pronounced.

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
334
While the current study did not directly observe micromanagement practices,
the strong positive relationship (β = 1.848) identified underscores the theoretical basis
that well-managed micromanagement—characterized by clear guidance, support, and
attention to detail—can positively influence employee performance. Employees
perceiving such management practices might experience heightened clarity in task
expectations, improved alignment with organizational goals, and increased
accountability, all of which can contribute to enhanced performance outcomes.
In practical terms, if organizations were to implement and sustain effective
micromanagement practices—where managers provide constructive oversight without
stifling autonomy—employees could potentially benefit from clearer directives,
reduced ambiguity in roles, and improved support in navigating complex tasks. This
could lead to higher task completion rates, improved accuracy, and a greater sense of
achievement, all contributing to better overall performance.
However, it is essential to balance micromanagement with opportunities for
autonomy and creativity to prevent potential negative effects such as reduced morale
or innovation stagnation. Organizations should adopt tailored management
approaches that consider the nature of tasks and individual employee preferences,
alongside ongoing training for managers in effective leadership and feedback
practices.
In conclusion, while the study's findings suggest a positive association
between micromanagement and employee performance, the hypothetical scenario
where micromanagement is actively observed could potentially amplify these positive
effects. This underscores the importance for organizations to strategically assess and
optimize their management practices to foster a supportive and productive work
environment.
Related Literature based on the findings of the study
Although micromanagement is usually associated with poor outcomes, there
are some positive aspects to it when done properly. The European CEO article claims
that if micromanagement strikes the correct mix between independence and
monitoring, it can increase output and give workers more power. Good
micromanagers make sure that objectives are accomplished while creating a positive
atmosphere by keeping lines of communication open and managing their time well.
This strategy can be especially helpful in fields like law enforcement or medicine
where exact direction is essential. Redefining micromanagement is crucial to
preserving its benefits and minimizing any potential drawbacks (Hunter, n.d.).
Furthermore, the article emphasizes that micromanagement, when done
right, can create a robust organizational structure that enhances overall performance
and morale. By implementing systems that promote two-way trust and clear
communication, leaders can ensure that their teams operate smoothly and efficiently.
The positive traits of micromanagement include preventing miscommunication and
providing clear expectations, which are essential for maintaining team harmony and

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
335
avoiding errors. However, it is crucial for leaders to balance involvement with
granting autonomy to prevent the negative consequences typically associated with
micromanagement, such as reduced morale and employee resentment.
Although it is sometimes condemned for having a detrimental effect on
worker morale and output, micromanagement, when used sparingly, can be helpful in
some circumstances. Sharma (2022) asserts that micromanagement can boost team
output by guaranteeing that tasks are finished accurately, lowering workflow errors,
and preserving team morale by providing clear guidelines and expectations. By
regularly monitoring duties, it also helps prevent misunderstandings and guarantees
correct performance, which is especially advantageous for new or inexperienced staff.
But in order to prevent any negative effects that micromanagement may have,
including low team morale and decreased creativity, it must be used carefully.
Micromanagement can help managers restore control and guarantee accurate
task execution in emergency situations. According to Sharma (2022),
micromanagement can offer the essential oversight to get a project back on track in
situations where a team member is underperforming, urgent stakeholder requests
come up, or the project is delayed. This method works well when working with less
seasoned staff members that need more direction. To encourage independence and
innovation among the team members, supervisors should adopt a less directive style
once the pressing matter has been resolved.
Even though micromanagement is sometimes seen unfavorably, when done
correctly, it can have some good benefits on businesses. Improving employee
performance through tight monitoring and mentoring is one such advantage.
Managers may guarantee that staff members adhere to procedures accurately and
uphold high standards of quality by paying close attention to detail (Vantagecircle,
2024). This can be especially helpful in sectors like manufacturing or healthcare
where accuracy is essential. Furthermore, with ongoing supervision and guidance
from their managers, employees can enhance their performance and acquire new
abilities through micromanagement, which functions as a type of on-the-job training.
V. Conclusion
This study has demonstrated a robust and statistically significant positive
correlation between micromanagement and employee performance at Pearson
Management Services Philippines, Inc., highlighting that micromanagement can
positively influence employee outcomes under certain conditions. Contrary to the
conventional negative perception of micromanagement, our findings indicate that in
certain contexts, micromanagement can enhance employees' task completion,
accuracy, and guidance, thereby positively influencing their performance.
The implications of these findings are significant for organizational
management practices. While micromanagement is often criticized for stifling
creativity and lowering employee morale, this study highlights its potential benefits
when applied judiciously. Appropriate levels of oversight can ensure tasks are

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
336
completed efficiently and accurately, providing necessary guidance and support that
may enhance employee confidence and competence. Therefore, organizations might
need to reassess their management practices, ensuring that micromanagement is
implemented in a balanced manner that leverages its benefits while minimizing its
drawbacks.
However, it remains crucial to balance micromanagement with employee
autonomy to prevent potential negative impacts such as reduced morale and
creativity. Excessive micromanagement can lead to a stressful work environment and
inhibit employees' ability to express their individuality and creativity. Therefore, a
nuanced approach is necessary, one that incorporates tailored management strategies
based on the specific needs of tasks and individual employees.
Tailored management approaches that account for the nature of tasks and
individual employee needs, combined with ongoing manager training and regular
performance assessments, can help optimize the benefits of micromanagement while
mitigating its risks. This approach will ensure that employees receive the appropriate
level of support and oversight needed to enhance their performance without feeling
overly controlled or restricted.
Recommendation
For the employees who are experiencing micromanagement in their
workplace, it is recommended to communicate and to initiate a conversation with the
managers or supervisors. Express your concerns respectfully and in a constructive
manner. It is also encouraged to show competence and capability. As consistent high-
quality output can increase trust which will result in the less need for
micromanagement.
It is also recommended to seek support to the Human Resource department
or a trustworthy mentor within the company. If it persists and becomes excessive or
destructive, an external mediation can assist in resolving the issue.
For the top management or the organization, leadership training is strongly
recommended. Such training helps leaders develop the necessary skills and mindset to
inspire their teams and maintain strategic oversight without resorting to excessive
control. This approach is crucial for reducing the risks associated with
micromanagement and fostering a healthy, productive, and engaged workforce.
For future researchers, it is advised to replicate similar studies across various
companies, industries, and with larger sample sizes to improve the generalizability of
the results. Broadening the research scope to include diverse organizational settings
will yield a more comprehensive understanding of the nuanced impacts of
micromanagement on employee performance and inform the development of more
effective management strategies. Additionally, future studies could explore additional
variables such as employee engagement, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment in relation to micromanagement, offering deeper insights into its overall
effects. Longitudinal studies are also suggested to evaluate the long-term

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
337
consequences of micromanagement on employee performance and organizational
outcomes.
References
1. American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Effective mentoring relationships:
Balancing support and independence. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/education-career/grad/mentoring
2. American Psychological Association. (2023). Workplace health and well-being.
Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/work-in-america/2023-
workplace-health-well-being
3. APA Dictionary of Psychology. (n.d.). https://dictionary.apa.org/quantitative-
research
4. Bajo, A. (2020, August 19). MMC chairman says designation of cabinet
members in LGUs not ―toxic micromanagement.‖ Gmanetwork.
https://www.gmanetwork.com/ncaa/news/metro/752011/mmc-chairman-says-
designation-of-cabinet-members-in-lgus-not-toxic-micromanagement/story/
5. Chambers, H. (2009). Excerpt. My Way or the Highway: The Micromanagement
Survival Guide.
https://www.bkconnection.com/static/My_Way_or_the_Highway_EXCERPT.pdf
6. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555
7. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination
in human behavior. In Springer eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-
2271-7
8. Forbes Coaches Council. (2023, June 21). 5 ways to stop micromanaging your
team. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2023/06/21/5-
ways-to-stop-micromanaging-your-team/?sh=1efe19c75e39
9. Forbes Coaches Council. (2023, July 13). Why it's crucial to avoid
micromanaging your managers. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2023/07/13/why-its-crucial-
to-avoid-micromanaging-your-managers/?sh=1cde0e899cbb
10. Gallup. (2020, February 17). Managing employees through a crisis. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/282584/managing-employees-through-
crisis.aspx
11. Geladi, P., & Kowalski, B. R. (1986). Partial least-squares regression: A tutorial.
Analytica Chimica Acta, 185, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2670(86)80028-
9
12. George, D. (2016). Trust & Growth in the Workplace: An Analysis of Leadership
in Flat Organizations. https://doi.org/10.15760/honors.341
13. Hunter, B. (n.d.). The pros of micromanagement: Why some traits can be good
for business. Retrieved from https://www.europeanceo.com/business-and-
management/the-pros-of-micromanagement-why-some-traits-can-be-good-for-
business/
14. Jacobs, S. (2019). Micromanagement Negatively Affects Employees - Here’re 7
Ways. [online] eLeaP. Available at: https://www.eleapsoftware.com/7-ways-
micromanagement-negatively-affects-
employees/#:~:text=Micromanagers%20over%20time%20exert%20a

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
338
15. Janakiraman, S. (2021). Using digital games in virtual classrooms to make
attitudinal learning motivating and engaging. In Advances in mobile and distance
learning book series (pp. 236–258). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7222-
1.ch012
16. Knight, R. (2015). Why capable people are reluctant to lead. Harvard Business
Review. https://hbr.org/2015/03/why-capable-people-are-reluctant-to-lead
17. Laerd Statistics. (n.d.). Simple linear regression. Retrieved from
https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/simple-linear-regression-statistical-
guide.php
18. Lee, J., Ahn, S., Henning, M., Van De Riddler, M., Rajput, V. (2023).
Micromanagement in clinical supervision: a scoping review. Volume 23. Pages 2
and 12. ProQuest. Retrieved from
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2852025289/C04B7BEDE5F344DBPQ/8?so
urcetype=Scholarly%20Journals
19. Lipman, V. (2018). 5 Reasons Why Micromanagers Fail. Psychology Today.
Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/cutting-edge-
leadership/201808/5-reasons-why-micromanagers-fail
20. Marks, M. (2019). Let go: Teaching a micromanager how to chill. SHRM.
Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/employee-relations/let-
go-teaching-micromanager-how-to-chill
21. Merriam-Webster. (1989). The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Merriam-Webster-Dictionary-Montage-
Cover/dp/0877799016
22. Miller, L. (2020). How to Dissuade Micromanagers. SHRM. Retrieved from
https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/organizational-employee-
development/how-to-dissuade-micromanagers
23. Mutabazi, P. (2020). How Micromanagement Negatively Affects Employees.
LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-
micromanagement-negatively-affects-employees-patrick-mutabazi/
24. Namie, G. (2023). Why Micromanaging is Driving the Most Creative Employees
Out. Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/bully-wise/202307/why-
micromanaging-is-driving-the-most-creative-employees-out
25. Nikolopoulou, K. (2023, June 22). What Is Purposive Sampling? | Definition &
Examples. https://www.scribbr.com/.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/purposive-sampling/
26. Oktal, Kaan and Yucel, Eray (2023): Developing a Measurement Framework and
Survey for Micromanagement. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/119438/1/MPRA_paper_119438.pdf
27. Peregrine, M. (2023, February 25). The perils of micromanagement: Re-
evaluating Jimmy Carter's leadership style. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelperegrine/2023/02/25/the-perils-of-
micromanagement-re-evaluating-jimmy-carters-leadership-
style/?sh=4a1e39ce7c83
28. Puutio, A. (2024, May 5). Confessions of a micromanager and how to break the
habit. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexanderpuutio/2024/05/05/confessions-of-a-
micromanager-and-how-to-break-the-habit/?sh=68add4ef2120

International Journal for Research Trends in Social Science & Humanities
Volume 2 Issue 4
July-Aug 2024, PP 312-339
339
29. Robinson, G. (2020). 8 Micromanaging Boss Traits That Endanger Your
Business. Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/curating-your-life/202010/8-
micromanaging-boss-traits-that-endanger-your-business
30. Ryan, S., & Cross, C. (2024). Micromanagement and its impact on millennial
followership styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(1),
140–152. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-07-2022-0329
31. Sapadin, L. (2019). Feeling Dismissed vs. Micromanaged: How to Break the
Pattern. Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fixing-families/201910/feeling-
dismissed-vs-micromanaged-how-break-the-pattern
32. Sapadin, L. (2020). Feeling Micromanaged? 4 Ways to See It Differently.
Psychology Today. Retrieved from
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/fixing-families/202006/feeling-
micromanaged-4-ways-see-it-differently
33. Saunders, E. G. (2016, August 29). Why is micromanagement so infectious?
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/08/why-is-micromanagement-so-
infectious
34. Schmidt, E. (2011, April 25). Google: Don't choose to micromanage. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2011/04/google-dont-choose-micromanage
35. Sharma, D. (2022, June 16). Is micromanagement at work good? 5 scenarios
where it works. Risely. https://www.risely.me/when-can-micromanagement-be-a-
good-option-for-managers/
36. Society for Human Resource Management. (2020). Don’t micromanage the
coronavirus. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/managing-
smart/dont-micromanage-coronavirus
37. Society for Human Resource Management. (2021). Viewpoint: How great remote
managers differ. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/topics-
tools/news/managing-smart/viewpoint-great-remote-managers-differently
38. The power of trust and avoiding micromanagement. (n.d.). Human Resources |
Baylor University. https://hr.web.baylor.edu/news/story/2023/power-tr
39. Vantage Circle. (2024, June 5). How micromanagement is harming your
company. Vantage Circle. Retrieved June 30, 2024, from
https://www.vantagecircle.com/en/blog/micromanagement/