Gaining a reputation as a micromanager is one of the many things leaders and managers seek to avoid.

Instead, they want to be seen for their human generosity, creating space for others, or their ability to share a vision.

But then, their experience often becomes one of frustration. It may seem as if teams don’t act as expected, individuals don’t seem to understand what to do, and engagement seems to be lacking.

It’s one of the results of the way micromanagement and management by objectives are being understood. It is a regular consequence when terms become disconnected from the theory they are based on. It also is a misunderstanding of what type of communication and understanding is expected.

When seen in terms of interactions with others, micromanagement, and management by objectives are on two sides of the management spectrum. But what is probably more important about them is, that they may use different assumption about individuals. One assumption is that people are resistant to responsibility and lack ambition. The other is, that people have developed such behavior. It is the result of past experiences in other organizations.

What the latter implies is that people can regain their natural desire to be responsible and ambitious.

To do so, it helps to have managers who inquire about their progress, initiatives, and understanding of the situation. Managers who reflect back to them how well it aligns with the shared vision. And managers who take notice of ideas they hadn’t expected and find themselves learning from. Such exchanges have nothing to do with micromanagement. It is there to help knowing what is happening and how it aligns with expectations.

The manager’s benefit is that instead of needing to control every action they can stay aware of how well the situation is under control.

It requires investing oneself in understanding what others are trying to achieve. And it asks the manager to be clear about his objectives.