In the world of business, there is an eternal debate concerning macro management vs micromanagement. While some strongly believe that the devil is in the details and every employee should get as much input as possible, others opt for a more casual approach by setting general goals and letting people do the work.

Is one really better than the other, and who wins in this everlasting war of management styles?

Macro Management vs Micromanagement: The Definitions and Examples

To understand what these two styles are all about, as well as their advantages and disadvantages, it is necessary to cover the basics and provide examples that will address the differences between micro and macro management.

What is Micro Management?

To put it simply, micro management is all about control. It is a leadership style marked by supervision, constant input, and constant delegation of tasks. The obsession with details and low levels of trust result in an often toxic workplace, thus leading to lower job retention.

‍

A 2014 Accountemps survey shows that 59% of all people have worked under micromanagers at some point in their careers. 68% of them claimed this type of management had devastating effects on their morale, and 58% noted it harmed their productivity. A study by the website WeAreDevelopers claims that IT workers in Switzerland, Austria, and Germany hate micromanagement more than anything else.

‍

Here are some common micro management examples:

‍

• Focus on unimportant details rather than the project in general.
• Every task requires multiple levels of approval to prevent “disasters”.
• Lack of trust in team members, as the manager believes they know better.
• Detailed instructions that are less helpful and more limiting, resulting in no creativity in the workplace.
• High turnover of workers, as very few can bear the emotional stress of constantly being managed.

What is Macro Managing?

Macro managing is the exact opposite of micromanaging. It is a style of leadership that is primarily focused on reaching the goal while providing the employees with much-needed autonomy and creativity. In other words, workers get a great deal of both freedom and responsibility. Now, let’s take a look at some macro management examples:

‍

• There is a high level of trust between the leader and the team.
• Team members are fully responsible for their part of the project as intrapreneurship is highly encouraged.
• The leader is more open to new ideas and unorthodox approaches.
• The leader sets the goal, and the team chooses one or more methods to reach it.
• Focuses on long-term effects.
• Openness to new ideas, tools, and software such as Flexopus (for flexible workplaces, meeting rooms, and parking spaces) that make workers’ lives easier.

The Comparison: Macro management vs micromanagement

The definitions are out of the way, but what is the difference between micro and macro management?

‍

• In macro management, the leader leads; in micromanagement the leader commands.
• Macro management centres around trust; micromanagement centres around control.
• Micromanagement is all about the details, while macro management is all about the outcome.
• Productivity is higher in macro-managed environments than in micro-managed teams.
• Micromanagement has a higher chance of slipping into toxic behaviour.

Macro Management vs Micromanagement: When to Use Them and How?

Although it might seem like micromanagement has nothing to do with the workplace of the 21st century, especially with hybrid workplaces and remote jobs, macro management is not flawless. There are certain situations when one works better than the other.

When to Choose Macro Management?

Macro management, albeit often perceived as ideal, doesn’t work with the following:

‍

• Young and inexperienced teams and managers.
• No short-term goals, but only a general goal or vision.
• A team that is not properly balanced and consists of individuals who use different methods, skills, and styles of communication, as well as ones with different levels of creativity.

‍

On the other hand, it will work well when:

‍

• The team consists of highly skilled workers who need little to no guidance.
• There is a high level of trust between different members of the team and the leader.
• Basic guidelines are transparently set, with no room for different interpretations.
• In companies that, due to the nature of their business, may allow more creative ideas and unorthodox methods.
• It is used on higher levels within the company.

When to Choose Micromanagement?

These are some situations when micromanagement can be a good thing:

‍

• When deadlines are short and workloads are complex, the team might appreciate a more hands-on approach.
• Inexperienced and new managers might benefit from micromanaging.
• When the leader foresees a potential issue that team members haven’t noticed.
• It is an ideal choice for teams and tasks that rely heavily on structure.
• When the team is stuck and can’t seem to find the solution.
• When micro-managers know whom they can trust and rely on.
• When managers are capable of adapting their style and communication to different individuals depending on their needs.

Coaching - A New Type of Micromanagement?

As an alternative to overcontrolling micromanagement and somewhat loose macro management, German data company Sulzer suggests coaching and agile leadership. It is a type of management that combines the best of the two most famous management styles.

Essentially, the main goal of coaching is to create a team that will know how to work independently in the future. By making individuals take on a challenge with minimum instruction yet constant supervision, companies can increase retention and workers’ satisfaction.

Agile managers act when they have to, leave feedback, and are open to communication, but at the same time, they reassure the team and allow them to be genuine in their ideas. They serve as mentors more than leaders. Even so, companies must always be ready to discuss and explore different styles so they can easily adapt to any new circumstances.