Rethinking Micromanagement: When It's Actually Necessary

The consensus is clear: micromanagement is bad. It wastes time, slows productivity, and fosters distrust. And let me be upfront—I absolutely loathe micromanagement. I don't have the time to micromanage anyone, nor do I have the patience to be micromanaged myself. I'm simply not a fan.

However, I want to offer a different perspective. There are definitely some instances where micromanagement is not only helpful but necessary.

When Micromanagement Is Requested

In my entire career, I've only experienced one person who actually requested to be micromanaged. Years ago, I was working with a project manager who had just started his position. His background was in account management, and he had never worked as a project manager.

In our very first team meeting after he started, he told us directly: "I need my hand held. I need help, and I need someone to walk with me every step of the way. I need to be micromanaged."

The rest of us project managers sat there with our mouths open, thinking, "How did you even get this job?" But I understood his reasoning. He wanted to do a great job and didn't want to mess up. He recognized his limitations and asked for the support he needed.

Again, I only experienced this once in my career. 

When Micromanagement Is Required

Beyond that unusual request, I can share several examples where micromanagement was absolutely required.

Government Contracts

I've worked on multiple government projects—both during the proposal stage and after we'd won contracts and needed to build the systems we'd promised. Both phases required micromanagement because the stakes were extremely high, and we simply could not afford mistakes.

Sensitive Data Handling

Anytime we dealt with PHI (Personal Health Information) or PII (Personal Identification Information), especially in a government space, whatever we were doing with that data was micromanaged. This level of oversight was necessary and appropriate.

High-Stakes Initiatives

Whether we were introducing a new AI tool, onboarding a new product or service to our portfolio, or building out a new department, certain projects demanded closer oversight. The key factor was often the level of risk involved.

The Important Distinction

Here's what I want to emphasize: when micromanagement is necessary, you don't micromanage the person—you micromanage that specific initiative or that one piece of the project. It's about the work, not about controlling the individual.

Anytime the risks are high, a degree of micromanagement is required. But this doesn't mean hovering over someone's shoulder. It means implementing appropriate oversight, clear checkpoints, and rigorous review processes for that particular initiative.

The Bottom Line

While micromanagement should never be the default management style, there are legitimate situations where increased oversight is warranted. The key is recognizing when those situations arise and applying focused management to the initiative itself, not using it as a blanket approach to managing people.