In a world that has for a considerable extent of time now been flaunting competitiveness as part of the repertoire of its requirement in worthy existence, it is only but certain that efficiency would find exaltation as a character trait desired by each and every one in their professional profile. Companies and organisations do stress immensely on the productivity of their employees even as the employees themselves recognise the necessity of this efficient attribute in working. In such range of relevance that productivity has come to reside in by virtue of its arising in a work specific essence has therefore also led certain parallel necessities to unfurl as identities of the very competitive professional world.
This desire for efficiency while occurs indeed as a very legit understanding of getting work done has also though spurred some conflicts almost in the workplace. And one of the most ‘contended’ areas in this line of happening concerns the managerial aspect of work. Indeed, the potential of what workers and employees hold can only be of value when it serves the function of yielding output that matters in the business. Which is why managing the people or rather, the human resources in employment in any organisation occurs as so important a consideration to ensure optimum utilisation of the services for which they are hired against pay.
However, the immense exertion of demand for such management that is efficient itself in ensuring as efficient performance by the employees has led this whole managerial necessity to often come to explore the ends of the extremes. What has arisen out of such intensive requirement has been two dynamically opposite ways in realising that one singular end of ensuring that the people involved in a professional setup are exclusively attending to the duties of which they are assigned. But is the case with any effort made in extremes, such approach to business management harbours the risk of occurring instead as upsetting the very ones they were supposed to aid in asserting optimum efficiency.
Emerging as very evident antonyms of each other are the two specific opposites in managing businesses and such professional spaces in the distinct identities of micromanaging and macromanaging. They indeed are as far removed from each other in essence as they possibly can be even when the literal mode of their divergence prevails through only a sole letter that makes indeed all the difference. Micromanagement emerges as a very intrusive style in attempting to manage the human assets, prevailing as a forever present repulsion that threatens in fact to ruin the professional environment itself. Macromanagement on the other hand asserts as a very ‘independent’ take on managing the employees of the business, to extents so much afar that is more that likely to assume instead a character in unprofessional much laidbackness.
The extremity of either of these two distinct ways in which managers most often tend to administer businesses might immediately be asserting of their status in undesirability. But it generally is the micromanagerial approach that is viewed as out-and-out ineffective a measure in this regard. The macromanagement style is allowed some laxity in its many an elements of favourability indeed but reiterated as too relaxed a take to what occurs essentially upon the demanding premises of a competitive professionalism and the flaws of it come to be as apparent to thwart its reputation.
In the case of micromanagement, the reasons of its red flagness is easier to ascertain though. Even when it might come across as a sometimes necessary measure in managing ‘unruly’ employees or reining in unprofessional attitudes, the account of micro managing occurs by and large as toxic behavior almost. Micromanagement by itself is a proclamation in exerting too much control by a nauseating almost extent of attention lend to even the most insignificant of details. Always asserting as extreme therefore as well as accompanied by other repulsive realisations of an obsession almost on part of the upper management to control rather every activity of the employees is what makes micromanaging businesses a tactic more than sure in creating ‘helicopter bosses’ over helpful ones.
It isn’t also the superficial seeming assertion of excessive control alone that proves to be ruining all of the micros of managing. In much appallingness instead of such ruling, it also is an extension of the needlessness of such dictation to cover also at times necessary functioning of employees in individuality. Micromanagers leave no scope for even the most efficient of workers to exert own discretion and make decisions even when they are well and fully entitled to do so in all authority. So intrusively taking stock of every step in doing by others is the way in managing identifying within the micro spectrum that the entire process in working is not left to be even to the ones very definitely assigned to that specific responsibility.
Another very unamusing possibility embedded within the micromanagement fore is what asserts as obsessive again a call for reports, often in unsubstantial contexts of asking. In fact so irrationally driven is this compulsion on part of managers to seek reports from their subordinates on pretty much any and every aspect of what is being done that has even earned this ‘obnoxious’ trait a reference as reportomania. So devoted are micromanagers to their utmost ‘belief’ upon these reports that very well overlooks also the more mattering affairs in the quality of output or even the overall productivity itself of which it was meant to enhance.
Micromanagement then occurs as less a technique in managing businesses or the employees thereof and is more evidently a case in management. Managing might not even be the alluding appropriate to account for such practices, with the absolute intent arising instead as controlling and dictating affairs personally even when they happen to be of business importance, much literally. Such attitude in conducting what is essentially professional work might, in greater appallingness even be a play upon both personal and professional factors which is what makes them manifest as even more established a dictum into which some businesses are inescapably merged.
Such extremes of the micromanagement exploring though tend to take upon even accelerated a manner of functioning, through the extremest of such extreme ends occurring as the absolutely devastative assertions in workplace bullying and leading thereby to the emergence of a dysfunctional and disruptive work environment. No wonder micromanagement is proclaimed to be one of the most hostile conditions of work that anyone can be subject to under the guise of ‘gainful employment’.
In such light of appearance that micromanagement occurs in complete horridness, the freedom and flexibility afforded under the macromanagement functioning of workplaces might seem more than promising. As a leadership tactic that believes in letting employees work out their responsibilities with almost no interference from their immediate bosses, the hands- off element characateristic of micro managing surmises perhaps one of the most convenient and conducive conditions in professional working. There is a certain ‘easiness’ in working with macromanagers which might very much be one of the motivating factors for employees to work in all their capacity in recognition perhaps of the entitlement they enjoy. And as such, businesses majorly conducted along the aspects in macromanagerial consideration find greater favor all favor.
But the not so rosy unfurling of macromanagement can prove to be trickier to handle than even the outright nosy prevailing of the micromanaging identity. That macromanagement can be as susceptible to falling prey to two very contrasting occurrings across that dimension prepares as well the ground for another definite difficulty to deal with. For on one hand of the spectrum there is the possibility of the distanced practice on part of the managers to provide an opportunity for employees to lax about with their work. The opposite avenue of prevailing asserts instead, quite interestingly as a repercussion not very far removed from the perspective of what necessarily sums up the micromanagerial musings. Even when the working of them is different, the premise of their assertion is still the same- one that hinges upon the much volatile fore of mental disturbance.
This second nature of what is very likely to flow from within the macro nature of workplace management emerges as a certain adverseness of the disconnect that employees might experience. With no one to account to, even in optimum attendance, there might be a lack of motivation for workers to actually put their heart into the work they do, persisting instead through their duties as routine of such yielding perhaps that they might not even perceive as being of substance. That itself is a prominent even when nondeliberate ploy against professional performances and one that can be interpreted also as an arrangement in such nondefiniteness adversely affecting the very image in integrity of the workplace.
Also, outside its own prevailing in some vagueness, the unexpected outcome in such alienation might also present itself as even vaguer therefore a case in attending. Because while the undue liberty taken by employees in such advantages intended to empower them might at least be questioned in the longer run of what has been entailed out of them through reviewing of their performances, the measures are not so concrete in the other version of unaccountability. There very often might not even be an awareness of this second mode of as definite pervasiveness, making therefore the very need in attending to them occur as obsolete as such. Needless to say, such weighing down upon the specifics of what does not manifest even when they exist indeed arising as an unattended expression within the realm of macromanagement is what makes also this alternate style of carrying out businesses another case in non essential extremism.
But what makes macromanagement equally unattractive a practice in leading to that same undesired availing in the form of productive inefficiency is the hollowness of it. The extreme assertion of independence that macromanagers subject their subordinates to endow upon them also an associated interpretation in disconnect. But some of those working under these lesser engaged bosses are also more likelier to persist through their staying on that capacity because they do not have to handle that prospect in wilting under pressure. Which means that productivity and output might even stop being the yardsticks for macromanaged businesses to gauge by. So while the toxicity that ruins the image of micromanagers means that employees under them quit more often than not, what unfurls from within the domain of any professional setup a bit too unbothered in its macromanagement leanings is an incurring of costs upon such ‘assets’ that they themselves have allowed to prevail rather than persist – neither of which is the optimum result that all businesses ultimately look to derive to strive and thrive through their venture as prominently profitable identities.
The middle ground of eking therefore in managing business is what is very obviously the desired way forward. And that can be done very apparently and effectively indeed by drawing upon either case of consideration of the contrasting claims in which they actually converge.