Micro-manager v. Macro-manager: which is worse? (job hunting, employees, job, hiring)

[LexWest]

Many of us have probably experienced both at one point in time.

The micro-manager keeps you under scrutiny, questioning your moves. S/he gives advice on your work whether or not you think it's necessary. At times you don't feel trusted. You may appreciate his/her concerns when needed, but also think s/he doubts your capabilities when you're doing a capable job.

Pro: They're there when you don't need them
Con: They're there when you do need them

The macro-manager is the opposite: S/he may be absent often, leaving you to make all/most of the decisions, s/he isn't abundant with advice, but expects a certain level of competency, whether or not the few directions given are completely understood. His/her absenteeism be a relief for awhile, but his/her lack of direction can come across as detached and apathetic, and may be frustrating when you're left with even the responsibilities s/he should be making.

Pro: They aren't there when you don't need them
Con: They aren't there when you do need them

Which do you think is worse and why?

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by LexWest

Many of us have probably experienced both at one point in time.

The micro-manager keeps you under scrutiny, questioning your moves. S/he gives advice on your work whether or not you think it's necessary. At times you don't feel trusted. You may appreciate his/her concerns when needed, but also think s/he doubts your capabilities when you're doing a capable job.

Pro: They're there when you don't need them
Con: They're there when you do need them

The macro-manager is the opposite: S/he may be absent often, leaving you to make all/most of the decisions, s/he isn't abundant with advice, but expects a certain level of competency, whether or not the few directions given are completely understood. His/her absenteeism be a relief for awhile, but his/her lack of direction can come across as detached and apathetic, and may be frustrating when you're left with even the responsibilities s/he should be making.

Pro: They aren't there when you don't need them
Con: They aren't there when you do need them

Which do you think is worse and why?

My Opinion: If you're competent you will hate the Micro and not need the Macro. Micro only works for a trainee or someone who is struggling with their assignment.

My last two bosses trusted me to do a good job, left me alone and they were not disappointed. Having a Micro would drive me nuts and make me feel like the boss doesn't trust me to do the job right.

[Opyelie]

Originally Posted by LexWest

Many of us have probably experienced both at one point in time.

The micro-manager keeps you under scrutiny, questioning your moves. S/he gives advice on your work whether or not you think it's necessary. At times you don't feel trusted. You may appreciate his/her concerns when needed, but also think s/he doubts your capabilities when you're doing a capable job.

Pro: They're there when you don't need them
Con: They're there when you do need them

The macro-manager is the opposite: S/he may be absent often, leaving you to make all/most of the decisions, s/he isn't abundant with advice, but expects a certain level of competency, whether or not the few directions given are completely understood. His/her absenteeism be a relief for awhile, but his/her lack of direction can come across as detached and apathetic, and may be frustrating when you're left with even the responsibilities s/he should be making.

Pro: They aren't there when you don't need them
Con: They aren't there when you do need them

Which do you think is worse and why?

Think this may be back (bolded type) to front LOL

I think they're both as bad as the other to be honest. Both cause unnecessary stress for the worker who is just trying to do their job to the best of their ability.

[Sunnnee]

Do your job, stay clear of gossip and bull**** and you will be fine.

[goyanks57]

I've had the opportunity to work under several micro-managers and one macro-manager. Under the macro-manager, things ran pretty smooth and my fellow associates and I were able to make decisions without having to go through the chain of command.

Micro-managers are very difficult to work for, IMO. They treat employees like robots and don't trust them to get the job done right the first time, and on their own. Yes, they will be there when you need them but when you don't need them and don't want them around, you are always having to look over your shoulder and make sure you are doing things the right way.

In short, macro-managers trust their employees, micro-managers don't.

[WestCobb]

Originally Posted by goyanks57

I've had the opportunity to work under several micro-managers and one macro-manager. Under the macro-manager, things ran pretty smooth and my fellow associates and I were able to make decisions without having to go through the chain of command.

Micro-managers are very difficult to work for, IMO. They treat employees like robots and don't trust them to get the job done right the first time, and on their own. Yes, they will be there when you need them but when you don't need them and don't want them around, you are always having to look over your shoulder and make sure you are doing things the right way.

In short, macro-managers trust their employees, micro-managers don't.

I somewhat agree with this assessment, but what about the macro-manager who is out of touch and out of sight, but if something goes wrong, there he or she is to stick the blame to you in front of the highers. Ever work for someone like that? They're great!

[Opyelie]

Originally Posted by goyanks57

In short, macro-managers trust their employees, micro-managers don't.

Or, more to the point, macro managers trust their own judgement (in hiring) while micros don't (hence the constant scrutiny).

[icibiu]

I think what's worse than these two management types is subordinate who is unwilling to adapt their work style to fit in with their superiors management style. Like it or not this person is higher than you for a reason (no matter how many times you mumble under your breath that they are incompetent do nothings).

If you have a micro manager and are not willing to go job hunting then I suggest you take the time to CONSTANTLY update your manager on where you are with a project, what items are pending and what decisions need to be made. If this person knows they can count on you to constantly give them information then they will be much less likely to peer over your shoulder every five minutes.

Have a macro manager? Great, still update them periodically so they know you are alive and working. Need guidance on a project don't pester them every five minutes of their day with silly questions use the opportunity to make some decisions on your own and save all your important questions for the end of the day/week, whatever works.

Until the day when you are you own boss you will need to report to SOMEONE so I suggest you work on adapting to them instead of expecting your boss to adapt to you.

[joey2000]

Neither, really; it's all how they manifest. I've experienced the pros and cons of both.

[LexWest]

Originally Posted by Opyelie

Think this may be back (bolded type) to front LOL

I think they're both as bad as the other to be honest. Both cause unnecessary stress for the worker who is just trying to do their job to the best of their ability.

Thanks for catching that Opyelie, I meant it to be the other way around...