Skip to Content News Archives Economy Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials HomeWorkWhy the cost of micromanagement is often your best employeesIf employees never have the opportunity to exercise judgment, it becomes very difficult to criticize them for lacking itLast updated 1 hour ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.One of the great misconceptions in management is that the more closely employees are supervised, the more accountable they become, write Howard Levitt and Dante Capannelli. Photo by StockPhotoPro - stock.adobe.comOne of the more surprising conversations that we have with employers begins once they have decided to dismiss someone.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an Accountor“The employee showed poor judgment,” they say.Perhaps.But before accepting that conclusion, we usually ask a question they were not expecting.“When was the last time you allowed the employee to exercise any?”It is remarkable how frequently the answer is, “Not very often.”Every significant email had to be pre-approved. Client communications were rewritten before they were sent. Routine decisions required management’s permission. Progress meetings consumed hours each week. Reports were generated that nobody seemed to read. Somewhere along the way, supervision became substitution.FP Work touches on HR strategy, labour economics, office culture, technology and more.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Work will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againThen, after the employee failed to demonstrate initiative, the employer concluded that was the problem. But it may not have been.One of the great misconceptions in management is that the more closely employees are supervised, the more accountable they become.The opposite is usually true.The more decisions require approval, the less ownership employees have over them. After all, if someone else is calling all the shots, whose decisions are they?Managers then find themselves trapped by a problem of their own making. Every issue lands on their desk. Every client request needs their blessing. Every minor disagreement is escalated.They complain that employees do not think independently. And many will not. But that is sometimes because independent thinking has been trained out of them.Employment law recognizes an employer’s broad right to manage. Courts are not interested in running businesses. They have consistently recognized that employers may establish standards, supervise performance and hold employees accountable.What courts are less willing to accept is management exercised arbitrarily, inconsistently or in a manner that fundamentally alters the employment relationship. Lawsuits, in various forms, flow from that. The issue is rarely whether an employer exercised authority; it is whether that authority was exercised fairly, consistently and rationally.Ironically, good management follows much the same principle.Oversight is essential. Micromanagement is usually optional. There is an important distinction between measuring results and directing every step taken to achieve them. One promotes accountability; the other replaces it.Technology has made that distinction easier to overlook. Today’s employer can monitor emails, logins, Teams messages, workflows, calendars and, increasingly, AI-generated productivity metrics. The temptation is understandable. If something can be measured, why not do so and monitor it?The danger is that organizations begin measuring activity instead of contributions.An employee who sends 12 status reports will accomplish less than one who quietly solves 12 problems.A manager copied on every email may feel informed while becoming the biggest obstacle to getting anything done.The most closely supervised employee is not the most effective. The strongest employees eventually leave organizations in which every decision requires permission. Those who remain often adapt by becoming exactly what management appears to want: careful, compliant and unwilling to take risks.Going back to our opening, the employer then wonders where all the initiative and judgment went. It walked out the door with the people who still had some.Of course, none of this suggests employers should lower standards. Expectations should be high. Performance should be measured. Problems should be addressed promptly. Some employees require close supervision, particularly when they are inexperienced, struggling or working in highly regulated environments.But there is a difference between setting standards and taking over the job. The goal should be to train them to the point where they are prepared and empowered to do the work themselves.The best managers understand their role is not to make every decision; it is to ensure that good decisions are made.After decades practising employment law, we have learned that employers usually overestimate the value of control and underestimate the value of judgment.We know this from personal experience on top of our client work. Early in Howard’s career, he worked for a couple of top organizations that stifled initiative. The result was that he (and others like him) left, and over time, the organizations lost what had attracted people to them in the first place.The organizations that consistently perform best are rarely those in which every decision flows upwards.They are the ones where capable people are trusted to exercise judgment, are held accountable for the results and given room to succeed — or fail — on their own.If employees never have the opportunity to exercise judgment, it becomes very difficult to criticize them for lacking it and impossible to assert cause to fire them for it.Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. He practises employment law in all provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada. Dante Capannelli is a partner at Levitt LLP. Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.