Hey All… lets talk about Micromanagement and Trust in IT.
Throughout my long career, working in various companies, including US management style, I have been on both sides—as an owner and founder of Company, as a manager-leader of a big team with huge budget, a lead engineer, and a regular engineer. Fortunately, this has allowed me to examine under a microscope, first and foremost, my own mistakes. This entire essay is essentially built on the errors of my youth.
Once, when I was the head of an IT department, I found myself standing behind a highly qualified IT engineer while he was working at the server console. I was afraid he would do something wrong, I was afraid he would make an incorrect decision, I was afraid he would mess up… but this is a fundamentally wrong approach. I later re-evaluated my methods, and now there is something I value in a team much more than that.
Enjoy your reading.
____________________________
As part of my coursework, I chose to explore the phenomenon of micromanagement that subtle form of managerial anxiety disguised as “attention to detail”.
It’s a charming illusion: the belief that constant supervision equals excellence.
In reality, it’s the quickest route to paralysis.
Particularly in IT, where innovation depends on speed, autonomy, and experimentation, micromanagement operates like a silent denial-of-service attack — overwhelming the system with control requests until it simply stops responding.
This essay is not a complaint; it’s a reflection — born out of observing teams where control replaced leadership, and fear quietly killed initiative.
1. Micromanagement: The Leadership Bug
Micromanagement isn’t a leadership style. It’s a firmware bug in the manager’s head.
At first, it looks like care and involvement — until you realise the system is overheating.
It begins with small things: checking every email, commenting on every line of code, “just tweaking” Jira tasks lol.
Soon, the leader becomes the bottleneck for every decision, update, and sigh, bad way isn’t?
The result?
A perfect illusion of control — and an organisation that moves slower than a legacy ERP on dial-up.
2. The Illusion of Control
Micromanagers believe they are the glue that holds everything together.
But in truth, they are the sand in the gears.
“Control without trust isn’t management. It’s administration.”
When a leader removes autonomy, people stop thinking — they start waiting.
The team no longer creates solutions; it waits for permission to breathe.
Every process slows down.
Every decision feels heavier.
And innovation quietly exits through the nearest backdoor.
3. The Mirror Test: Finding the Micromanager Within
During this assignment, I realised something uncomfortable: micromanagement isn’t “out there” — it lives inside every leader who once did the job better than others.
We step in because “it’s faster if I do it myself.”
We intervene because “I just want to help.”
We correct because “I know how this should look.”
But each time we do, we steal something — not from the project, but from the person learning to own it.
It’s not always about ego.
Often, it’s fear — the fear of losing relevance, of no longer being indispensable.
That’s the tragedy: a leader trying so hard to be useful that they stop being effective.
4. Trust as a Management Architecture
Trust isn’t an emotional luxury.
It’s an organisational protocol — the only one that actually scales.
In IT, it works exactly like a well-designed CI/CD pipeline: clear logic, visible metrics, predictable outcomes.
When systems are transparent, trust becomes a side effect of structure, not a leap of faith.
A good leader doesn’t micromanage people.
They engineer environments where control is embedded into processes — not personalities.
When trust works, hierarchy becomes less about authority and more about coordination.
5. Practical Principles of Trust-Based Leadership
1. Transparency over supervision.
Unclear expectations create anxiety, not independence. Structure beats surveillance.
2. Delegation with context.
Don’t just say what to do. Explain why.
Purpose is the firewall against chaos.
3. Feedback as a system, not an impulse.
Replace daily micro-adjustments with regular retrospectives.
4. Psychological safety for failure.
Innovation and control can’t coexist in fear.
5. Intentional self-restraint.
A mature leader occasionally asks:
“What can I stop controlling today?”
That single question does more for leadership development than any certification.
6. Trust as an Engineering Principle
Trust is not philosophy — it’s infrastructure.
You can design it, test it, deploy it, and monitor it.
If micromanagement is the manual override button, trust is the automation framework.
It’s the invisible system that lets people make decisions faster, own results, and feel safe enough to admit when they’re wrong.
A team built on trust behaves like a distributed system:
resilient, redundant, and delightfully hard to break.
Conclusion
Micromanagement is not a sign of leadership — it’s a symptom of fear.
It kills autonomy, slows learning, and suffocates creativity.
Trust, on the other hand, is not naivety.
It’s strategic architecture — a deliberate choice to replace control with clarity.
In the modern IT landscape, where adaptability and innovation define survival, management without trust is as outdated as floppy disks.
A leader who can’t let go can’t scale.
A leader who learns to trust stops managing people — and starts managing meaning.
Learning reflection
Within the learning framework, this essay reinforces one truth:
Trust is not soft power — it’s structural capital.
Organisations driven by fear produce compliance.
Those built on trust produce progress.
Micromanagement is an anti-pattern.
Trust is the operating system of leadership.
Best regards,
Alex