Micromanagement in the Lab: A Tale of Two Styles

I was fortunate enough to experience micromanagement in my earlier days—both the hard and the soft kind. The hard version is obvious; the soft one, covert and well-disguised. All experiences teach us something, especially the bad ones. That’s why I call it fortunate.

Here are the stories of two micromanagers that explain it better than ChatGPT ever could. I’ve altered their names and some details to focus solely on the substance.

The Hard Micromanager

The first one—an acting CTO and R&D Director of a startup, let’s call him Henry—had a daily ritual. He would walk into the lab, stand behind an engineer, and silently observe her operating the glove box. No words. Just silent supervision. Every engineer had their turn in this morning performance.

Henry began each day with a group meeting, where even the smallest tasks were assigned like chess moves. The day ended with everyone submitting detailed timesheets, broken down into 15-minute intervals. These reports were reviewed, critiqued, and often followed by pointed questions about one’s productivity. The second-floor office became a place of anxiety.

Nothing happened without Henry’s decision. Whether it was which grant proposal to submit or what brand of pipettes to buy, he made the calls. Suggestions that deviated from his views weren’t just discouraged—they were debated, scrutinized, and often dismissed outright.

What came out of this hard micromanagement? Everyone did only what was necessary to earn their paycheck. Nothing more. The rest of their energy? Spent job hunting. If you’re a boss paying from your own pocket, this is the worst of both worlds: poor results and wasted money.

The Soft Micromanager

Then there was Jon, an academic lab supervisor—kind, helpful, and extremely hands-on. Or so he claimed.

Jon took on every task, large or small, “so others could focus on the science.” He saw his team members as his own children. He called, texted, and dropped by your lab or office multiple times a day, just in case you needed anything. No response for a day? He’d call the police for a welfare check. I wish I were joking.

In the lab, Jon ensured every step was documented. He wrote SOPs for everything. If someone tried a different method, he’d “help” by quietly redoing it his way—no complaints, just a quiet correction. He took on far more than he could handle, both mentally and physically, to ensure every task met his standard.

Want to buy a $200,000 piece of equipment? Jon would schedule a meeting to understand your reasoning. Want to buy a $20 power strip? Same meeting, same protocol. He established multi-level approvals for every purchase. Result? Months-long delays for even the simplest items. But to Jon, this was the responsible way.

Though less confrontational, soft micromanagement still sends a message: a lack of trust. Or perhaps, more deeply, a lack of trust in oneself. It reflects a belief that others cannot—or should not—be responsible for the finer points of lab operations. Over time, this erodes confidence, stifles independence, and prevents team members from growing into leadership roles.

Still confused about the impact of micromanagement? Here’s a simple rule: If you can’t offer help without taking over, just walk away.