Two contrasting trees

Comparing Autocratic and Micro Management Styles

In the world of management, there are various styles that leaders adopt to guide their teams towards success. Two such styles are autocratic management and micro-management. While these styles may seem similar on the surface, they actually have distinct characteristics and can greatly impact employee morale and productivity. Let’s dive into the fascinating world of management and explore the key differences between autocratic and micro-management styles, and their effects on the workplace.

Understanding Autocratic Management Style

Autocratic management, often referred to as the “iron fist” approach, is characterized by a leader who holds all decision-making authority and control. Picture a captain steering a ship with a firm grip on the helm, dictating every turn and maneuver. In this style of management, the leader exercises complete dominance and rarely seeks input or feedback from their team.

One famous management guru, Peter Drucker, once said, “The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say ‘I’. And that’s not because they have trained themselves not to say ‘I’. They don’t think ‘I’. They think ‘we’; they think ‘team’.” Drucker’s words nicely capture the essence of autocratic management, where the leader’s individual authority takes precedence over the collective brainpower of the team.

Like every coin, autocratic management has its pros and cons. On the positive side, it allows for quick decision-making, as there is no need for consensus or prolonged discussions. Additionally, it ensures a clear chain of command, which can be valuable in emergency situations. However, on the other side of the spectrum, it often leads to reduced employee morale, limited creativity, and stifled innovation.

We can find real-life examples of autocratic management in practice across various industries. Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple Inc., was notorious for his autocratic leadership style. His visionary approach undeniably led Apple to great heights, but it came at the cost of strained relationships with his employees. Jobs believed in a top-down hierarchy, where his decisions were final and non-negotiable, which sometimes resulted in disagreements and frustration within the team.

Understanding Micro Management Style

Now, let’s switch gears and explore micro-management. Imagine a conductor with a magnifying glass, scrutinizing every movement of his orchestra members with meticulous precision. That’s the essence of micro-management – being overly involved in the day-to-day tasks, often to the point of obsessively controlling even the minutest details.

One famous psychologist, Abraham Maslow, highlighted the importance of self-actualization in his hierarchy of needs theory. However, in a micro-management style, employees’ potential for growth and self-actualization is often stifled. Just as a bonsai tree is pruned excessively, such management restricts the natural growth and creativity of employees.

Similar to autocratic management, micro-management has its advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, it ensures a high level of quality control, as nothing slips through the cracks. It also gives supervisors a sense of certainty and reassurance. However, on the flip side, excessive control can lead to micromanagers being perceived as overly critical and undermining their employees’ confidence and autonomy.

A classic example of a micro-manager in action is Henry Ford, the legendary entrepreneur who revolutionized the automobile industry. Known for his strict monitoring of the production process, Ford closely observed each step, leaving no room for deviation or innovation. While his attention to detail played a part in boosting productivity, it also hindered employee creativity and limited their ability to take ownership of their work.

Key Differences between Autocratic and Micro Management Styles

Now that we’ve explored the individual characteristics of autocratic and micro-management styles, it’s important to understand the key differences between them. These differences lie in decision-making authority and control, employee empowerment and autonomy, and communication and feedback processes.

Decision-Making Authority and Control

In autocratic management, decision-making authority rests solely with the leader. It’s like being the captain of a ship, where every decision is made by the captain, leaving little room for discussion or input from the crew. On the other hand, in micro-management, the leader tends to be involved in every decision, no matter how small or insignificant it may seem. It’s akin to being a puppeteer, dictating each movement of the marionette, leaving little room for independent decision-making by employees.

These two approaches highlight the contrast between a leader’s autonomy and the team’s autonomy. While autocratic management focuses on the leader’s control, micro-management takes this control to a microscopic level, leaving employees feeling suffocated and deprived of their own decision-making power. Finding the right balance is crucial for a healthy work environment.

Employee Empowerment and Autonomy

Autocratic management often results in limited employee empowerment and autonomy. Employees may feel like pawns in a game, following orders without having the opportunity to contribute their ideas or make a meaningful impact. It’s akin to playing a video game where the character’s movements are predefined, leaving no room for exploration or creativity.

In contrast, while micro-management may seem like an oppressive style, it still allows employees some level of autonomy within the predefined boundaries. Consider it like a guided tour, where you have a predetermined route but can still choose how you experience the sights along the way. However, the key issue here is whether this limited autonomy is enough to ignite employees’ passion and motivation or if it diminishes their sense of ownership and engagement.

Communication and Feedback Processes

Effective communication is the lifeblood of any organization. Autocratic management often leads to one-way communication, where the leader’s directives are passed down the chain of command without room for discussion or feedback. It’s like a radio transmission, with the leader broadcasting the message, but no opportunity for listeners to respond or provide input.

In micro-management, communication may seem more frequent and detailed, but it often lacks trust and genuine collaboration. It can be compared to a surveillance system, with micro-managers constantly monitoring their employees but rarely engaging in open and constructive dialogues. This lack of trust can create a toxic work environment, stifling creativity and hindering open communication.

Impact on Employee Morale and Productivity

So, how do these management styles ultimately impact employee morale and productivity?

Effects of Autocratic Management on Employee Morale and Productivity

Autocratic management can lead to a decrease in employee morale and motivation. When employees’ voices are not heard and their unique perspectives are not valued, they may become disengaged, resulting in decreased productivity. It’s like asking an orchestra to play a masterpiece without giving them the freedom to interpret the music in their own way. Over time, this can lead to burnout, high turnover rates, and a lack of innovation within the organization.

However, there may be situations where autocratic management is necessary, such as in times of crisis or when quick decisions are crucial. In these instances, leaders must strike a delicate balance between assertiveness and listening to their team members’ concerns and ideas. It’s like being a captain who navigates through treacherous waters with a firm hand on the wheel, but still being open to suggestions from the crew.

Effects of Micro Management on Employee Morale and Productivity

Micro-management can erode employee morale and productivity in a similar manner. By excessively dictating every aspect of an employee’s work, micro-managers undermine trust, hinder creativity, and discourage employees from taking ownership of their tasks. It’s like being a helicopter parent who constantly hovers over their child, never giving them the chance to learn from their own mistakes or grow independently.

In contrast, empowering employees, providing them with a sense of autonomy, and fostering an environment of trust can greatly enhance morale and productivity. When employees feel trusted and valued, they are more likely to go the extra mile and take ownership of their work. It’s like tending to a garden with care, where each plant is given the appropriate amount of sunlight and space to grow, resulting in a beautiful and vibrant landscape.

Comparing the Long-Term Effects on Employee Engagement

When comparing the long-term effects of autocratic and micro-management on employee engagement, we find that both styles can lead to disengagement and diminished enthusiasm for work. However, the reasons behind this disengagement differ.

Autocratic management often breeds a culture of fear and alienation. Employees may become detached from their work and simply go through the motions without feeling a genuine connection to their tasks or the overall mission of the organization. It’s like attending a concert where the audience sits motionless, merely enduring the performance rather than experiencing the music with passion and energy.

In contrast, micro-management can result in employees feeling overwhelmed and undervalued. The constant scrutiny and lack of trust can diminish their self-esteem and confidence, leading to a decline in motivation and commitment. It’s like playing a sport where the coach aggressively points out every mistake, leaving the players disheartened and questioning their abilities.

When fostering employee engagement, it’s essential to create an environment that values open communication, empowers employees, and allows for autonomy without compromising the organization’s overall goals. By striking this balance, leaders can cultivate a motivated and enthusiastic team, akin to an orchestra where every musician is deeply invested and passionately playing their part to create beautiful harmonies.


Comparing autocratic and micro-management styles allows us to gain valuable insights into the different approaches leaders can adopt. While autocratic management focuses on centralizing control and decision-making authority, micro-management revolves around excessive attention to details. Both styles have their pros and cons, and their impact on employee morale and productivity should not be overlooked.

As leaders, it is crucial to find the right balance between assertiveness and inclusivity, empowering employees while providing guidance and support. By embracing open communication, fostering trust, and valuing the unique perspectives of each team member, leaders can ignite the spark of passion and motivation within their organizations.

Remember, every orchestra needs a conductor who directs and guides, but it is the collective effort of each musician that creates symphonies that touch the hearts of listeners. Similarly, by embracing the strengths and talents of their team members, leaders can cultivate an environment where everyone thrives, bringing their best selves to work each day.

Was this article helpful?

Solopreneur | | I help (Purposeless) Overachievers, Mid-Career Professionals & Entrepreneurs find meaning at work | Wellness Activator | Healthy Living Enthusiast | SEO Expert | Dad x 3 | 4x Founder (Exit in 2023) | Ex -Dupont, Mercedes-Benz