Does this sound familiar? Your supervisor berates you and other colleagues in a meeting for trivial errors that were passed over in a document because she thinks it makes her look bad. You are assigned the task of hiring a teacher, but mid-process you learn your supervisor has been interjecting herself and interrupting the search by having private discussions with committee members and neglecting to relay this information to you. Your supervisor creates unnecessarily complex processes to accomplish just about every task. These procedures take up an inordinate amount of time and do not contribute to any positive organizational outcome. If you recognize even one of these scenarios, you have been micromanaged — and no one likes to be micromanaged. Micromanagers create a lot of frustration, demoralization and demotivation; they demand constant, detailed performance feedback in the form of reports (which are often overly detailed and unnecessary). Often, a micromanager’s fixation on trivia has a negative impact on work performance and can delay decisions, obfuscate goals and objectives, restrict the flow of information, or steer projects in opposing and misleading directions. Many micromanagers ignore such inefficiencies in their pursuit of absolute control because addressing them might jeopardize their methods of maintaining authority. All seasoned managers know the importance of keeping tabs on the work that is being done. The problem with micromanagers is that they apply the same level of intensity, scrutiny and in-your-face approach to each and every task, whether or not it is warranted. The bottom line is: micromanagement is problematic and a weak form of leadership — in actuality, it is not leadership at all. Micromanagement infects organizations like a disease; once it takes hold, every facet of the workplace is affected. Like an infection spreads through the body cell by cell, low morale and extreme distrust permeate each vein and artery of the organization, ultimately corrupting it entirely. Many micromanagers seek to possess the same level of control they had when they were teaching. This can result in a breakdown in delegation. It is common for micromanagers to delegate work to subordinates and then micromanage those subordinates’ performances, thus enabling micromanagers to both take credit for positive results and also shift the blame for negative results. In this way, micromanagers delegate accountability for failure, but do not consign the authority to take alternative actions that would lead to success. In extreme cases, micromanagement is closely related to workplace bullying and narcissism. Micromanagement resembles addiction in that while most micromanagers are behaviorally dependent on having control over others, many fail to acknowledge their dependence, even when everyone around them is acutely aware of it.  The distrust that micromanagers perpetuate is toxic and infectious. Regardless of a micromanager’s motive, their conduct will result in interference with teamwork, and the creation of vertical (manager-subordinate) relationships.  Because a pattern of micromanagement suggests to employees that a manager does not trust their work or judgment, it is a major factor in triggering employee disengagement, often leading to a dysfunctional or even hostile work environment. Disengaged employees may invest their time, but they do not put effort or creativity into the work they are assigned. The detrimental effects of micromanagement can extend beyond the organization. This occurs when the behavior becomes severe enough to force out skilled employees. Employees may sound off about micromanagement in social settings or to colleagues affiliated with other school districts. Outside observers such as consultants, interviewees, or visitors may notice the behavior and recount it in conversation with friends or colleagues. Most harmful to the organization are the damaging things former employees may say when responding to questions about what prompted their decision to leave; they may go so far as badmouthing their former employer. The resulting damage to the organization’s reputation may create insecurity among management and worsen micromanaging behavior among managers who use it to cope. Such a feedback effect creates and perpetuates a vicious cycle.  Micromanagers tend to rationalize their behavior through tropes about the necessity of their actions. Instead of investing time in creating narratives about why you should micromanage, reflect on why you should not. The key to moving beyond micromanagement is gaining more insight into yourself as a leader and developing confidence in your competence. In order to overcome the urge to micromanage, you have to get over yourself. You have to understand that you are simply not as important to every task as you may believe you are. There may well be people around you who can do some things better than you can. In order to do this, you will have to move beyond the minutia. You will need to develop trust in others and allow them to make the mistakes that occur with regularity in any school setting. You do not have to give blow-by-blow instructions for every task. Be clear and provide support when it is needed, but always attempt to step back and allow others to receive accolades.   Cleansing our bodies of disease requires medical care and rest. In order to cleanse schools of the harmful effects of micromanagement, leaders must seek to respect and care for others enough to allow them to accomplish their work on their own.