Address

(Tower 2, Level 20, Darling Park)

201 Sussex Street

Sydney, NSW, 2000 Australia

Get in touch
Follow us
Micromanagement in the C-Suite: How to Spot it and What Boards Should Do About It
Debbie Morrison • September 12, 2023

It's no secret that micromanagement is often seen as the bane of innovation and creativity in companies. From entry-level employees to middle managers, the stifling nature of micromanagement is a frequently lamented phenomenon. However, one area where this management style is often overlooked, yet perilously influential, is in the C-suite. If you think micromanagement is problematic at lower levels, its impact at the top tier of management can be exponentially more damaging.


1. Why Micromanagement in the C-Suite Matters

Micromanagement within the C-suite affects strategic decisions, company culture, and the overall direction of the organisation. When a CEO or CFO begins to dwell on minutiae, it signals to the rest of the organisation that they don't trust their teams or processes. Such a mindset, inevitably, trickles down.


According to a recent study by
Accountemps found that as many as 59% of people have been managed by a micromanager at some point in their career. Of the people who reported working for a micromanager, 68% said it had decreased their morale, and 55% claimed it had hurt their productivity. A 2019 Gallup poll found that employees who feel they are micromanaged are 28% more likely to consider leaving their job. While this figure pertains to the broad spectrum of the workforce, consider the ramifications at the executive level: senior leadership disengagement, or worse, top talents abandoning ship, could prove catastrophic.


2. Spotting the Signs of Micromanagement in the C-Suite

Often, micromanagement at the c-suite level is subtle and masked as "due diligence" or "deep involvement." Here are some warning signs to be on the lookout for:

  • Incessant Detail-Orientation: It’s one thing for a CEO to understand the finer points of a project, but if they’re demanding daily updates on tasks that are typically managed several levels down, it's a red flag.
  • Decisional Bottlenecks: If most decisions, including the less significant ones, are pending top leadership's input, it hampers agility.
  • High Executive Turnover: While numerous factors can contribute to turnover, an abnormally high rate within senior ranks might suggest a challenging work environment spearheaded by micromanagement.
  • Frequent Bypassing of Hierarchies: If the CEO is consistently reaching out directly to middle management or entry-level employees, bypassing the respective heads, it may signal trust issues with senior leaders.


3. The Underlying Causes

Before diving into solutions, it's crucial to grasp the root causes. For the C-suite, the pressures are immense. Stakeholders, investors, and market dynamics require a finger-on-the-pulse approach. Still, when micromanagement sets in, it often stems from:

  • Insecurity: Whether due to prior failures, perceived threats from team members, or personal insecurities, some executives might use micromanagement as a defence mechanism.
  • Lack of Trust in the Team: Perhaps arising from past experiences, the inability to trust can lead executives to take everything upon themselves.
  • Perfectionism: An often-praised trait that, when taken to extremes, becomes counterproductive.


4. What Boards Should Do About It

Boards of Directors, given their governance role, have both the responsibility and authority to address C-suite micromanagement.

  • Open Dialogue: Initiate conversations with the concerned executive, aiming to understand their perspective. Instead of accusations, frame it as a shared responsibility to ensure the company’s success.
  • 360-Degree Feedback: Implement a system where senior leaders receive anonymous feedback from their peers, subordinates, and even board members. Such systems, as revealed by a Harvard Business Review study, can help executives recognize and address their micromanaging tendencies.
  • Leadership Coaching: Consider bringing in executive coaches. They offer external perspectives and can provide tools and strategies to shift from micromanagement to macro leadership.
  • Redesign Decision Frameworks: If an executive is involved in too many decisions, it might be time to reassess which issues require C-suite intervention and which can be delegated.

5. A Glimpse into a Macro-Leadership Future

As we march into an era that lauds agile management, AI-driven decisions, and a focus on company culture, the tolerance for micromanagement, especially in the C-suite, shrinks. 


A
2021 Deloitte study suggests that organisations adopting AI for decision-making processes outpace their competitors by 11% in terms of growth. This translates to a straightforward principle: empower systems and people, and the dividends will be palpable.


The strategic altitude that C-suite executives should operate at doesn't afford the luxury of micromanagement. It's a costly endeavour, both in terms of time and the potential quashing of innovative sparks. For boards and stakeholders, recognising and addressing this issue isn't just about fostering a pleasant work environment—it's a crucial move to ensure the organisation's robust, sustainable growth.


By John Elliott April 6, 2025
Comfort has become the silent killer of executive performance. In an era defined by disruption, volatility, and shrinking margins, too many leadership teams are still optimising for control, not adaptability. They talk about transformation, but build cultures of stability. They prize clarity, yet avoid the ambiguity where real growth lives. The problem isn’t capability. It’s discomfort intolerance. The solution? Start hiring and promoting leaders who deliberately seek discomfort—not just those who can tolerate it when it arrives. Growth Mindset Isn’t Enough Anymore You’ve heard the term "growth mindset" countless times. It’s become a leadership cliché. But it’s not wrong—it’s just incomplete. A growth mindset says, "I believe I can learn." Discomfort-driven leadership says, "I will actively seek out the hardest experiences because that’s where I’ll grow fastest." The distinction matters. Leaders with a growth mindset tend to thrive when external change forces them to adapt. But leaders who embrace discomfort create those conditions on purpose. They invite hard feedback. They question their own success. They take action before external pressure arrives. According to a 2023 study by Deloitte, only 22% of executives say their leadership team is “very prepared” for the future—despite record spending on transformation programmes (Deloitte Human Capital Trends, 2023). That gap exists because most teams are trained to manage change , not lead into uncertainty . Ask yourself: Are you hiring leaders who wait for disruption—or ones who walk towards it? Discomfort Is the Driver of Strategic Advantage Companies don’t fall behind because they make bad decisions. They fall behind because their leaders avoid the hard ones. In high-stakes industries like FMCG, where regulatory pressure, margin compression, and shifting consumer loyalty are accelerating, comfort is dangerous. It fosters: Short-termism Decision paralysis Lack of innovation Cultural stagnation McKinsey found that organisations with a strong tolerance for ambiguity—where leaders frequently challenge their own assumptions—are 2.4x more likely to be top-quartile performers on total shareholder returns (McKinsey & Company, 2022). In other words: embracing discomfort isn’t a trait—it’s a multiplier. Let’s take an example. When COVID hit, Lion Brewery—one of Australia's largest beer producers—was forced to rethink logistics and supply overnight. But smaller craft breweries who had already diversified through direct-to-consumer models adapted faster. Why? Their founders had already been operating in discomfort. They were trained for volatility. What Discomfort-Driven Leaders Actually Do Differently You can spot these leaders. They don’t always look like the most confident in the room—but they’re always the most effective in a storm. They: Seek feedback from critics, not fans Prioritise strategy over popularity Tackle underperformance head-on—even if it means conflict Ask hard questions that slow down groupthink Regularly step out of their functional lane to challenge assumptions They also act . Not rashly—but decisively. In a recent Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) survey, directors ranked “resilience and adaptability” as the #1 trait they now seek in new appointments—outranking experience for the first time (AICD, 2024). That’s not a trend. It’s a shift in what leadership now demands. The Real Cost of Hiring for Comfort Not hiring discomfort-driven leaders isn’t just a missed opportunity—it’s a risk. Here’s what it’s costing you: Strategic Drift: Without challenge, strategies become stale. Your team optimises yesterday’s model. Talent Exodus: Top performers disengage when they see leadership avoiding tough calls. Innovation Bottlenecks: Safe cultures don’t take smart risks. New ideas die in committee. Crisis Fragility: Leaders who haven’t been tested won’t perform when stakes are high. Bain & Company found that companies with decision-making cultures built around speed and tension—not consensus—were 95% more likely to deliver sustained value creation (Bain, 2023). Ask yourself: Is your executive team equipped for bold calls—or just built for calm waters? How to Identify Discomfort-Driven Leaders in Interviews Everyone talks a good game in interviews. But few have the scar tissue that comes from operating in real discomfort. The trick is to go beyond surface-level success stories. Here’s how: Ask Better Questions: “What’s the most uncomfortable decision you’ve made in the last 12 months—and how did it play out?” “Tell me about a time you got strong pushback from your team. What did you do?” “What’s a belief you held strongly that you’ve now abandoned?” “When have you chosen a path that was harder in the short term, but better long term?” Look for: Specificity (vagueness = theory, not lived experience) Self-awareness without self-promotion Signs of humility: they talk about learning, not just winning Evidence of risk-taking: role changes, cross-functional moves, or failed experiments Pro tip: Ask referees how the leader handles ambiguity. Not just performance. This will tell you more about how they lead under pressure. What to Do Now: Practical Actions for Executive Teams If you want to build a leadership culture of discomfort, you have to engineer it. It won’t happen organically in high-performing, risk-averse teams. Here’s how to start: Audit Your Current Team: When was the last time each leader took on something that scared them? Rethink Talent Criteria: Shift from stability and experience to adaptability and action under pressure. Redesign Development: Stretch your execs with ambiguous, cross-functional challenges—not just workshops. Model It at the Top: If the CEO isn’t embracing discomfort, no one else will. You don’t need to create chaos. You just need to stop insulating your leaders from discomfort—and start asking them to seek it. The Discomfort Dividend You can’t build a future-ready business with comfort-first leadership. The next generation of strategic advantage will come not from better processes or faster tech—but from bolder human decisions. From leaders who are willing to feel awkward, wrong, or out of their depth—because they know that’s where the value is. So next time you're hiring a leader, ask yourself: Are they looking for clarity—or ready to lead without it? Do they want the role—or are they ready for the risk that comes with it? Are they seeking comfort—or prepared to create discomfort for progress? Because in 2025, comfort is a luxury your business can’t afford .
By John Elliott March 24, 2025
Emotional intelligence is one of the most valued traits in executive leadership today.  It’s also one of the most misunderstood. In interviews, every candidate knows how to speak about empathy, collaboration, and “bringing people on the journey.” But when does that emotional intelligence start to look more like emotional avoidance? If you’re hiring into a senior role in consumer goods or food and beverage manufacturing, this distinction matters. Hiring someone who avoids hard conversations risks building a culture that performs around problems, not through them. The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2025 understand how to build trust and rapport — without dodging the accountability that comes with real leadership. Emotional Intelligence: What It Gets Right In complex, fast-paced industries like FMCG and food production, leaders need more than technical expertise. They must influence, de-escalate tension, manage change, and build alignment across functions. That’s where emotional intelligence shines. High-EQ leaders are more likely to: Retain talent through strong, trust-based relationships Remain composed in high-stakes environments Reduce conflict through proactive, clear communication Drive psychological safety while still pushing for results The research backs this up. According to a 2024 EHL Insights report , emotionally intelligent leaders improve employee satisfaction, engagement, and collaboration — all essential in manufacturing settings where coordination between departments is critical. But there’s a fine line between emotional intelligence and emotional overcorrection. When Emotional Intelligence Becomes Emotional Avoidance The risk is subtle: leaders who over-index on empathy may begin to avoid the discomfort of conflict altogether. That looks like: Letting underperformance linger to “keep the peace” Over-relying on collaboration instead of making firm decisions Avoiding direct feedback Prioritising harmony at the expense of clarity A 2024 Forbes article described how emotionally avoidant leaders — despite good intentions — often undermine the very culture they’re trying to protect. Accountability erodes, decisions slow down, and high performers become disengaged. We’ve seen this play out in executive search mandates across the sector. On paper, a candidate may appear ideal: emotionally intelligent, highly personable, well-liked. But dig deeper, and a pattern emerges — reluctance to address performance issues, vague language around past team challenges, and a track record of avoiding direct confrontation. That’s not emotional intelligence. That’s fear, dressed as empathy. Emotional Intelligence Is a Must — But It’s Not the Full Picture More organisations are making emotional intelligence a key leadership trait in hiring — and for good reason. In high-change environments, emotionally intelligent leaders: Build trust across teams quickly Navigate transformation without losing people along the way Stay composed under pressure Handle interpersonal complexity with clarity But some of the most costly mis-hires we see come from leaders who present as highly empathetic, but struggle to lead through tension. Not because they lack EQ — but because they confuse it with keeping everyone comfortable. The difference? The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2024 and 2025 are doing both: Holding people accountable while building engagement Delivering hard feedback without defensiveness Balancing calm with courage These are the leaders who retain high performers, protect standards, and still earn trust across the business. Hiring Outcomes Are Better When EQ Is Tested in Context The most effective hiring processes we’re seeing in the market today aren’t just asking, “Is this leader emotionally intelligent?” They’re asking: Can this person hold accountability and empathy at the same time? Have they delivered under pressure without letting performance slide? Do they create safe cultures that are also high-performing? The difference in outcomes is clear: More resilient leadership teams Better cultural fit Fewer surprises post-placement What to Look for in Executive Interviews Hiring emotionally intelligent leaders isn’t just about what they say — it’s about how they’ve acted in real moments of challenge. The most effective hiring panels are getting beyond rehearsed narratives by asking sharper questions: To probe real emotional intelligence: “Tell me about a time you had to lead a team through a change that wasn’t popular.” “How do you approach a conversation when someone on your team is underperforming?” “Describe a time you disagreed with your CEO or board. What did you do?” Watch for signals: Are they clear and specific, or vague and diplomatic? Do they show respect and resolve? Do they accept responsibility, or redirect it elsewhere? In reference checks, ask: “How did they manage pressure or uncertainty?” “Were they able to deliver difficult feedback directly?” “Did they avoid difficult decisions in the name of team cohesion?” When emotional intelligence is genuine, it shows up in results — not just relationships. Why This Matters Now Organisations in the consumer goods and food manufacturing sectors are undergoing constant disruption — from digitisation to regulatory shifts to cost pressures. In this environment, leadership soft skills aren’t optional. But it’s not enough to hire likeable leaders. The ones delivering real impact are those who bring empathy and edge. They’re able to sit with discomfort, hold the mirror up, and still bring people with them. That’s what true emotional intelligence looks like in 2025. So when you’re hiring your next senior leader, don’t just ask if they care. Ask if they can care and confront — with courage, with clarity, and with conviction. Because your culture doesn’t need more harmony. It needs more truth.
Share by: