Control, Trust, and the Grey Zone: A Balanced Look at Micromanagement in Hybrid Working

Micromanagement has gained prominence in modern management discourse. Yet the reality is more nuanced than the narrative suggests. In the context of South Africa's evolving hybrid workplace, micromanagement’s impact is grounded in context, intent, and degree.

The Self-Determination Theory suggests that sustained performance depends on three psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Excessive managerial control likely undermines all the key facets to sustained performance. When employees are required to seek approval for routine decisions, have their work constantly revised, or are monitored through software that tracks keystrokes and screen activity, the psychological cost is significant; eroded confidence, heightened anxiety, and a breakdown of trust (Vu, 2025).

Research from the South African investment banking sector established that lack of trust remains a significant barrier to psychological safety in hybrid teams (Magwentshu et al., 2026). Employee wellbeing and engagement are shaped far more by management quality than by work location (Gallup, 2024). A hybrid model managed through surveillance could likely yield more adverse outcomes when compared to a fully on-site model managed with empathy.

However, what the anti-micromanagement consensus often overlooks is that not all close supervision is destructive, and not all autonomy is appropriate. Some managers engage in close supervision not out of distrust or ego, but out of a genuine desire to maintain quality, develop competence in new employees, or navigate high-stakes compliance environments (Vu, 2025).

There are specific contexts in which a higher degree of managerial oversight is not only justified but necessary. A new graduate joining a South African financial services firm remotely has limited institutional knowledge, no established professional network, and no baseline understanding of organisational norms. Social learning, which typically occurs through observation and informal interaction in physical offices, is significantly curtailed in hybrid settings, making deliberate managerial involvement more important (Mabaso and Manuel, 2024).

In sectors such as banking, healthcare, and legal services, errors carry significant consequences. A high level of control in these contexts should not be labelled micromanagement at all, it is professional accountability (Kamarudin et al., 2023). The same logic applies in South African public sector environment where governance failures have had catastrophic consequences.

South African leaders who adopted more directive approaches during the initial COVID-19 transition were responding to genuine adaptive challenges, not simply asserting dominance (Yozi & Mbokota, 2024). In moments of acute uncertainty, employees often want clear direction and decisive leadership.

The problem, then, is not supervision itself. It is disproportionate, indiscriminate, and trust-deficient supervision applied without regard for the employee's experience level, the nature of the task, or the organisational context.

The hybrid workplace has exposed a fundamental tension in management; the need for accountability on one side, and the need for autonomy on the other. In the midst of structural inequalities, loadshedding, and hierarchical cultures complicate the picture further, there is no one-size-fits-all answer (Munyeka, 2024).

What the evidence demands is not the abolition of close supervision, but its contextualisation. Managers who apply tight oversight to experienced professionals performing routine tasks are stifling performance. Managers who apply structured guidance to new employees navigating a complex hybrid environment are doing their jobs. The difference lies in self-awareness, intent, and the willingness to adjust one's approach as the employee and context evolve.

The most effective hybrid leaders in South Africa will not be those who choose between control and freedom, they will be those who know when each is called for.

About the Author:

Thomas Tsikai is a distinguished Industrial Psychologist with expertise across the medico-legal, banking, and mining sectors. An emerging scholar at the University of Pretoria, he brings a compelling blend of practitioner experience and growing academic curiosity to the study of human behaviour in the workplace.