It's a trait many of us recognise in others but rarely admit to seeing in ourselves: the tendency to micromanage. A recent personal revelation by a journalist highlights how this exhausting behaviour is pervasive, especially in India's corporate landscape, where it stifles initiative, instils fear, and cripples effective decision-making.
The Personal Cost of Constant Control
Devina Sengupta's experience, shared in December 2025, serves as a cautionary tale. Before taking a two-week leave, she meticulously prepared a schedule for her team, believing she was simply being organised. However, instead of disconnecting, she spent her vacation closely monitoring story filings, calling the desk over delays, and checking in with reporters. She returned to work feeling foggy and exhausted, a direct result of the mental toll of micromanagement.
This pattern aligns with academic research. Richard D. White's 2010 paper, "The Micromanagement Disease: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Cure," warns that a boss who second-guesses every decision not only demoralises staff but also severely damages organisational productivity and long-term survival.
Why India Inc Breeds Micromanagers
The phenomenon is particularly acute in the Indian corporate world. With young bosses and out-of-turn promotions becoming common retention tools, the environment is ripe for creating generations of micromanagers. The intense pressure to stay relevant is frequently mistaken for the need to be visibly in charge of everything, leading to a failure to trust and genuinely delegate.
This creates a vicious cycle. If a leader delegates but then constantly checks on the decisions, the team receives a clear signal of non-delegation. They soon stop taking any independent calls, awaiting approval for every minor detail. The dynamic is likened to a family where the patriarch never retires, or a skit where a pencil is offered but never released.
The Cultural Toll and False Glamour
The issue transcends company size, affecting both nimble startups and established multinationals. In many Indian firms, even executives with final authority feel compelled to seek affirmation from the top. This is especially true in family-run businesses, where presenting a fait accompli on significant matters is rare.
Ironically, micromanagement sometimes wears a cloak of glamour. Figures like Paul Graham, co-founder of Y Combinator, have championed the 'founder mode,' where the founder remains deeply involved in operations. However, this philosophy can blur into counterproductive territory when it involves double-guessing skilled professionals at every turn.
The consequences are severe. Micromanagement is proven to stifle work initiative and creativity. It instils a subtle undercurrent of fear, and the strict oversight weakens a team's core ability to function. Team members slacken, reasoning that there's little point in investing effort if the boss will likely demand a redo.
While some leadership models show that micromanagers can be successful and efficient, such success is often short-lived without a team that willingly owns outcomes. At its heart, micromanagement stems from a deep-seated insecurity about one's relevance in a competitive world—a fear amplified in the age of AI.
The ultimate lesson is one of trust. As the cliché goes, no one is indispensable. Learning to let go, to trust that "the kids are alright," might be the most critical skill for modern leaders in India and beyond to cultivate for sustainable success.
