Is online micromanagement a form of cyberbullying?

As remote work rises, micromanagement can blur into bullying, impacting employee well-being and workplace culture.

As remote work has become more common post-pandemic, both employers and employees are confronted with various challenges as they adapt their way of working. While managers may attempt to establish a new communication mechanism to ensure that work gets done remotely, employees may face challenges if managers resort to intrusive control and persistent oversight, a phenomenon akin to micromanagement. This management style, marked by excessive supervision and a lack of trust, can create a toxic environment and cross the line to (cyber)bullying. Understanding these behaviours is crucial for organisations to prevent practices that can lead to bullying, and vital for policymakers to ensure that remote work remains fair and respectful for all employees.

A thin line 

Micromanagement is a management style often linked with autocratic or authoritarian leadership, and is characterised by excessive supervision and control over every aspect of an employee’s work. But what does micromanagement look like in practice?

It typically involves excessive monitoring of employees through constant emails or, increasingly, through digital tracking software, along with frequent requests for updates, creating a sense of constant scrutiny. According to a 2020 study published in the Harvard Business Review, which surveyed over 1,200 people across 24 countries, 21 percent of employees reported that their supervisor constantly evaluated their work. Another 11 percent stated that their supervisor or manager kept very close tabs on them through frequent check-ins. This translates into workers feeling that they are not trusted and that they are micromanaged by their managers. However, it is important to remember that, while close monitoring of an employee’s work can sometimes feel intrusive, it does not automatically mean that a manager is a bully. 

Micromanagement crosses into bullying territory, whether online or in person, when managers exert excessive control by setting unrealistic expectations and imposing unmanageable workloads – systematically and persistently. In their pursuit of tight control over all aspects of work, such managers may even strip employees of significant responsibilities to ensure that everything aligns with their standards and assign them work below their level of competence.

Validated instruments for measuring exposure to workplace bullying (and cyberbullying), such as the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised (NAQ-R), include items related to experiences of micromanagement. Respondents rate the frequency of exposure on a scale from ‘never’ to ‘daily’. In the NAQ-R, examples of these items are ‘excessive monitoring of your work’, ‘being given tasks with unreasonable deadlines’, ‘being exposed to an unmanageable workload’, and ‘having key areas of responsibility removed or replaced with more trivial or unpleasant tasks’.  

A recent Eurofound review of empirical research, though still limited in studies on cyberbullying, found evidence that micromanagement and intrusive surveillance – particularly in remote work settings – can constitute bullying and cause significant harm to those subjected to these practices. Micromanagement and (cyber)bullying share a common element: an imbalance of power. In micromanagement, this power imbalance exists between the employee and the manager, who imposes excessive or unreasonable top-down control.

Regardless of the underlying motivations or intentions, the consequences can be severe for employees subjected to micromanagement practices that veer into bullying behaviours. As the research examined in the Eurofound review consistently demonstrated, bullying, in all its forms, has significant negative effects on victims’ physical and mental health.

Even when micromanagement does not escalate to (cyber)bullying, it remains detrimental to both employees and the organisation. It undermines individual autonomy, damages workplace morale, fosters unhealthy work environments, and ultimately may have a negative impact on productivity.

Emerging case law 

Case law on this issue is scarce within the EU. However, legal precedents from other jurisdictions suggest that micromanagement can be symptomatic of bullying behaviours. For instance, in the Australian case of Leggett v Hawkesbury Race Club Limited (2022), the court found that excessive micromanagement by a supervisor constituted workplace bullying, leading to severe psychological harm for the employee. The court awarded substantial compensation, recognising the detrimental impact of such management practices on mental health for the employee.

Similarly, in a case in the UK in 2019, the Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the micromanagement to which the plaintiff was subjected amounted to (cyber)bullying. The tribunal recognised that while some level of supervision is necessary in any workplace, the excessive and punitive nature of micromanagement in this case went beyond reasonable oversight and became a form of psychological harassment. 

These cases highlight that micromanagement, when persistent and taken to an extreme, can be legally recognised as bullying, especially when it involves unwarranted criticism, undue scrutiny, and an undermining of the employee’s autonomy and confidence. Ultimately, what matters most is the cumulative harmful effect on the employee’s well-being, regardless of the intention or motivation behind the behaviour.

Preventing micromanagement from spiralling 

Post-pandemic, policymakers are increasingly attuned to the risks associated with digital monitoring technologies, which can enable intrusive managerial control, a hallmark of micromanagement practices. In response, some countries, such as Cyprus, Greece and Portugal, have tightened rules on spyware and monitoring devices as part of their telework legislation. 

However, legislative measures alone are not enough. There is still much to be done at workplace level. In today’s work environment, it is essential for employers to keep their health and safety and anti-bullying policies up to date, especially as digital tools increasingly influence management practices. By reviewing such policies and internal regulations to explicitly address these concerns, employers can lay the foundation for a healthier, more respectful, and productive work environment.

While excessive and systematic micromanagement might not be explicitly recognised as a risk in Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) legal frameworks, it can still be identified during risk assessments. When this risk is identified, offering coaching and training can be effective in helping managers develop more positive and supportive management styles.

It is also important to remember that micromanagement comes down to a lack of trust between a manager and their employee and a desire on the part of the manager to keep a tight control over employees’ work. This may be a sign of a more profound issue within the workplace culture, one that can create a breeding ground for negative behaviours like bullying. To tackle micromanagement, it is also important to look at the bigger picture and address these underlying cultural issues head-on.