What Is Under-Management and How Can It Affect Teams?

We talk a lot about the problems of micromanagement. It is never good to have someone leaning over your shoulder and watching every single little thing you do at work. Surely the opposite must be better?

Not necessarily.

Though many of us crave more autonomy in the workplace, too much can leave us feeling unfocused and unsure of what to do next. Under-management isn’t quite the autonomous dream that many of us wish for; it can cause just as many issues in the workplace as micromanagement can. One study from Gallup discovered that 70% of the variance in team engagement is determined solely by the manager. But what if the manager barely seems present? Whether they are too hands-on or so hands-off that they may not even be in the building, there is a clear link between management and how it affects the team.

So, what happens when a manager takes a step back? Let’s find out.

What is under-management?

Under-management is the under-engagement of a manager with their direct reports and workers. Most managers like to have some sort of involvement with their workers. They want to guide their actions and let them know where they are succeeding or struggling.

An under-manager does the exact opposite of this. They take a deliberate step back. Their employees can find it very difficult to get them to engage in any aspect of their role, from project management and direction to social aspects like collaboration or discipline. These types of managers are difficult to tie down because it can often feel like they are absent. Yet, with the proper support and coaching, they too can be supported and given space to develop into a true leader.

What are the causes of under-management?

Under-management does not suddenly pop up as a practice. It comes in gradually, and if given enough time to take root, unnecessary problems occur where you may not expect to see them at all.

Most of the time, the cause of under-management is fear. The manager in question is fearful of a certain outcome. Some of the types of fear a manager might encounter that then leads them to under-manage their team include:

Fear of micromanagement

It might seem ironic, but a fear of managing employees too much can actually result in someone actively under-managing them. They don’t want to be seen as constantly leaning on their workers and dictating what they do. However, this causes them to over-compensate. They step back too far and leave those who need them without guidance.

Fear of bias

Some under-managers operate this way because they don’t want to be seen as favouring or showing bias to someone. They would rather treat every employee the same, and the easiest way they perceive to do so is to be hands-off and unavailable. This will not work. Some employees naturally need more support than others. In a fair and understanding workplace, managers should be able to support these employees without bias, and their coworkers will understand this without any jealousy.

Fear of villainisation

No one wants to be the bad guy at work. Some leaders fear disciplining their workers because they think that this will turn them into a villain in the eyes of their teams. They take a step back and refuse to offer any form of leadership or guidance to their team. Not every correction needs to be harsh—after all, a leader might just ask a team to end their overly long conversation and get back to work—but someone with a fear of villainisation will always be cautious of being viewed in such a light.

Fear of confrontation

Conflict is normal, and confrontation needs to be a part of how it is resolved. However, many people are afraid of confrontation and would rather avoid it. This can ultimately cause more problems than if they had just gone through with the confrontation in the first place. Difficult conversations are part of management, and they need to be respected on both sides of the table. Managers and employees equally need to feel like they can confront each other on specific issues if a psychologically safe workplace is to be created.

Fear of rebuttal

Alongside a fear of confrontation, you can often find a fear of rebuttal. Some leaders just want a one-sided confrontation where there is no chance of a rebuttal or reprimand from their teams. This is not a healthy or helpful atmosphere to work in, and will only allow resentment to fester. A healthy working relationship creates space for both a leader and their team to voice their opinion so they can work towards a solution collaboratively and without disrespect or rebuttals on either side.

Fear of time-wasting

Managers with an eye for productivity may mistakingly think that any time spent not actively working on tasks is a waste of time. Therefore, extra meetings and personnel discussions are not an efficient use of time. They become an under-manager because they don’t take the time to get to know their workers on any sort of social level. With no interest in learning how their employees work or how best to support them, productivity levels slip, business is affected, and managers are left wondering where they have gone wrong.

Fear of leadership

It might be odd to consider, but some leaders do have a fear of leadership. This is not a fear of their own management or an executive board that they may have to answer to, but the fact that they themselves have to display attributes of management and leadership. Even if they have natural leadership skills, they are reluctant to engage with or develop them into more.

What is the impact of under-management?

A hands-off, under-management style of leadership will be felt across a company. Though its impact might seem minimal at first, it can have some big repercussions when left unattended. Some of the most common impacts felt because of under-management include:

Small problems become big

The issue with under-management is that issues can quickly begin to compound for all involved. What might have only been a small problem has now snowballed and become much more difficult to fix.

For example, let’s say that a major asset is missing from a planned campaign. Though it is noted initially, the manager assumes it will be handled by someone else rather than explicitly assigning it to a team member to be created. No one realises it is missing until the campaign launch day, where the team is faced with a choice to either delay and lose valuable timing or launch with a hastily assembled graphic that looks out-of-place.

The issue wasn’t that the graphic was missing, it was that the manager in charge of the campaign assumed that someone else had it covered. A strong manager does not micromanage, but they should be able to see where gaps are so they can plug the holes before the ship sinks.

Resources are misused

Mistakes happen, but when they are allowed to happen often, resources like time, effort, and even team goodwill can be heavily misused. An under-manager might sit and wonder why nothing appears to be changing, but they refuse to engage with the root cause.

For example, a company may decide to hire a new office assistant to support with tasks like daily admin. The manager in charge of the assistant’s onboarding doesn’t prepare a plan and tells the team to just chip in as needed. The new hire ends up asking multiple people for help, resulting in conflicting instruction, and they are not given access to the right tools or training so they are unable to be proactive and start looking out for things themselves. They are unable to fix the issues they were hired to help with and they feel demotivated about their own skills and potential.

Again, the root cause here is not the new hire, but the manager not showing leadership through good onboarding practices. It is a systemic failure of leadership with no plan, no ownership, and no follow-through, giving the new hire no option but to fail.

Mistakes aren’t caught

Mistakes are human, and they should be tolerated. That does not mean that they have to be an expected part of processes. A team should have checks and reviews in place to ensure that mistakes are spotted before they can cause issues. However, with an under-manager in charge, a mistake can easily slip through the gap.

A sales team has recently updated its pricing structure, and the under-manager in charge tells them that they are trusted to handle their own accounts. One sales rep writes up a proposal using the old pricing sheet and, though the manager skims it before it goes to the customer, no one thinks to check the numbers. The customer responds with surprise as the price is not what they expected. Either the company has to potentially lose revenue with the wrong price, or they have to admit what has happened and risk looking unprofessional and disorganised.

The core issue here is not the mistake but the lack of oversight. Once again, assumptions were allowed to roam free, and no expectations were set. Under-management does not promote empowerment, but rather abandonment.

Poor performance goes unchecked

The best boss for low performers might be the under-manager—if they don’t want to do anything but slide under the radar that is. In other teams, their performance would be noticed and they would be encouraged to make improvements and address the root cause of their poor performance.

Let’s imagine that one operations team has a very disorganised Procurement Coordinator who is constantly forgetting to submit purchase orders and is slow to follow up on requests and emails. Their manager shrugs it off, thinking that is the way they are and not offering any support that could lead to improvements. Minor delays lead to workarounds, and the rest of the team begins to pick up the Coordinator’s slack to avoid blow-ups, only for a big opportunity to slip away from the sales team because ops didn’t pull their weight. The Procurement Coordinator feels confused and overwhelmed; they didn’t have the support they needed to see where they were going wrong.

The core problem here is the under-manager, not the Coordinator. The under-manager thought they were being supportive by being hands-off, but the reality is that they were failing to be a coach and a mentor, and they did not do anything to address the issues they knew existed.

Talent and potential go unrewarded

While low performers can slide under the radar, high performers are left not getting the praise they deserve from their under-managers. A high performer can’t be left to work things out on their own simply because they are perceived as being more capable. They will still need support.

For a final example, let’s imagine a small in-house legal department with a rising star. Unfortunately, the under-manager in charge never schedules 1:1s unless someone requests them and doesn’t believe in offering praise just because someone is doing well. As a result, the rising star has never been offered a title change or pay review, even though they are doing work well beyond their current pay grade. Eventually, they leave for a better job and the pay they deserve and the team is left to scramble and redistribute their workload.

The under-manager wasn’t being actively malicious. They just weren’t being a manager. By refusing to engage with an employee who was performing well, they weren’t giving them the guidance they needed or even any thanks for going above and beyond.

How do we tackle under-management?

Under-management is not the hands-off, pro-team approach it appears to be on the outside.

The first step in tackling under-management will be to identify the root fear at the heart of it. Unfortunately, getting the manager to then confront this fear can be difficult. No one wants to face their flaws and be told that they are causing a negative impact at work when they think their behaviour is the right stance to take.

Small changes in behaviour can instantly make an impact. Under-managers need to redevelop their approach to communication in their team. Try immediate quick wins such as:

1. Setting up recurring 1:1s with their team
2. Providing quick and frequent feedback
3. Being visible in the team chat

Small gestures like this will begin to reverse a manager’s reputation for being hands-off and unavailable. In the meantime, they can get to work on their own behaviours and development with the help of an expert executive coach.

Managers need support just as much as their employees. ChangingPoint’s Personal Impact Leadership Programme is designed to help managers establish and understand their strengths and weaknesses. Our experts will help break habits, challenge attitudes, and change behaviours so managers can move forward and properly engage with their teams.

Leadership is not about being perfect, but about being present for teams to support them no matter how things change.