Vol. 17 No. 1 (2026)
Studies

Perceived Micromanagement, Psychological Safety and Employee Well-Being: A Small-Scale Exploratory Survey-Based Study

PDF
Shahed Aladwan
social worker, University of Pécs
Szabolcs Fekete
assistant professor, University of Pécs
DOI: https://doi.org/10.61177/HISZ.2026.17.1.9

Published 25-06-2026

Keywords

  • micromanagement,
  • psychological safety,
  • employee well-being,
  • supervisory authority,
  • workplace autonomy,
  • leadership,
  • organizational behavior

Copyright (c) 2026 Shahed Aladwan, Fekete Szabolcs

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

This article examines perceived micromanagement, psychological safety, supervisory authority, and employee well-being through a small-scale exploratory questionnaire study. The analysis is based on a cross-sectional online survey completed by 71 participants. Its purpose is descriptive and interpretive rather than confirmatory: formal statistical modelling and standalone qualitative analysis fall outside the scope of the present manuscript. The survey responses indicate that stronger and more intrusive supervisory control was often reported together with lower psychological safety, reduced autonomy, weaker employee voice, and less favourable work-related well-being. At the same time, the article keeps a clear distinction between close supervision and micromanagement. Supervision was described as less problematic when it was task-relevant, predictable, proportionate, and experienced as supportive rather than distrustful. The study contributes to discussions on leadership, authority, and employee well-being by clarifying how necessary managerial oversight may differ from autonomy-reducing control. Its main value lies in formulating cautious, survey-based observations and identifying directions for future research with larger samples, validated instruments, and fuller statistical reporting.

PDF

References

  1. Allcorn, S. (2022): Micromanagement in the workplace. Organisational and Social Dynamics, 22(1), pp. 83–98. https://doi.org/10.33212/osd.v22n1.2022.83
  2. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. (2004): Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Manual and sampler set (3rd ed.). Mind Garden.
  3. De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N. (2008): Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), pp. 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002
  4. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2000): The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp. 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
  5. Edmondson, A. C. (1999): Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
  6. French, J. R. P., Jr., Raven, B. (1959): The bases of social power. In: D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power, pp. 150–167. University of Michigan.
  7. Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., Bech, P. (2015): The WHO-5 Well-Being Index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), pp. 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585
  8. World Health Organization. (1998): Wellbeing measures in primary health care/the DepCare Project: Report on a WHO meeting, Stockholm, Sweden, 12–13 February 1998. WHO Regional Office for Europe.