A manager and an employee can accidentally train each other into a pattern neither likes.
An employee misses a deadline, so the manager starts checking in more often. The employee experiences the added oversight as mistrust and becomes more cautious about making decisions independently.
The manager notices the hesitation and gets even more involved. The employee starts waiting for approval.
Now both sides have evidence for their story. The manager thinks, “They need too much supervision.” The employee thinks, “They micromanage everything.”
Both descriptions contain some truth, but neither one explains how the pattern developed.
The manager’s response makes the employee more hesitant. The employee’s hesitation makes the manager more controlling. Each person’s attempt to solve the problem becomes part of what keeps it going.
This is why recurring workplace conflict is often more useful to examine as a sequence than as a personality problem.
What does one person do? What does the other person do next? How does that response make the first behavior more likely to return?
Once the pattern is visible, the goal isn’t to decide who started it. It’s to find the point where someone can make a different move.
Sometimes changing one predictable response is enough to change the whole relationship.
References: Sager CJ. Couples therapy and marriage contracts. Handbook of family therapy. 1981;1:85-131.