4 ms·

I have seen a lot of projects failing because of the opposite of micromanagement: no-management. Giving a team some vague project and trusting that everyone wil

by cateye 11y ago

I have seen a lot of projects failing because of the opposite of micromanagement: no-management. Giving a team some vague project and trusting that everyone will take the responsibility to figure out what and how to do it. It ends usually with most of the team just having fun time and couple that really works hard but in the wrong direction. And I am pretty sure that most developers rather prefer micromanagement than no-management if you would do a survey. Ideally it should be somewhere in the middle whereby the developers have enough freedom to make decisions and management to steer the outcome.

moonchrome 11y ago
>And I am pretty sure that most developers rather prefer micromanagement than no-management if you would do a survey. That's just the "grass is greener on the other side". I've seen both at work - I would take no management over micro management any day - particularly because micromanagement is a result of bad management - so you get a bad manager micromanaging you.
danieltillett 11y ago
There is good micromanagement where the person managing understands the problem, has reasonable expectation of what can be accomplished, and pushes the team to perform to their max. There is bad micromanagement, often by non-technical people lacking a clear direction and who want a zillion status updates on what you have done (which are then ignored). A good micromanager can push an amazing level of performance out of a team for a short time, but at a high cost - it is a bit like giving the team amphetamines - the performance is great for a short time, but the downer later is a killer.
- ricardobeat 11y ago
  "A good micromanager" == "an honest liar". There is no such a thing, micromanagement refers to bad, counterproductive behaviour, not a management style that can be used for good.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    The definition of micromanagement is not bad, counterproductive behaviour - it management with excessive attention to details [1]. More generally it is used as a description of your boss watching what you do very carefully and/or telling you what to do. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement
    - ricardobeat 11y ago
      What I meant is that "excessive attention to detail" is bad by definition.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        Yes, but what is considered excessive is situationally and person dependent. The point I was trying to make was that close attention to detail can be a powerful tool to solve a short term issues, but it comes at a high cost in the long term. I am not arguiging for micromanagement as the default management style you should use, but it should be a tool every manager can draw on in the right situation.
fsloth 11y ago
I don't think there is anything vague about this. It's obvious management is responsible for setting attainable goals and priorization, and making sure 'things work'. The latter part is the hardest, I suppose. That can turn into micromanagement. Not focusing on the prior items is negligence, so yeah, in principle I agree with you that no-mamagement is worse ethically. Although there can be situations where the team actually does know the best and the managerial role focuses on non-project related issues

by cateye 11y ago

moonchrome 11y ago

>And I am pretty sure that most developers rather prefer micromanagement than no-management if you would do a survey. That's just the "grass is greener on the other side". I've seen both at work - I would take no management over micro management any day - particularly because micromanagement is a result of bad management - so you get a bad manager micromanaging you.

danieltillett 11y ago

There is good micromanagement where the person managing understands the problem, has reasonable expectation of what can be accomplished, and pushes the team to perform to their max. There is bad micromanagement, often by non-technical people lacking a clear direction and who want a zillion status updates on what you have done (which are then ignored). A good micromanager can push an amazing level of performance out of a team for a short time, but at a high cost - it is a bit like giving the team amphetamines - the performance is great for a short time, but the downer later is a killer.

ricardobeat 11y ago
"A good micromanager" == "an honest liar". There is no such a thing, micromanagement refers to bad, counterproductive behaviour, not a management style that can be used for good.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  The definition of micromanagement is not bad, counterproductive behaviour - it management with excessive attention to details [1]. More generally it is used as a description of your boss watching what you do very carefully and/or telling you what to do. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromanagement
  - ricardobeat 11y ago
    What I meant is that "excessive attention to detail" is bad by definition.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      Yes, but what is considered excessive is situationally and person dependent. The point I was trying to make was that close attention to detail can be a powerful tool to solve a short term issues, but it comes at a high cost in the long term. I am not arguiging for micromanagement as the default management style you should use, but it should be a tool every manager can draw on in the right situation.

fsloth 11y ago

I don't think there is anything vague about this. It's obvious management is responsible for setting attainable goals and priorization, and making sure 'things work'. The latter part is the hardest, I suppose. That can turn into micromanagement. Not focusing on the prior items is negligence, so yeah, in principle I agree with you that no-mamagement is worse ethically. Although there can be situations where the team actually does know the best and the managerial role focuses on non-project related issues