4 ms·
There is good micromanagement where the person managing understands the problem, has reasonable expectation of what can be accomplished, and pushes the team to
by 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 agoThe 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 agoWhat I meant is that "excessive attention to detail" is bad by definition.
- danieltillett 11y agoYes, 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.