4 ms·

I don’t think this is right. Managers can be hands-on or hands-off, task-oriented, or people-oriented. Very task-oriented + very hands-on = micromanager. Very

I don’t think this is right. Managers can be hands-on or hands-off, task-oriented, or people-oriented. Very task-oriented + very hands-on = micromanager. Very hands-off = a disengaged manager. In my experience, the best managers can find a beneficial spot on those axes for each employee. Give the technically competent people lacking confidence reassurance (be hands-on and people-oriented), micromanage a bit with people who aren’t doing their work effectively and not as a result of something that can be fixed with empathy or encouragement, and be disengaged when you’re working with competent self-motivated misanthropes. IMO, saying one extreme is better than another tells you a bit about the author, nothing helpful about management in general. Regarding the complaint of not moving decisions forward with a disengaged manager, if you plan to be absentee you must delegate, i.e. be laissez-faire. If you’re forcing people to get your approval and you’re not around to give it, you’ve combined the most incompatible bits of micromanager and the disengaged manager.

about3fitty 4y ago
You’re right to identify nuance, but there is a lot of devil in the details regarding classification
BelleOfTheBall 4y ago
I'd agree with this an don't see much point in trying to figure out which bad type of management is the least bad. Instead, the approach should focus on finding ways to make a bad manager better in a meaningful way.
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
That could make a fascinating 2x2. I wonder what other failure modes the other intersections could reveal. Have you thought about those other 3 quadrants? I did the exercise for myself, and here's what I got: hands-on + task-oriented = micromanager hands-on + people-oriented = professional office politician (deeply involved, but only to the extent it enables shaping the org chart) hands-off + task-oriented = scrum master (no technical background that would allow being hands-on, but still very concerned with tasks) hands-off + people-oriented = HR rep, I guess? Relatively distant from the day-to-day of the team, but still concerned with "people." On reflection, maybe that last one is a bit of a stretch. But — definitely an interesting thought experiment overall.
- blowski 4y ago
  Good managers can adapt the help they provide to the teams they manage. A team of high-performing engineers needs something different from a manager than a team of low-performing juniors. A team building a new product in a fast-growing startup will have different needs to a maintenance team in a bluechip. Nonetheless, I do like your thought experiment. It provides a model to think about what might be necessary.
- justinclift 4y ago
  Ever read "The One Minute manager"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Minute_Manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Minute_Manager It covers this, is very short, and (IMHO) is a good book to give all brand new managers. eg when they're promoted from individual contributors Seems to set new managers on the right path. :)
- KineticLensman 4y ago
  > That could make a fascinating 2x2 2x2s can be really entertaining. One I've seen a lot covers the dimensions of lazy-hardworking and idiot-clever. The outcome is * hardworking-clever: Ideal! * lazy-idiot: don't need to worry, they'll not usually progress. * lazy-clever: hmmm. not ideal but may still be useful from time to time. * hardworking-idiot: bad! They can do a lot of damage In truth there are usually more than two relevant dimensions.
  - danson 4y ago
    There is a well known (albeit mythic) portrayal of this that disagrees with you, putting the lazy-clevers in charge. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/?amp=1 https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/?amp=1 I think it requires a certain definition of "lazy" that basically translates to "delegate everything you possibly can" - which we all know can be hard work in itself.
  - walthamstow 4y ago
    Lazy clevers can be very useful in finding ineffeciencies and automating tasks IME they are the first people to challenge assumptions about the way things are done, and the least happy with the answer "that's just the way we do it" Just make sure you review their code.
acatnamedjoe 4y ago
"Regarding the complaint of not moving decisions forward with a disengaged manager, if you plan to be absentee you must delegate" I took the OPs point on this to be that, at a certain level of seniority, delegation isn't enough. I.e. lots of decisions will require consensus with ones peers to actually implement. And when you don't have active engagement and coordination from the level above: 1) peer consensus can take a lot more time and energy to achieve. And 2) you can often end up with a compromise solution that's the worst of all options, because nobody has the authority to say - "we're doing it this way". In general, I get the sense that at more senior levels management becomes much more about managing conflict between subordinates rather than managing individual activities. I think the article was written from that perspective.
- Scarblac 4y ago
  Wow, you described my workplace exactly in a way I never considered it, thanks!
agumonkey 4y ago
I don't know where I'd fit. I'm very brain-process oriented. I want people to explore hypothesis / plans in a smart and organized way.. the rest I don't care. I feel people around me are being tired of that .. while I'm tired of all the back and forth due to improper discovery or information passing.
jedinix 4y ago
> In my experience, the best managers can find a beneficial spot on those axes for each employee. Agreed - I would also add that the "sweet spot" for a given employee is not fixed; it may be context/situation specific, may change over time, etc. That is to say, you may have to be more hands-on with the self-motivated misanthrope when a situation requires close collaboration with colleagues, or be more task-oriented with the technically competent people when they're overwhelmed with tickets.

about3fitty 4y ago

You’re right to identify nuance, but there is a lot of devil in the details regarding classification

BelleOfTheBall 4y ago

I'd agree with this an don't see much point in trying to figure out which bad type of management is the least bad. Instead, the approach should focus on finding ways to make a bad manager better in a meaningful way.

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago

That could make a fascinating 2x2. I wonder what other failure modes the other intersections could reveal. Have you thought about those other 3 quadrants? I did the exercise for myself, and here's what I got: hands-on + task-oriented = micromanager hands-on + people-oriented = professional office politician (deeply involved, but only to the extent it enables shaping the org chart) hands-off + task-oriented = scrum master (no technical background that would allow being hands-on, but still very concerned with tasks) hands-off + people-oriented = HR rep, I guess? Relatively distant from the day-to-day of the team, but still concerned with "people." On reflection, maybe that last one is a bit of a stretch. But — definitely an interesting thought experiment overall.

blowski 4y ago
Good managers can adapt the help they provide to the teams they manage. A team of high-performing engineers needs something different from a manager than a team of low-performing juniors. A team building a new product in a fast-growing startup will have different needs to a maintenance team in a bluechip. Nonetheless, I do like your thought experiment. It provides a model to think about what might be necessary.
justinclift 4y ago
Ever read "The One Minute manager"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Minute_Manager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Minute_Manager It covers this, is very short, and (IMHO) is a good book to give all brand new managers. eg when they're promoted from individual contributors Seems to set new managers on the right path. :)
KineticLensman 4y ago
> That could make a fascinating 2x2 2x2s can be really entertaining. One I've seen a lot covers the dimensions of lazy-hardworking and idiot-clever. The outcome is * hardworking-clever: Ideal! * lazy-idiot: don't need to worry, they'll not usually progress. * lazy-clever: hmmm. not ideal but may still be useful from time to time. * hardworking-idiot: bad! They can do a lot of damage In truth there are usually more than two relevant dimensions.
- danson 4y ago
  There is a well known (albeit mythic) portrayal of this that disagrees with you, putting the lazy-clevers in charge. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/?amp=1 https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/?amp=1 I think it requires a certain definition of "lazy" that basically translates to "delegate everything you possibly can" - which we all know can be hard work in itself.
- walthamstow 4y ago
  Lazy clevers can be very useful in finding ineffeciencies and automating tasks IME they are the first people to challenge assumptions about the way things are done, and the least happy with the answer "that's just the way we do it" Just make sure you review their code.

acatnamedjoe 4y ago

"Regarding the complaint of not moving decisions forward with a disengaged manager, if you plan to be absentee you must delegate" I took the OPs point on this to be that, at a certain level of seniority, delegation isn't enough. I.e. lots of decisions will require consensus with ones peers to actually implement. And when you don't have active engagement and coordination from the level above: 1) peer consensus can take a lot more time and energy to achieve. And 2) you can often end up with a compromise solution that's the worst of all options, because nobody has the authority to say - "we're doing it this way". In general, I get the sense that at more senior levels management becomes much more about managing conflict between subordinates rather than managing individual activities. I think the article was written from that perspective.

Scarblac 4y ago
Wow, you described my workplace exactly in a way I never considered it, thanks!

agumonkey 4y ago

I don't know where I'd fit. I'm very brain-process oriented. I want people to explore hypothesis / plans in a smart and organized way.. the rest I don't care. I feel people around me are being tired of that .. while I'm tired of all the back and forth due to improper discovery or information passing.

jedinix 4y ago

> In my experience, the best managers can find a beneficial spot on those axes for each employee. Agreed - I would also add that the "sweet spot" for a given employee is not fixed; it may be context/situation specific, may change over time, etc. That is to say, you may have to be more hands-on with the self-motivated misanthrope when a situation requires close collaboration with colleagues, or be more task-oriented with the technically competent people when they're overwhelmed with tickets.