3 ms·

> Some people require micro management and constant oversight Aside from having an actual assistant, is this just hypothetical or do you know someone that pref

> Some people require micro management and constant oversight Aside from having an actual assistant, is this just hypothetical or do you know someone that prefers being micromanaged?

CPLX 3y ago
Yes. Like a thousand times yes. I learned this lesson as a manager very slowly because I hate being micromanaged. It made me a bad manager to not have that in my tool kit. There are a lot of people who just want you to tell them exactly what to do.
Grayskull 3y ago
I dont think this is about workers preference. People without oversight can get unsure about how to execute task and need validation, but when directly asked nobody will tell you they like micromanaged (seen this). Other thing I've seen is people without supervision producing less/lower quality results.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  > People without oversight can get unsure about how to execute task and need validation This sounds more like it could occur at least temporarily when most people get some categorically new task that's potentially costly to screw up, and I could imagine it being voluntarily requested rather than overbearingly applied. > Other thing I've seen is people without supervision producing less/lower quality results. I feel like managers identify a risk and apply their toolkit to it, which often ends up being increased oversight regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. It may or may not be I suppose, but it seems like only a niche person would respond with greater effectiveness in response to more frequent and perhaps intrusive scrutiny.
rvba 3y ago
Interns, new employees...
halfcat 3y ago
It’s not a preference to be micromanaged. It’s a preference to not execute two different skill sets when you lack one of them. That’s stressful. You might be a good developer, but not great at talking to users and figuring out the priority and the solution and executing on that independently. Or you might not be good at delivering eloquent speeches. Or whatever. Everyone lacks some skillset which they’d prefer someone more qualified handle for them.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  Well, I just can't imagine how constant scrutiny and involvement would help what is ultimately a management and expectations failure. "We hired x to concentrate for long periods of time and improve our test coverage, but they're not so good at checking their email and responding to customers within 15 minutes, guess I'll need to start calling them frequently so they get better at that". Seems like poorly considered delegation, or a system problem. Good managers should be able to identify or discover through conversation if someone will benefit from more specific and frequent interaction, and bad ones decide it'll be a good choice and work backwards from that. In other cases, or if established up-front, one should expect a certain range of regular capabilities be within some agreed upon parameters; you probably wouldn't ask your system administrator to get on the sales floor, but you might ask your sales people to be able to work the cash register and lock the doors.
wsc981 3y ago
Seems if you have staff that needs constant oversight and micromanagement, it's a waste of your own time. Do you really want to check someone 8 hours a day, 5 days per week to make sure they do what they are supposed to do? I think in such cases it might be better to get rid of such staff, for your own sake and theirs.
- anthomtb 3y ago
  > Do you really want to check someone 8 hours a day, 5 days per week to make sure they do what they are supposed to do? I had to do something like this. Not every hour, but several times a day was needed to keep this person on track and productive. And no, I did not want to check on an otherwise-functional adult that frequently. Nor did anyone else, but circumstances led to them working on my team. > I think in such cases it might be better to get rid of such staff, for your own sake and theirs. Yes, that was the best option and is ultimately what happened. Going through the required HR hoops was just as much effort as micromanaging, which is why no one bothered to do it for several years. It was easier to shuffle them off to another project and tell the lead "they're alright, they just need to work on communication".
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    What led you to believe checking on them so frequently was useful, and what were the results?
maccard 3y ago
I have worked with people who needed explicit instructions for every step to perform, and if they complete what is assigned to them they will quietly sit and pass the time until they are explicitly told to do something. This isn't an "oh it's 4:30 and I'm not going to start something new", it's "It's 11am, and everyone else is busy, I will play solitaire until my manager explicitly tells me which of the 45 tasks they want me to complete". If you say "go into room X and fetch the Y to do Z", if Y isn't in the right place they will await further instruction. If challenged, they will say they need training on how to handle the situation, or that it's the managers job to ensure the process is right. If you give them the explicit instruciton to tell you when their task is complete, they will come to you and stand next to you until you give them something else to do. However, if you give them a task like do X at 9:30 every Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, it will be done, to spec, every time. People like me will occasionally miss it due to other asks, prioritisation,a perceived lack of value of the task, or an "I-know-that-this-isn't-important" mindset. Part of management is identifying these behavioural differences, and utilising them effectively. If you have a full team of people who need explicit instruction, your job will be shuffling tickets around. If you have a full team of people who look for improvements, and are constantly thinking ahead, your job will be trying to reign them in and keep them working on the right things. Neither is good, you want a mix of both.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  That's a good nuanced take, where actual productivity increases and hostility isn't created, for particular kinds of people.
  - maccard 3y ago
    Thanks. Unfortunately, you do get people who are just poor at their job sometimes, it might be ability or life circumstances (death/divorce/illness/?). The real problem is when there's a mismatch of expectations - if I hire a principal for my team, and expect them to be independent, if they require hand holding or guidance, it doesn't matter how good their code is. Similarly, if assign out bug fixes to someone, and they don't do them and instead do the "juicy" work, it's not going to work. The only real problem are the people who I can only describe as maliciously incompetent. They do the bare minimum that is asked of them, take advantage of all of the freedom and lack of definitions (no core hours meaning I don't work 10-4 Monday through Friday, that sort of thing), and when you try to reason through it together they jump to the most hostile action possible and weaponise your flexibility and grace against you. The only solution for these people is for them to be part of large companies with rigid policies that they are guardrailed into and have no way to test the boundaries of. If you have one of these people on your team you need to get rid of them. My experience is that there's usually one in every 40-50 people. If you get one early on your team, you're in big trouble.

> Some people require micro management and constant oversight Aside from having an actual assistant, is this just hypothetical or do you know someone that prefers being micromanaged?

CPLX 3y ago

Yes. Like a thousand times yes. I learned this lesson as a manager very slowly because I hate being micromanaged. It made me a bad manager to not have that in my tool kit. There are a lot of people who just want you to tell them exactly what to do.

Grayskull 3y ago

I dont think this is about workers preference. People without oversight can get unsure about how to execute task and need validation, but when directly asked nobody will tell you they like micromanaged (seen this). Other thing I've seen is people without supervision producing less/lower quality results.

brailsafe 3y ago
> People without oversight can get unsure about how to execute task and need validation This sounds more like it could occur at least temporarily when most people get some categorically new task that's potentially costly to screw up, and I could imagine it being voluntarily requested rather than overbearingly applied. > Other thing I've seen is people without supervision producing less/lower quality results. I feel like managers identify a risk and apply their toolkit to it, which often ends up being increased oversight regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. It may or may not be I suppose, but it seems like only a niche person would respond with greater effectiveness in response to more frequent and perhaps intrusive scrutiny.

rvba 3y ago

Interns, new employees...

halfcat 3y ago

It’s not a preference to be micromanaged. It’s a preference to not execute two different skill sets when you lack one of them. That’s stressful. You might be a good developer, but not great at talking to users and figuring out the priority and the solution and executing on that independently. Or you might not be good at delivering eloquent speeches. Or whatever. Everyone lacks some skillset which they’d prefer someone more qualified handle for them.

brailsafe 3y ago
Well, I just can't imagine how constant scrutiny and involvement would help what is ultimately a management and expectations failure. "We hired x to concentrate for long periods of time and improve our test coverage, but they're not so good at checking their email and responding to customers within 15 minutes, guess I'll need to start calling them frequently so they get better at that". Seems like poorly considered delegation, or a system problem. Good managers should be able to identify or discover through conversation if someone will benefit from more specific and frequent interaction, and bad ones decide it'll be a good choice and work backwards from that. In other cases, or if established up-front, one should expect a certain range of regular capabilities be within some agreed upon parameters; you probably wouldn't ask your system administrator to get on the sales floor, but you might ask your sales people to be able to work the cash register and lock the doors.

wsc981 3y ago

Seems if you have staff that needs constant oversight and micromanagement, it's a waste of your own time. Do you really want to check someone 8 hours a day, 5 days per week to make sure they do what they are supposed to do? I think in such cases it might be better to get rid of such staff, for your own sake and theirs.

anthomtb 3y ago
> Do you really want to check someone 8 hours a day, 5 days per week to make sure they do what they are supposed to do? I had to do something like this. Not every hour, but several times a day was needed to keep this person on track and productive. And no, I did not want to check on an otherwise-functional adult that frequently. Nor did anyone else, but circumstances led to them working on my team. > I think in such cases it might be better to get rid of such staff, for your own sake and theirs. Yes, that was the best option and is ultimately what happened. Going through the required HR hoops was just as much effort as micromanaging, which is why no one bothered to do it for several years. It was easier to shuffle them off to another project and tell the lead "they're alright, they just need to work on communication".
- brailsafe 3y ago
  What led you to believe checking on them so frequently was useful, and what were the results?

maccard 3y ago

I have worked with people who needed explicit instructions for every step to perform, and if they complete what is assigned to them they will quietly sit and pass the time until they are explicitly told to do something. This isn't an "oh it's 4:30 and I'm not going to start something new", it's "It's 11am, and everyone else is busy, I will play solitaire until my manager explicitly tells me which of the 45 tasks they want me to complete". If you say "go into room X and fetch the Y to do Z", if Y isn't in the right place they will await further instruction. If challenged, they will say they need training on how to handle the situation, or that it's the managers job to ensure the process is right. If you give them the explicit instruciton to tell you when their task is complete, they will come to you and stand next to you until you give them something else to do. However, if you give them a task like do X at 9:30 every Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday, it will be done, to spec, every time. People like me will occasionally miss it due to other asks, prioritisation,a perceived lack of value of the task, or an "I-know-that-this-isn't-important" mindset. Part of management is identifying these behavioural differences, and utilising them effectively. If you have a full team of people who need explicit instruction, your job will be shuffling tickets around. If you have a full team of people who look for improvements, and are constantly thinking ahead, your job will be trying to reign them in and keep them working on the right things. Neither is good, you want a mix of both.

brailsafe 3y ago
That's a good nuanced take, where actual productivity increases and hostility isn't created, for particular kinds of people.
- maccard 3y ago
  Thanks. Unfortunately, you do get people who are just poor at their job sometimes, it might be ability or life circumstances (death/divorce/illness/?). The real problem is when there's a mismatch of expectations - if I hire a principal for my team, and expect them to be independent, if they require hand holding or guidance, it doesn't matter how good their code is. Similarly, if assign out bug fixes to someone, and they don't do them and instead do the "juicy" work, it's not going to work. The only real problem are the people who I can only describe as maliciously incompetent. They do the bare minimum that is asked of them, take advantage of all of the freedom and lack of definitions (no core hours meaning I don't work 10-4 Monday through Friday, that sort of thing), and when you try to reason through it together they jump to the most hostile action possible and weaponise your flexibility and grace against you. The only solution for these people is for them to be part of large companies with rigid policies that they are guardrailed into and have no way to test the boundaries of. If you have one of these people on your team you need to get rid of them. My experience is that there's usually one in every 40-50 people. If you get one early on your team, you're in big trouble.