Are you a laid-back manager? Are you a micromanager? Sometimes you have to be both, depending on the circumstances.
Are you a micromanager that gets overly involved in the work of the team? Or are you a laid-back project manager that assigns work and then lets team members work on their own? Of course, most project managers fall between these two extremes. However, I believe both techniques are very valuable when used in the appropriate situation.
I don't know about you, but I prefer to be more of a hands-off project manager. I like to give team members their assignments, explain what needs to be done, and gain agreement on the due date. Then I let the team work on its own to complete the work by the due date. My role is to help with problems and questions. (Of course, I'm still doing all of the other project management activities like managing scope, communication, and risk.) Someone might look at the way I manage team members and think that I'm too casual, but I think that mature, capable team members appreciate having the flexibility to work on their own.
Of course, when I manage team members this way, the assumption is that they're getting their work done on time and with the right level of quality. I'm also assuming that they will continue to complete the assigned work on time. However, there are times when I have to manage in a much more hands-on manner. In other words, I turn into the dreaded micromanager. Here are the two reasons why I switch my management style:
1. I need to be more hands-on if a team member has shown me that he can't meet the deadlines that he has agreed to.
This isn't the result of one missed deadline, but a pattern of missed deadlines. So, I take more time to explain the work and to validate that the team member understands the work and the due date. I ask him to provide me with interim status updates, and I spend more time monitoring his work. Unfortunately, the people that you manage more tightly rarely like the extra attention. However, I feel like I have no choice if I want to ensure that the work gets done on schedule.
2. I also may have to be a micromanager when there's a short-term work crunch, and need to have more timely feedback on assigned work.
For example, it's not uncommon for me to have status meetings every day so I can monitor the work very closely. This is at the point in a project when a one-day activity really needs to take one day. So again, in my view, the work needs to be closely monitored and if that means people call me a micromanager, then so be it.
So what does this all mean? I think the best project managers are "situational managers." This means that they manage their team in the way that makes the most sense according to the circumstances of the project. Sometimes this means managing at a high-level and giving the team members a lot of freedom, and sometimes it means being a micromanager. I think the best project managers can use both management styles effectively when they match them to the appropriate situation .
TechRepublic is the online community and information resource for all IT professionals, from support staff to executives. We offer in-depth technical articles written for IT professionals by IT professionals. In addition to articles on everything from Windows to e-mail to firewalls, we offer IT industry analysis, downloads, management tips, discussion forums, and e-newsletters.
©2006 TechRepublic, Inc.
Thanks Tom, it was really useful article