To micromanage, not not to micromanage? (Pros and cons) If there are seemingly countless revisions requested, endless status reports being demanded more often than necessary, and an apparent lack of trust in other members of the team to get on with their work and do their job, then you may be in the presence of a micromanager… They would likely chastise you for the slightest mistake or for carrying out a task differently to how they would have done it. If they instead micromanage, they would either watch your every move or demand progress reports more often than is necessary.
They should be available to talk to without interfering with the work directly and slowing the operation down. Usually, this would mean that your manager assigns you the job, asks if you need anything and states when it is needed, and then pretty much leaves you to complete the operation. Let’s say that you’re told to complete a task. While this is sometimes useful (in small-scale projects), this usually results in the manager losing track of the larger picture and annoying the team by being overly-controlling. Micromanagement is exactly what it sounds like someone trying to personally control and monitor everything in a team, situation, or place.
MICRO SNITCH NOT LOAD ON START LICENSE
( Source by Carbon Tippy Toes, used under license CC BY-SA 2.0) Using process management to remove the need for micromanagement.
MICRO SNITCH NOT LOAD ON START HOW TO
How to offset micromanagement with OKRs.That’s why in this Process Street article, we’ll be looking at: It’s demoralizing and counter-intuitive, as the desire for control to make sure everything goes to plan only creates more problems in the long-term. Micromanagement is the ultimate controlling management style. That doesn’t mean you have an excuse to micromanage them. Staying silent while they slip up (or even do things in ways you would not) is harder. It’s hard watching someone make mistakes, especially if you already know how to avoid them.
0 kommentar(er)
