Re:In praise of micromanagement
by buckbova on Thursday October 03, 2013 @02:23PM
(#6490866)
What this article describes is not micormanagement. It is more about company leaders imposing their will on the company's products.
From my experience, this is false:
"There is a natural limit to when micromanagement makes sense. Once a job, or a company, becomes too complex or too big, it becomes that much harder to gain the visibility and time you need to stay expert. This is a real danger zone for would-be micromanagers. You just don’t have enough time in the day, or energy in the belly, to keep up at the pace that is necessary. Either you embrace the principle of selective micromanagement, or you go down trying to do what cannot be done."
Of course there is no limit, just add another layer of management. They now micromanage their subordinates.
This is why there is a CTO, then a Software Director, then managers of different groups, and then technical leads. In my experience a completely flat structure doesn't last.
Promotions are necessary to maintain talent and ensure employees are held accountable.
My feeling is the majority of company success is from top down leadership and vision.
A company needs a vision and goals and the employees need to own a piece of that success or failure.
Re:In praise of micromanagement
by mathattack on Thursday October 03, 2013 @01:41PM
(#6490549)
Seems like it's really about praising selective micromanagement: leaders going very deep into what they are very good at, and what's more important, and letting others focus on the rest.
Re:In praise of micromanagement
by gregd on Thursday October 03, 2013 @02:24PM
(#6490872)
Maybe we need to come up with a different word all together. I propose macromanager
Micromanager has a negative connotation for good reason. Nobody wants to be micromanaged. Nobody wants someone managing the minutiae of their everyday jobs.
From my experience, this is false:
"There is a natural limit to when micromanagement makes sense. Once a job, or a company, becomes too complex or too big, it becomes that much harder to gain the visibility and time you need to stay expert. This is a real danger zone for would-be micromanagers. You just don’t have enough time in the day, or energy in the belly, to keep up at the pace that is necessary. Either you embrace the principle of selective micromanagement, or you go down trying to do what cannot be done."
Of course there is no limit, just add another layer of management. They now micromanage their subordinates.
This is why there is a CTO, then a Software Director, then managers of different groups, and then technical leads. In my experience a completely flat structure doesn't last.
Promotions are necessary to maintain talent and ensure employees are held accountable.
My feeling is the majority of company success is from top down leadership and vision.
A company needs a vision and goals and the employees need to own a piece of that success or failure.
Don't forget that. If you aren't an expert, cut that micromanagement nonsense out, step aside, and let the experts do their jobs.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-11/in-praise-of...
Micromanager has a negative connotation for good reason. Nobody wants to be micromanaged. Nobody wants someone managing the minutiae of their everyday jobs.
;), also viable use hidemyass, use a vpn with an exit point in the US, tunnel over SSH.
Region locking content is just idiotic.