Talk:Micromanagement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
|
|
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. | |
| Stub | rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Article title
I moved this article from micro-management to micromanagement because the latter is the form given in the Oxford English Dictionary as of 2004. --Lowellian 06:24, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Biased
I deleted this entry. Micromanagement isn't always a form of poor management. Certainly there are times when it's necessary. The use of the word "poor" blatantly indicates an OPINION. This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia cites FACTS. Get a clue.
- If it's bad, fix it, but don't blank content. Guanaco 22:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- This article does have problems (like maybe being too short, not much more than a definition), but "micromanagement" is generally a pejorative term; an article about it will naturally assume a negative context. A more neutral (or positive) term might be "hands-on management". An article about that might mention that, when discussed negatively, it is often refered to as "micromanagement". Nowhither 07:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Computer games
I added a small section about micromanagment in computer games. Unfortunatly I am not a native english speaker and I would like someone to see that it is correctly spelled.
[edit] Six Sigma?
Should we add something about the Six Sigma philosophy here? I am a new student of this and it seems to be a revival of Micro Management, likely b/c the later now has negative connotations...
[edit] Worker/Boss Ratio
The article currently states that if a boss can do a task better than the worker and still gives the order, this would be micromanagement. That can't be true - just consider a not too complex task. Even if the boss could do it just as fast as the worker, he might choose to delegate it to get time freed up for something else (more important, more abstract, whatever). I hardly see that as micromanagement, and belive the whole notion of worker/boss ratio is in an incorrect context here.
[edit] Who is this ?
Who is the person listed as an example of a micromanager? --Vorenus 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About Micromanagement
I own a corporation; I employ three managers and fifteen employees. One of my managers is in training. I completely disagree with micromanagement as being a bad thing. I can not afford to let one of my projects fall flat on its face just to prove I don’t micromanage. I over see everything, until I feel I can trust that manager. I believe it is an employees job to prove and earn trust, and not up to me to just hand it to them and hope they care enough to do their best. Accusing someone of micromanaging is a way of getting them off your back so you can do the job how ever you want. This would be fine, if the employees were accountable for any problems, but in the end only the corporation will suffer.
[edit] Micromanagement in a military sense
Where companies and corperations can have project leaders who exhibit this form or stlye of leadership, the term micromanagement can also be connected to leadership styles of commanders, and other leaders in the military service. Where project managers are responsible for meeting deadlines and producing profits, military leaders are charged with the accomplishment of a specific mission or the lives of the soldiers or service members below them.
In a military sense, micromanagement could be seperated into two catagories or styles. The first being where a leader over sees and constantly checks on all of subordinates or performance of tasks, rather than just the individuals one rank or position below him. An example of this is where a platoon sergeant ( In the US Army - a senior Non-Commisioned Officer [NCO] responsible for 3-4 squads usually totalling around 30-50 soldiers ) constantly inspects and oversees the soldiers in his platoon rather than only inspecting and monitoring his Squad Leaders. Where this can check to make sure his squad leaders are performing their duties to standard, on a constant basis, it can cause squad leaders to feel they are not given the amount of trust,authority, and responsibility they need.
The second sense is more controlling where the leader or manager goes farther and takes direct control of all their subordinates. An example of this would be the Platoon Sergeant giving orders to and directly tasking all of his soldiers rather than giving the tasks to his squad leaders. While this would be neccessary if the squad leader(s) were incapable of performing their duties, under normal circumstances, it causes problems for the squad leaders. Usually in this case, they aren't given enough authority to make decisions for themselves to accomplish tasks efficiently and practically. It does however allow the manager or leader to have tasks accomplished exactly the way they want, though it may take more time while they are having to oversee each individual task.
[edit] About Micromanagement reply Jan, 3 2007
I agree and I've added some of the positive aspects of micromanagement. Hope this helps as there is a real and tangible benefit to micro managing at certain levels. I've seen too many new managers take a hands off approach to projects fearing they are micro managing.
[edit] MicroManagement is unproductive...
Military references are not applicable here. Military personnel are required to follow orders regardless of how inane or ridiculous they may seem. People in the private sector are free-thinking human beings and can make choices on their own. They are also responsible for the consequences of those choices. Micro Management goes against the whole concept of a hierarchy for efficiency in the workplace. A typical corporate hierarchy has workers who report to their supervisors who report to their supervisors and so on. The upper level supervisors should not have to worry about the people two or more levels below them; providing the lower level supervisors are doing THEIR job correctly. In my experience, happy workers are productive workers. Workers who are being Micro Managed are usually not happy and therefore are usually unproductive and disgruntled. Matt A.205.173.39.254 18:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
