General discussion



By jimhauerscaz ·
In today's business world, certain management people have serious 'control freak' traits - causing a thwarting of initative, and bringing about lowering standards or possible achievement by creative invividu7als.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Pot Kettle?

by JamesRL In reply to MANAGEMENT LEVEL PEOPLE H ...

I notice your title is IT Management. Are you talking about your peers, your bosses or both?

Sure there are micromanagers. Some of them are new managers who haven't really learned the job yet. Some are control freaks. Some don't get any guidance from their bosses.

In an ideal scenario, senior managements sets out broad objectives, and passes them down to the next level. The next level gets more specific, and passes them down and so on. In the end, the "worker bee" objectives should be traceable right up to the President's objectives.

If you follow this logic through, if everyone knows the what and why of the objectives, you should not need to micromanage someone to death, unless they are either an underperformer or someone new to the role.


Collapse -


by JIm.frazier In reply to Pot Kettle?

I worked for a guy who never gave you any direction as to what he wanted/needed from you. You basically left dangling and then at review time he came up with all this stuff that you had never heard of and were suppose to have accomplished. I no longer work for
him but he is still around. Everyone that works for him is scared to death.

My new boss always asks us (programmers) what
needs to be done and then supports our direction. He is aware that we know a lot more about the topic at hand and is not threatened by it. The result is that our customers are happy with what we do and he
gets the positive press because we work for him...We keep him up to date with what we are
doing and why !

It works great.

Collapse -

Get real

by Kiltie In reply to MANAGEMENT LEVEL PEOPLE H ...

Not just todays world, it was in yesterdays world.
It's life, Office politics, whatever, learn to deal with it.

Collapse -

Control Freak -- NOT

by A1Nut In reply to Get real

I'm sure there are some control freaks out there but the main purpose of this in a person who has made it to management, is that the work is not getting done or not getting done right. I, for one, empower my people and let them make decisions as appropriate. However, there are some that need to be controlled because they don't control themselves. That is the only time I micromanage...and it is not a fun thing to have to do, but you have to meet the objectives! I tell my staff..."You are either part of the problem or part of the solution". The ones who want to be the problem get "special attention".

Collapse -

A better solution

by JIm.frazier In reply to Control Freak -- NOT

Take out the trash......

Collapse -

Then Who's The Clean-Up Batter

by JohnnySacks In reply to Get real

Having to support and maintain bleeding edge 'innovative' crap that keeps on falling apart long after some shining star children have moved on is hardly my idea of a rewarding job. If a manager knows his sh!t and is justified in stomping some idiotic 'innovation' into the dirt where it belonged a minute after it was born, too damn bad. This is a business, not a techie play pen.

On the other hand, there are some spineless Dilbert class idiot managers out there which I'm sure more than deserve the scorn this article heaps on them.

Collapse -

Piloting the guided missle

by sr10 In reply to MANAGEMENT LEVEL PEOPLE H ...

First line management of technical people is never easy, and with the destruction of middle management in many companies, it got harder. The manager is completely dependent on the people who report to her/him, but s/he is expected to have the same level of control over staff that a factory floor supervisor has. Often it's like being a pilot of a guided missle: you have no real control over where the vehicle is going, but everyone expects you to, because you're there.

No, it doesn't justify micromanaging, but I can certainly understand the desire to resort to that. The manager doesn't want to crush the practitioner's initiative, but the practitioner often directs that initiative toward the goals of the craft, while the goals of the business come in second. With the reduction in middle management, there are fewer people to coach the first-line managers how to handle this and more people breathing down their necks.

Collapse -

signs of the times

by Zen37 In reply to MANAGEMENT LEVEL PEOPLE H ...

I find that some of that may be attributed to the notion of "be ready for change at a moments notice". This has brought two things to the table.

1. Managers don't want to be precise with project objectives and specifications because they can change at any moment. To be able to change, you cannot commit too much.

2. In order for changes to go through rapidly and efficiently, you need to be closely monitoring the work, making sure all the changes are done correctly. That can easily be taken for micro management.

Times are changing constantly now and I for one am sick of it. Big wigs (if you pardon the pun) are so use to changing their minds on a whim and getting what they want that they don't take into account all the trouble that it causes down the line. I wish we could go back to when someone asks for something, we build it, we give it to them and if it's not what they wanted or needed, when that person did not do their research right. Of if things changed, well that person did not forecast correctly.

Sometimes I fell like a puppet that has its strings handled by way too many puppeteers.

Collapse -

Sign of insecurity

by darrell.jones In reply to MANAGEMENT LEVEL PEOPLE H ...

It seems that gratuitous controlling comes with insecurity (usually well-founded). Sometimes it's a reaction to an environment that demands too much or staff that can't be trusted, but usually it's a reflection of the manager's own shortcoming. One bad side-effect of the latter is that new (especially peer) hirings are then supported or opposed depending on how non-threatening the prospective hire is. Then you have kind of a systemic dry-rot. Good luck with that! Hopefully people grow and change, or you can find another situation...

Collapse -

Not so much control but harrassment because of her ego.

by Digicruiser In reply to MANAGEMENT LEVEL PEOPLE H ...

What does one say when you have a "boss" who likes to make decisions on little information and believes it to be true?

Her "control" comes from the times when she thinks she has something over you and harrasses without hearing the real truths! In this South Australian government department, she has done this to many whom are at various levels within the organisation.

Passing over databases from my directorate to the main IT section, I handed over documentation, passwords and so on so IT can do a decent job on my old databases - hehe they seem to have trouble doing it to their own software... This boss has tried to "catch me out" deliberately and this time she decided that I didn't provide passwords for my databases etc... She waited until the last day of my holidays and rang to suggest I've done something wrong. Not the way to pleasantly end a holiday, I was told that I resisted in providing blah blah to IT before my holidays -this was utter rubbish. I told her I did provide those things but said "Oh I know you knew you didn't do..." - this boss started to hand me a letter with all sorts of garbage on it which was to be placed into my "file". During this time I was recording the conversation on the Digital recorder. Later I rang IT and told them that "I was going to complain to the Chief Exec about this boss and I needed them to deny or agree that I had provided the stuff. They did have all the stuff but the boss didn't ask them if they did. This boss was going to get it - but she did get an E-mail from IT to pass on what I asked and she was so "gentle" the next day but never got an apology". Been a little more careful ever since but...

This is one game she played onto many and she is very much a "Control freak" if she believes in something she can presumably get you on. But she stays because the Execs like her work output and the way she can "control" people - good or bad.

Not bad for a State Government department! Now I know what Tom Sanders felt like in "Disclosure"!

Related Discussions

Related Forums