Posted on May 22, 2014
Micromanaged or Given No Guidance.....Your Choice
8.25K
101
69
1
1
0
If you had to choice would you want to be micromanaged or given no guidance whatsoever in your job? Why?
Posted in these groups: 
What Would You Do
What Would You Do
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 30
2
2
0
If I had to choose. I would say probably micromanaged. If I wasn't guided and messed up in some way, I might cause the mission to not happen. I don't think I would be able to handle that if I were the cause to something going wrong on a high priority mission due to no guidance. It might not sound like a leadership trait but if I have to choose one or the other, I am taking it from the view point of a new recruit. Otherwise, I have very poor leadership above me to give me only those two choices and I would rather think better of leadership than that.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
No senior worth their salt is going to give you something you can't handle. As a young Airman, gather what you can from the micromanagement and use it to understand their style while you develop yours. As you take on more responsibility you'll start to anticipate what the boss wants because you'll know and understand their style, hopefully leading to less MM from their end.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I'd also rather have no guidance. I'm pretty good at figuring things out. Often times, I see things that can be done more efficiently and get frustrated when having to do it in a poorly planned manner. I also would rather be accountable for my own actions. I take ownership in what I do.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Good question CPT. All depends on the CDR's intent. If the guidance is clear and the complexity of the task at one's pay grade then let loose. If it involves ROE I'm happy to be micro, pico-managed if necessary, I'm SC, I'm a talker more than a fighter.
On the other side of the coin I liked to see what my subordinates could do when left to their own devices - again on pay grade+1 appropriate tasks. If it came down from the "old man" I'd tended to get involved to the point where my SNCOs would tell me to heel - respectfully of course, like, "Sir we got it, go to the PX and have a valium with your coffee"
On the other side of the coin I liked to see what my subordinates could do when left to their own devices - again on pay grade+1 appropriate tasks. If it came down from the "old man" I'd tended to get involved to the point where my SNCOs would tell me to heel - respectfully of course, like, "Sir we got it, go to the PX and have a valium with your coffee"
(2)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Overall, no guidance - though both have their blessings and curses. A free hand allows one to challenge themselves and their creativity as they apply to MDMP.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Sorry! :-) I know the feeling. Broccoli ice cream with sardine sauce is much easier to swallow.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Randy Hill
Good question sir. I feel that with a task that I have mastered their is no need. For bigger more organizational tasks then yes the management input is most welcome. Good military leaders get a feel when to step in and lead forcefully and when to know what tasks your unit achieved to an outstanding level. If you don't; you run into time management issues caused by task saturation of topics the NCO's should be handling. This is quite a leadership art to say the least.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would say both are bad. It is possible IMO to have both. As a contractor I deal with a PM that wants things to be done his way. However, he never really gives us the guidance of exactly how to do the job or what he wanted excepted. He is super critical after the deliverable was given to him and wanted a thousand things to be changed. He is never happy with the first go of a product. If we try to get the info out of him early on he blows us off and tells to figure it out or get guidance from some other employee. The other employee's guidance is usually wrong.
The correct method would be to give the guidance on what needs to be done. How you expect the deliverable to look like, then let people go do it. As long as it meets the intent then it should be fine.
The correct method would be to give the guidance on what needs to be done. How you expect the deliverable to look like, then let people go do it. As long as it meets the intent then it should be fine.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No question. No guidance is better.
I don't know if it helps with your OER but it makes things easy, do it the way you think it should be done.
I don't know if it helps with your OER but it makes things easy, do it the way you think it should be done.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
"Lead, follow or get out of way" I say given the two choices, no guidance. At least if I fail, I will have learned what not to do again. Being micromanaged you learn only to dislike what you are doing.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
One more vote for "No Guidance". Micromanagement almost always leads to one-track solutions and inhibits ingenuity.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Both are actually bad situations. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd say no guidance.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No guidance. In my experience, micro-managers are typically unsure of their own abilities, and therefore must see to every single detail someone else handles. Often times they take credit, as well, for other's contributions.
That, and micro-managers get on my last nerve immediately.
That, and micro-managers get on my last nerve immediately.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google