MANAGEMENT - WHY THERE'S A THIN LINE BETWEEN MONITORING & MEDDLING

MANAGEMENT -  WHY THERE'S A THIN LINE BETWEEN MONITORING AND MEDDLING

Managers and leaders work through people, in professional work set ups the relationship between managers and the people under them is that of supervisor and subordinate. In this context we are using that premise to say everyone to whom another person reports is a supervisor  be it the chief executive or president and whoever reports upwards is a subordinate.

Supervisors therefore have a duty to ensure that their subordinates understand what is expected of them and impart the relevant knowledge and provide adequate skills training to them in order to carry out their work. As a subordinate carries out tasks repeatedly they gain experience and what is called task-relevant maturity. This is a very essential element for the supervisors to grasp and learn to exploit well.

Andrew S. Grove in High output  Management says Task-relevant maturity, has nothing to do with a subordinate's general work experience or their age. It is about the individual's grasp and experience in executing a specific task. The more of that particular task they perform the more task-relevantly mature they become and their confidence increases. The maturity comes with being initially walked through the process step by step by the supervisor closely paying attention and evaluating the performance for quality and consistency. This paying of close attention and evaluation is MONITORING, as the subordinates gets better and grasps the execution of the specific task, the supervisor has to gradually increase the monitoring intervals and allow the subordinate room to execute freely without interruption.
This increases work rate due to the reduced frequency of monitoring activities and interruptions.

However when a superior imparts knowledge and transfers skill to a subordinate and clings on to the project reigns or drops in to check too frequently it then becomes MEDDLING because the subordinate gets chocked and their creativity and independent decision making ability is stifled, they can never build the confidence to execute with constant interruption and being under the superior's perpetual spot light.

One can see the supervisor's challenge here in determining where to draw the line lest well intentioned monitoring spoils everything by becoming meddling.

Open communication channels must therefore be established and maintained all the time between superior and subordinate and the superior ought to ensure the subordinate has full access to the information pool required to execute the task well, the same as they would need if they were carrying out the task themselves.

The superior must therefore establish key performance indicators to assist with the less frequent monitoring, these KPIs are drawn based on time and allocation of other resources. The subordinate and supervisor must agree based on factual and mutually acceptable evidence what the status of a specific task should be after a particular time lapses and a specific amount of resources has been exhausted.

So the subordinate and supervisor are both clear on the expectations meaning the engagements for evaluation become regularised because planning has taken place in advance and meeting intervals determined.
The superior therefore is fully appraised with the project and the subordinate is in control of the task and executing with confidence.
It must be highlighted here that task delegation is definitely NOT abdication and is nowhere near that, the leader must still be responsible and accountable when all is said and done.

THE GOLDEN WORD FOUNTAIN - (TGWF)