Management is about sensemaking. Management provides the last answer (if one is needed) for 'Why are we doing this?'. It carries accountability for calling 'when to stop', and in the obverse provides belief and is the backstop that 'this can be done'. It therefore also has accountability for changing constraints (money, scope, resource, time) if needed when asked.
Management ties contexts together, so other individuals don't have to ask infinite 'whys', they trust the manager has this covered.
Management can be done by individuals, within the team, or hierarchically. All can work.
Personally strongly disagree with 'managers typically have no skin in the game'. I find it is necessary to care about the outcome and the team and the customer when I work, but YMMV. Do agree that management is a support, though I prefer to use the analogy that it is the 'glue' role
This seems a bit confused. Some sort of bibliography would help me understand where all of these pronouncements are coming from.
People are usually considered "resources" in this kind of management speak. (As in "human resources.") I have no idea what is meant here by "resources and contributors." Much of this needs clear definition to make any sense.
I can't make any sense of the whole war and peace business. Is it peace time if there are no unknown unknowns? I'm sure Rumsfeld would disagree.
What the hell are we paying managers for if not to be responsible? Why is risk something the lackeys deal with "from the bottom up?"
I think the post was misunderstood. It says "Generally, management is responsible of the actions executed and the overall goal attainment. The responsibility comes from the mandate to direct contributors’ efforts and allocated resources."
and
"Risk management solutions should come bottom up – from the working group, or, if the manager is not prepared with a sound bottom-up solution, expectations holders(stakeholders) impose certain measures on the working group."
5 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 25.9 ms ] threadManagement ties contexts together, so other individuals don't have to ask infinite 'whys', they trust the manager has this covered.
Management can be done by individuals, within the team, or hierarchically. All can work.
Personally strongly disagree with 'managers typically have no skin in the game'. I find it is necessary to care about the outcome and the team and the customer when I work, but YMMV. Do agree that management is a support, though I prefer to use the analogy that it is the 'glue' role
People are usually considered "resources" in this kind of management speak. (As in "human resources.") I have no idea what is meant here by "resources and contributors." Much of this needs clear definition to make any sense.
I can't make any sense of the whole war and peace business. Is it peace time if there are no unknown unknowns? I'm sure Rumsfeld would disagree.
What the hell are we paying managers for if not to be responsible? Why is risk something the lackeys deal with "from the bottom up?"
and
"Risk management solutions should come bottom up – from the working group, or, if the manager is not prepared with a sound bottom-up solution, expectations holders(stakeholders) impose certain measures on the working group."
The line workers live in the present tense.
(I say that as though it did not take me 20 years to suss out.)