How to follow up on your project team without micromanaging?

From experience I have learned that when your team is composed of less experienced members that are not able to deliver the only thing that could work is to get a more experienced expert on the team to lead the others.

Constant supervision in terms of frequent status report or other management techniques that don't involve giving technical direction and technical instructions to the team members are completely useless.

Asking each day the team members what they did yesterday, what are they going to do today and if they have impediments will not give them the skills they don't have and will not help them to deliver.

Management techniques that don't involve technical direction will only work when the problems that prevent the team members from delivering are not caused by their lack of technical skills. A manager that is not also an experienced SME is powerless when his team lacks the required skills. There is nothing he can do to compensate for the lack of technical skills.

For instance if you have a team of software developers that are unable to deliver because of their limited experience a manager that is not also an experienced developer can't do much to help. An experienced developer on the other hand could do part of the work while also teaching the others so they can also develop the required skills.

Ed, I've led several software development teams in the past. Some were very high performing; others, not so much.

It should come as no surprise the low performing teams needed constant supervision and instruction for them to be successful. Left on their own they would have failed and the initiatives along with them.

Open discussion and expectations with the team should have already been set. All timelines, etc., would have been set with the team. Follow up on the agreed upon efforts does not equate to micromanaging. These are two different actions.

Micromanaging is a lack of trust in the actions of a team member in how the work is completed - the specific steps taken in producing deliverables.

Hi George,

I agree with Andrew Craig above.

Usually, it is better to set the tone as soon as we take-up a project. I mean, setting up of expectations, ground rules- like mode of communication.
Seeking Daily progress interms of % achieved.
PM can focus on Status, Risks, Assumptions, Issues and depndencies.
Strongly adivsed to have a quick stand-up call and cater half minute per person . A kind of daily check-in.
These things have worked and generally it should work.
Most Important thing is, if team/team member was stuck-up due to an issue, still then, they have to send progress indicating there is no progress!!!.
As i said, TOne setting interms of Daily progress/status, stand-up calls, should be giving good results.

well said

I don't look at it as following up on them. One of the first things that I do is help them break down the tasks in smaller pieces. This way, there is not a lot of time between tasks. I work in an agile methodology so we make sure we meet on a weekly basis. My hard core team (programmers) and I meet 3 times a week. I remind them of our sprint or phase that is ending and the due dates for the tasks. I use my scrum knowledge to ask the three questions:

What did you do yesterday?
What will you do today?
Are there any issues stopping your progress?

The third question is the real reason I am meeting with them. They know this. I fight for them and I get them what they need to have to get the tasks done on time. They like that they don't need to go to additional meetings to get what they need.

I often will tell them that I'm doing something for me...that I need to have extra meetings to keep me on track. That I need to have extra meetings to learn from them the details of the project. It may not be the only reasons, but it puts it on having the meeting for me not for them.

Its worked so far.

From experience I have learned that when your team is composed of less experienced members that are not able to deliver the only thing that could work is to get a more experienced expert on the team to lead the others.

Constant supervision in terms of frequent status report or other management techniques that don't involve giving technical direction and technical instructions to the team members are completely useless.

Asking each day the team members what they did yesterday, what are they going to do today and if they have impediments will not give them the skills they don't have and will not help them to deliver.

Management techniques that don't involve technical direction will only work when the problems that prevent the team members from delivering are not caused by their lack of technical skills. A manager that is not also an experienced SME is powerless when his team lacks the required skills. There is nothing he can do to compensate for the lack of technical skills.

For instance if you have a team of software developers that are unable to deliver because of their limited experience a manager that is not also an experienced developer can't do much to help. An experienced developer on the other hand could do part of the work while also teaching the others so they can also develop the required skills.

Adrian - In principle I concur.

My only issue is with your statement "A manager that is not also an experienced SME is powerless when his team lacks the required skills."

They may be powerless when it comes to hands-on break-fix work (which they shouldn't be doing in the first place), but they are not powerless to verify and escalate the blocking issue.