PM delegate larger projects to teams of people, giving them appropriate responsibility and clearly defining their authority for decision-making. In this case, how should we monitor and review the delegated responsibilities or what is the best way to monitor and review the delegated responsibilities ? Saving Changes...
Act like a dolphin. Be on the surface in regular, short intervalls to understand waht is going on. But the emphasis on mentoring, not monitoring. Saving Changes...
It depends on the nature of the task, the competency and experience of the team member, and the relationship you have with them. Delegation requires a leap of faith - if you micro-manage the individual's work, it is no longer delegation.
It has to do with the nature of the work delegated. In most of the cases, the outcome of tasks can be checked, however, you better let them know the general rules of decision making in general situations. Saving Changes...
If you believe that your team members dislike their work and have little motivation, then, according to McGregor, you'll likely use an authoritarian style of management. This approach is very "hands-on" and usually involves micromanaging people's work to ensure that it gets done properly. McGregor called this Theory X.
Theory Y have an optimistic, positive opinion of their people, and they use a decentralized, participative management style. This encourages a more collaborative , trust-based relationship between managers and their team members.
People have greater responsibility, and managers encourage them to develop their skills and suggest improvements. Appraisals are regular but, unlike in Theory X organizations, they are used to encourage open communication rather than control staff.
Like above comments, I prefer Theory Y's approach in couching & mentoring delegated responsibility.
