That could make a fascinating 2x2. I wonder what other failure modes the other intersections could reveal. Have you thought about those other 3 quadrants?

I did the exercise for myself, and here's what I got:

hands-on + task-oriented = micromanager

hands-on + people-oriented = professional office politician (deeply involved, but only to the extent it enables shaping the org chart)

hands-off + task-oriented = scrum master (no technical background that would allow being hands-on, but still very concerned with tasks)

hands-off + people-oriented = HR rep, I guess? Relatively distant from the day-to-day of the team, but still concerned with "people."

On reflection, maybe that last one is a bit of a stretch. But — definitely an interesting thought experiment overall.

David Allen's Making It All Work book has a 2x2 that fits TFAs scenario.

Captain and Commander - appropriate control and perspective, seen as that flow state in FFA chart

Micromanager - has too much control, not enough perspective, work gets out of control because it's being squeezed too hard

Crazymaker - has not enough control, but has lots of perspective. Work doesn't happen because new ideas pop up like fungus covering everything and nobody can iterate on anything because of all the context shifting.

Victim - not enough control or perspective, just responds to crises. Sounds like TFA version of the disengaged manager to me.

The thing is that the control and perspective axes change on the subject matter, so a person can be a Victim in one space and a crazy maker in another and a captain and commander in a third, at least at this point in time.

> That could make a fascinating 2x2

2x2s can be really entertaining. One I've seen a lot covers the dimensions of lazy-hardworking and idiot-clever. The outcome is

* hardworking-clever: Ideal!

* lazy-idiot: don't need to worry, they'll not usually progress.

* lazy-clever: hmmm. not ideal but may still be useful from time to time.

* hardworking-idiot: bad! They can do a lot of damage

In truth there are usually more than two relevant dimensions.

There is a well known (albeit mythic) portrayal of this that disagrees with you, putting the lazy-clevers in charge.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/?amp=1

I think it requires a certain definition of "lazy" that basically translates to "delegate everything you possibly can" - which we all know can be hard work in itself.

Lazy clevers can be very useful in finding ineffeciencies and automating tasks

IME they are the first people to challenge assumptions about the way things are done, and the least happy with the answer "that's just the way we do it"

Just make sure you review their code.

I would argue any hard working is not clever by definition. But the ones who are otherwise clever but have a blind spot on the hard working part - they are scary. How efficiently and how far they can get into completely wrong and unexpected direction before stopping to think the overall picture can be mindboggling. The hardworking idiots are useful as long as their direction is contained.

Lazy and clever can be very useful; sit around thinking about the potential break-down of a problem into aspects that generalise broadly and those specific to the work being done.

Spend the time that needs to be spent implementing the generalisable aspects, so that the work never needs to be repeated.

Implement the problem specific aspects (with minimal code) against those changes (and if any similar problems come up in the future, the changes can be made in minimal time and with minimal work).

Fun. Not to detract, and as others have said, there are other dimensions. Hardworking clever assholes can be bullies, for example.

I'd also say that very few people are inherently lazy, they're often just demotivated through misalignment of their responsibilities versus interests.

Good managers can adapt the help they provide to the teams they manage.

A team of high-performing engineers needs something different from a manager than a team of low-performing juniors. A team building a new product in a fast-growing startup will have different needs to a maintenance team in a bluechip.

Nonetheless, I do like your thought experiment. It provides a model to think about what might be necessary.

Ever read "The One Minute manager"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Minute_Manager

It covers this, is very short, and (IMHO) is a good book to give all brand new managers. eg when they're promoted from individual contributors

Seems to set new managers on the right path. :)

I think you’d enjoy reading about regulatory focus from the HR research, which makes exactly these types of tables. Here’s a readable HBR article:

Halvorson, Heidi Grant & Higgins, E. Tory. 2013. Do you play to win - or to lose? Know what really motivates you. Harvard Business Review 117.

Of these types, I find hands-off and task-oriented to be the most bothersome. I am definitely familiar with do nothing scrum masters, and "project managers" whose idea of management involves setting an arbitrary deadline, then wondering why it isn't met. The others I can work with.

"Regarding the complaint of not moving decisions forward with a disengaged manager, if you plan to be absentee you must delegate"

I took the OPs point on this to be that, at a certain level of seniority, delegation isn't enough.

I.e. lots of decisions will require consensus with ones peers to actually implement. And when you don't have active engagement and coordination from the level above:

1) peer consensus can take a lot more time and energy to achieve.

And 2) you can often end up with a compromise solution that's the worst of all options, because nobody has the authority to say - "we're doing it this way".

In general, I get the sense that at more senior levels management becomes much more about managing conflict between subordinates rather than managing individual activities. I think the article was written from that perspective.

Wow, you described my workplace exactly in a way I never considered it, thanks!

I'd agree with this an don't see much point in trying to figure out which bad type of management is the least bad. Instead, the approach should focus on finding ways to make a bad manager better in a meaningful way.

I don't know where I'd fit. I'm very brain-process oriented. I want people to explore hypothesis / plans in a smart and organized way.. the rest I don't care. I feel people around me are being tired of that .. while I'm tired of all the back and forth due to improper discovery or information passing.

> In my experience, the best managers can find a beneficial spot on those axes for each employee.

Agreed - I would also add that the "sweet spot" for a given employee is not fixed; it may be context/situation specific, may change over time, etc.

That is to say, you may have to be more hands-on with the self-motivated misanthrope when a situation requires close collaboration with colleagues, or be more task-oriented with the technically competent people when they're overwhelmed with tickets.

You’re right to identify nuance, but there is a lot of devil in the details regarding classification