2376 Project Management

Prof. Paulo Faroleiro

Group Assignment: Case Study Report

CS 3: The Management Control Freak

GROUP
Elisabete Batalim
Pierangelo Di Fede
Italo Gentili
Canio Roberto Rabasco
Marta Sulewska

2460
2430
2311
2438
2916

1. There are several ways. A good recruiter is able to extract information from
previous employers. Also, questions about previous working methods may give a

lead about the engagement in controlling situations. Of course, there are cases
where it is clearer there is something wrong with that specific person. For
instance, key personality features of micromanagers include being ruthless,
hypersensitive to critique, argumentative, tense, cold, and brusque. Thus, the
employers could go deeper in the analysis of the past experiences and work
attitudes of the candidate; he could also simulate real life situations to assess the
candidates behaviours and answers. However, even in this case it always
depends on the capabilities of the employer to understand whether the candidate
really fits with the company culture and is able to add value to the firm.
2. The faster the better since waiting in this case only make things worse. As
mentioned in the case, the morale went down and the risk of project failure
increased. A good project manager should not let things go that far. Note on the
fact that confrontation here means that Anne should be a proactive
communicator, without being aggressive and always showing mindfulness
towards her supervisor. Meetings with the boss to discuss possible concerns and
provide specific examples of how the micromanaging behaviour negatively
impacts productivity would be beneficial. Nonetheless, it is important to wait
enough to be able to understand what the real intentions of the micromanager
are. This because we could incur the risk of misunderstanding our supervisor, with
the extreme consequence of losing credibility, or even the job. Indeed, effective
relationship management is one of the key factors that characterize a good
project manager and that leads to success of the project itself. Therefore, a good
relationship between the sponsor and the project team is crucial for the beneath
of both the project and the organization.
3. We believe that Anne should cross the line on the board without compromising
the success of the project. Her actions could have harmed not only herself, but
also the project, as she knew her boss could not handle everything alone.
However, we fully understand the motives of her behaviour. There is no such thing
as a bullet-proof solution for this type of situations. The solution chosen by Anne
was effective, but we shall not forget it was extremely risky as well. Ana should
have taken a bit less aggressive approach, but her concern about time is fully
understandable. In this case, it was actually necessary to take some drastic
measures, since Anne was aware of the fact that by continuing ignoring the issue
she would have damaged not only herself, but also her client. In conclusion, her
position and the project were being jeopardized, regardless her way of acting. She
proved to be sharp, smart and effective (and somewhat lucky), by being able to
save a cause that seemed lost from the beginning.
4. Certainly. Anne was aware of the risk of undertaking such a series of actions.

Her boss has a strong character and is not pleased to admit that he is not right.
He could have reacted in a completely different way and not let her to teach him a
lesson especially due to the fact that admitting Anne was right, he would
somehow granting her with some level of control. Fortunately, he understood his
mistake just in time. Anne could not only lose her job but also her reputation as a
person able to cope with people. Many years of hard work and good results could
no longer be appreciated just because of this particular situation if her boss
decided to give her bad references. However, Richard proved to be intelligent and
wise enough to avoid a worse situation.
5. Micromanaging can show up in many forms, but most typically in bosses who
dictate how employees complete tasks, question employees judgments,
frequently ask for updates, and check in incessantly 1. Attempts to correct the bad
behavior of the micromanager are doomed and will be simply perceived as a
hostile actions by the paranoid micromanager. Dealing in the wrong way with
micromanagers can put you under a higher level of oppression than before. In
this case, Anne could have engaged a person (of a trust to her boss) with
engineering background into a project, in order to be able to exercise some
influence on her superior. Only if you have other person who is also ready to blow
the whistle you have some chance on success. In these situations, it is all about
the relationship the project manager is able to set up with a higher in rank
employee. Indeed, Anne should demonstrate, as she effectively did in this case,
that she can handle responsibilities and that, after all, she is reliable. When this
milestone is set, it would be much easier to express your own opinion even if it
does not match with the superiors one, because now he/she will remember how
well she did before and will take into consideration her say with much more
respect and attention.

1 http://www.forbes.com/sites/peggydrexler/2013/06/13/managing-up-when-your-boss-isan-obsessive-micromanager/