Originally Posted by ewoodie:
“Last night Lucinda showed that you don't have to be loud and aggressive to be the project manager.
In the past, I think some of the others have confused her style/approach to the tasks as lazy just because she's not as 'full on' as they are.
I know the loud and aggressive approach makes for good TV but which style do you prefer and is Lucinda lazy? ?”
I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume her approach 'works' based on the potentially lucky result of one task. From my perspective, she failed to really set the ground rules for the teams, and in the main just bowed down to their will.
This democratic style may be a 'good thing' if you've got a lot of faith in the people you are delegating to, but in the game they are playing, she really failed to show she could 'manage' much other than getting people to play nice if you seperate them into smaller groups.
On the one hand she is a good communicator, seems calm and willing to make decisions, however I also perceive her to lack authority and to be knowledgable or informed (or seek to become so) about the tasks she's been involved in. I really didn't like her 'I don't do technical' bit, as it showed a rigid inflexibility and lack of ability to learn (there was a guy showing her how to do it all, she should have written copious notes or asked for a set of instructions!).
I reserve judgement on her being a 'better' manager than others, however I'm a firm believer that autocratic management doesn't work either - you need a good balance of both to be successful.