Management-Involvement Matrix

A frequent dilemma for top-level managers who are supervising mid-level managers is deciding how much to get involved in the projects under their supervision. Usually, top-level managers are overseeing multiple of a firm’s projects/departments/divisions, and so a decision to take hands-on involvement with something a subordinate is responsible for is never made lightly. This management-involvement matrix is intended to help top-level managers decide when and how much to get involved. 

You can imagine there being several axes that all will require calibrating to make a well-considered decision. 

Axis 1: Importance

The first axis is how important the project is to the firm. Does the success or failure of the project entail consequences for the firm’s very existence? Does the project matter only insofar as it will impact the development of the mid-level manager in charge of it? Are there major financial or legal implications? The significance of the project will, in the end, be the most influential factor in your final decision on how much to get involved. \

Axis 2: Capabilities

The second axis is how much trust the top-level manager has that the person who is in charge of the project will execute their plan successfully. There are some priors that will go into this calibration, such as if the person in charge has done this sort of thing before, or how much training and experience they have. The most important calibration on this axis, though, will take place in real-time as you interact with your subordinate in charge of the project. Each interaction you have will generate new information to take into account. 

Some information that can be gathered:

• Does the person in charge have key data at hand at all times? If they do not, then that would lead to a lower trust calibration. 

• Does the person in charge know their goals and have a vision for the project, or are they looking to the top-level manager for that information? 

• If there are problems, does the person in charge have solutions queued up, or are they waiting for someone else to provide them? 

• Does the person in charge report their progress on the project willingly and frequently, or does it seem as though you go long periods of time without hearing about the project? 

Axes 3 & 4: Your Time

The third and fourth axes involve the top-level manager’s time. On the third axis, what is the ratio of time input to the increased likelihood of success of the project? I have found that a very small time input of just a couple hours can often boost the likelihood of success considerably. On the fourth axis, what is the opportunity cost of your time? The opportunity cost is partly dependent on the first axis, as well, in that the opportunity cost must be relative to the importance of the project by itself and in comparison to your other responsibilities..

Axis 5: Involvement

The last axis, which can only be calibrated after the first four, is how much the top-level manager should get involved, ranging from less than they are at present to a full-on management takeover from their subordinate. There are some consequences in how you approach this calibration:

• Uninvolvement may communicate deprioritization to the mid-level manager, harming their morale and commitment to the project, thereby lowering the odds of success further.

• A full-on takeover may communicate a lack of faith in the mid-level manager, who might then reduce their involvement in the project or even begin seeking other opportunities. 

In light of all of this, I usually advocate putting in some time to avoid hitting one end of the spectrum, and I would reserve a full-on takeover only for projects with existential consequences for the firm. 

Check Your Decision

Once the top-level manager finishes their calibrations and arrives at a decision for how much to be involved with a subordinate’s project, I recommend going through a mental checklist to make sure another motivation is not influencing your decision. It is important to interrogate your decision-making to avoid bad reasons, such as:

• You might decide to be even less involved in a project to avoid taking responsibility for it. Thus, if it fails, your hands are clean. However, as soon as you get involved, you have to stay involved and take ownership for whatever happens. The easiest path might seem like non-involvement. 

• You might get more involved, but you are actually doing that to avoid the more difficult but correct path of replacing the person in charge who is not capable of doing the project. 

• You might decide not to get involved in part because it feels unfair. Your subordinate should be capable of this, and their failure is a drain on your time and energy. So you might let them fail out of a sense (misaligned, in my view) that they are getting their just desserts. 

• If you have not been much involved with the project heretofore, then it might seem too big and daunting to step in while it is in motion. Your own fear or underconfidence could be at work. Most of the time, though, a top-level manager can get up to speed fast and then be in a position to make a big difference without a huge time input. 

A final note: for newer top-level managers especially, it is useful to be deliberate when making a decision about how much to get involved in your subordinate’s project. It is especially valuable in moments of extreme stress to have a structure like this matrix. Eventually, I expect most top-level managers make these decisions in a split-second once they have some experience doing so.