Concept
Task-relevant maturity
Task-relevant maturity is Andrew Grove's answer to how closely to manage someone: it depends on the person and the specific task together, not on seniority. Low maturity wants clear, detailed direction; medium wants two-way discussion and support; high wants the objective and then the manager's absence.
New managers ask whether they should be hands-on or hands-off and pick one style for everyone, and then are called a micromanager by one report and absent by another. Grove's idea dissolves the question. A person's maturity is not a trait but a relation to a task: an engineer with ten years of experience is a beginner at her first budget and needs structure there, while a junior may be expert at the migration he has done twice and needs only the goal. The manager's job is to sort each person's work by maturity and manage each task accordingly, then to move people up the scale deliberately, from detailed direction to discussion to delegation, as their competence on that task grows. This is also the bridge to Marquet's intent-based leadership: authority can move to where the information is only where task-relevant maturity is high, and building it is how a manager earns the right to stop giving orders.
A real-life example
A team lead in Ankara manages everyone the same way and is called a micromanager by one report and absent by another. Sorting each person's tasks by maturity, she gives the senior engineer detailed direction on his first budget and leaves the junior alone on the migration he has done twice. Both complaints stop.
How to use it
- 1Before deciding how closely to manage a task, ask how mature the person is at that task, not how senior they are.
- 2Match the style: direction for low, discussion for medium, the objective only for high.
- 3Move people up the scale on purpose, one task at a time, and say so.