Can you please explain the down vote? I honestly don't care (too much) about random internet points, but I do spend effort trying to provide useful answers, and I'd like to understand why someone feel the information presented is wrong. I'd like for you let me know where this can be improved, etc.

I didn't downvote, and I'm not a fan of this answer since it assumes a low expectation of direct reports. There's a direct undertone of immediate micromanagement that I don't feel is effective. It's possible that your intention is to indicate a level setting of higher expectations at the beginning of the project/assignment/whatever. That's not how this answer reads to me.

@JoelEtherton , hmm, it's hard to argue with even one word of this: "Now, sometimes you get lucky and your reports can self-manage with a minimal of oversight, but as a manager, you cannot assume that is the case."

@Fattie: It's easy to argue with it. At a professional level, it's a default expectation that individuals can work together and self-manage, and it's the manager's responsibility to coach them through instances where they find that difficult. If you're a manager at a fast-food restaurant, then I agree with you. The entire staff probably needs direct micro-managing right from the start. I think the difference for OP and me is that I set that expectation up front very clearly for every direct report.

@JoelEtherton As individuals, most people can manage their own work on a project once it has been defined. Assigning two peers to duke it out over the design, scope and division of work when neither has authority over the other is not that. Assigning three people to the project would have at least given them a tie breaker.

The asumption that they can act independently didn't hold. Salvaging the project by close supervision is correct, but half the story. Getting the team to the point where they are able to act independently in the interest of larger objectives is also a high importance goal. Thus the emphasis on the opposite assumption, that they are incapable of self-organizing independently, would also be harmful IMO.

@PeteW The first thing you need for a team to effectively “self-organize” is an agreement on how decisions will be made. If there are only two people on a team, you can’t do it by voting, someone has to be the lead. These two were set up to fail.

-1, the assumption that all task assignment should always be micro-managed by the manager does not hold in many professional environments.

@mxyzplk - I don't think that a fair reading of what I wrote was that assignments "should always be micro-managed". What I do believe is that a manager does need to manage until "employees have shown they can take some of those [management] responsibilities themselves."

@JoelEtherton I think we’re all in agreement about the general gist. We are just interpreting what sort of implementation details this answer is trying to suggest differently. I think it would be worthwhile for dan.m to clarify their answer.

@JoelEtherton - I'm sure that micromanagement is in the eye of the beholder, but I have a hard time believing that splitting up a "big task" (multi-person, multi-week) and coordinating the efforts of the resulting subtasks, rises to the level of micromanagement.

@dan.mwasuser2321368: From your answer about default expectation: ` it should be to assume that they need to be managed, and only start pulling back when those employees have shown they can take some of those responsibilities themselves.` This is micromanagement to me in a professional setting. This is the kind of management useful in non-professional settings.

Aren't group assignments a thing in schools anymore? Cause if you can expect some students to organize themselves to achieve a common goal, you should certainly be able to expect that from adult professionals.

@LaurentS. You've picked a perfect example! Most group assignments end up with one or two students who actually want an A doing all the work while everyone else coasts. It is rare to have a group assignment where students effectively self organize.

@Sobachatina > That's why you give that kind of assignment in schools, so that hopefully these kids will learn to work together. I'm not saying it turns out perfect each time, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think more mature people will handle it better and better, especially with a group as small as 2 people.

Your first paragraph asserts baldly "that's your job not theirs to split up work assignments." Later on you talk about self managing and assumptions but the up front says "no, you are to do that" (or the "most senior" person, which is also not a great assumption).

@LaurentS. If you think "more mature people" are capable of self-organizing in groups "as small as two people", please explain why 40% of first marriages end in divorce, and why the divorce rate is even higher for remarriages.

@alphazero > I don't see how marriages are relevant here. I've worked fine with people with whom I wouldn't be friend, let alone in couple. I'm also pretty happy in my couple and family but don't think me and my partner would work well together in a professional setup.. I've seen teams with people from different backgrounds, age or culture organize themselves to deliver some great things, so I know it's possible. Sure it's not easy, sure sometimes some external help can be used, but I do want to believe in people's ability to organize themselves, even in group.

A managers job is to manage work, not people. The employees have issues with one another and not with work, meaning to resolve the conflict they don't need a manager, they need a kindergarden teacher or their parents.

@JoelEtherton: I agree that micromanagement is bad, but setting up a basic chain of command where A defers to B as opposed to letting them hash it out as equals is not micromanagement. "At a professional level, it's a default expectation that individuals can work together and self-manage" => individual self-management is not the same as two people managing each other.

@Chapz A managers job is to manage work, not people That is the worst comment I have ever read here on workplace. While work artifacts is the primary outcome, if you think that you somehow are able to achieve that without also managing people you are in for a big surprise.

@hlovdal I mean the primary task he needs to manage. Yes, he also has to manage people, but not in this context where two people have personal issues between them. As a manager, I would try to mediate, but it would ultimately not be my task, to get 2 people to like each other. This is more an issue for HR to solve.