I'm quite surprised by all the previous responses choosing the hands-off approach to project managing, because I think there are a lot of benefits to being more hands-on. I agree with the points that too much involvement, meetings, or micro-managing can stifle a project, but I think managing with a hands-off approach can also have its pitfalls. The first risks are that being too hands-off will cause your team to go in different directions, not maintain the project timeline, and run into issues late in the project life cycle. I think there is a way to be a hands-on project manager that keeps these things from happening, but also does not stifle the team's creativity and strip their freedom. A hands-on PM could have brief weekly status updates and meetings but allow most of the work to be done in a hands-off fashion the rest of the week, for example. I think it is dangerous to have too much of a hands-off approach to project management, so I would choose a hands-on approach that hopefully doesn't cross the line to being overbearing. 

It's suitable for the sake of this argument to consider that a manager trying to frantically control things may be a manager who did not plan their project correctly or leave room for leeway in their project schedule. It's equally fitting to consider that a manager lax in their role has a poor idea of the progress of their project goals and may find unaccounted for delays in their plan. If not behind in schedule, then they surely have allocated a generous amount of resources and time, which may not necessarily be good for the long term health of a program. Of course, these are both extreme examples and it should be recognized that there are benefits, not yet mentioned, to both approaches: For the former, staying strictly on schedule and minimized use of budget; for the latter, making room for leeway and training. However, a good manager does both and oversees the project progress at a steady rate. It's also worth mentioning that the training of a team member should not interfere with a project plan, and should be accounted for. If it does affect it, such as in the case of a key team member leaving before a replacement has been found, then the project must be reevaluated.

During the lecture, we explored different organizational structures, and I think the leadership style—whether it be hands-off or micro-managing—significantly impacts a project's success. Based off my previous work experience, I personally favor collaborating with a leader who takes a hands-off approach, offering support and guidance while trusting the team to handle their duties. This method encourages creativity, independence, and responsibility, which are vital for individual development and team effectiveness. Nonetheless, I also understand the importance of occasional close supervision in scenarios that demand high accuracy or when the team has less experience. In the military, I was supervised closely when working on products because the items that were required for submission were high-stakes items, meaning they could result in fatalities if missing or incorrect information is presented.

As a future leader, I would like to adopt a hands-off approach to leadership while keeping an open-door policy to offer assistance when necessary. I think that a balanced method, in which a leader adjusts to the requirements of the team and project, is more efficient than rigidly following one style. What I have noticed is that although micro-management can provide oversight of specifics, it also frequently suppresses creativity and lowers morale. Conversely, a hands-off method fosters ownership and confidence but necessitates trust in the team's skills. It is important to note that this is what has worked for me and I also believe that the most effective method relies on the project environment, team interactions, and company culture.