Of course the problem is as soon as you have more than a few direct reports you will run out of time in the day and you will start to build up management debt. I haven’t solved that problem :)
Of course the problem is as soon as you have more than a few direct reports you will run out of time in the day and you will start to build up management debt. I haven’t solved that problem :)
Just no. Just GOD NO. Want to be a good manager? Get the hell out of my way. You're not there for my benefit (i didn't hire you, and odds are, I probably don't think you should have a job at all, let alone one that pays more than me) so don't pretend you are. Its insulting to both of us. I'm there because you've hired me, given me money, to do some labor that you can't/won't do. If I want you, I will come to you, and it will usually be because some genius decided that I don't have the authority to fix a problem or do something. If you come to me, its because you're telling me to spend my labour on something else.
If you're going to make yourself even vaguely useful, be my human shield to keep the rest of the useless people (read: management/executives/marketers/HR) and distractions away from people actually doing work.
I appreciate this is all context sensitive and my response is filled with hyperbole, but you'll also hopefully understand that i'm particularly frustrated with managers/employers in our society wanting to be my mother/psychiatrist/friend? If I wanted to be your friend or meet with you, do you think people would have to pay me money to be in your presence?
Its not a very Hacker-esque movie, but there's a brilliant line from the English patient:
"I once traveled with a terrific guide, who was taking me to Faya. He didn't speak for nine hours. At the end of it he pointed at the horizon and said - Faya! That was a good day."
I am not sure where I suggested that a manager is supposed to be there for the employees benefit - the role of the manager is to maximize the performance of the employee and team. I also didn’t suggest their role is to mother or being a friend either (although being a friend can help).
The major job of a manager is to ensure translation of business objectives into output that is directed towards the end goal. You might think you understand exactly what your job is, but it is exceptionally common for people to not really know what the company is working towards and exactly what management wants them to do, or what is important (to the company). This is not a failing of anyone, but just a consequence of incomplete information.
Vice versa it is also very common with hands off (or too busy managers) to not know what the blocks or distractions are that are impeding progress. The whole situation becomes even more fraught when the business objectives are fluid and changing.
The only way to achieve the business objectives is to spend time making sure the information flows happen and problems are solved. I wish there was another way as it is incredibly time consuming.
Easier said than done, because of course there are bad managers out there. But even in difficult situations it can sometimes help to try "manage up" - again, the value-building and the mission is bigger than any one person.
This is exactly the phenomenon I am referring to in my comment (see sister comment on this thread level). Often no one know what management wants them to do including management themselves. The end goal is clear but how to best get there is anyones guess.
Surely it's the job of the team to work out how to get there? As the article states, managers are/should be facilitators, not necessarily the experts.
Even as another lowly peon I absolutely disagree with this. My boss/manager is absolutely there for my benefit. As much as I'm there "to do some labor that (he) can't/won't do" he's there to do work that I can't/won't do, primarily to be my "human shield", but also doing all the legwork needed to make sure that interesting jobs (and thus money) keep flowing my way. If I didn't see any benefit in working for a manager, I'd be working for myself.
For example, marketing at a previous company was extremely incompetent. Everything they did was basically a major cringe-fest for everyone involved. They would send a company-wide email announcing they had made a 'viral video' and if you could please share it as much as possible. The aforementioned video was super-boring and about corporate stuff no normal person would ever care about. How the hell is that supposed to be a 'viral video'? Apparently they completely lacked the capability for self-critcism.
They also did fake-interviews with members of upper management, the whole thing was so obviously scripted and read to the camera that you just had to feel ashamed for them. They also made rookie mistakes like looking directly into the camera and stuff like that. The resulting videos looked extremely amateurish, the average youtuber has a higher production quality.
HR did more harm than good, their main role was to get rid of everyone who had any knowledge of the product and anyone who was critical of management, basically what they wanted was yes-men.
Management itself was completely retarded, to the point where the whole C-level was fired by the board followed by several lawsuits. They kept interfering with engineering decisions not held back by any knowledge on the subject. They basically forced us use certain tools that would result in a lower quality end result, take more people and take more time, and thus be more expensive for the customer (and harder to sell). All purely for political reasons; and then they wondered why they didn't make any money.
Of course, as a software company you want to spend as much as possible on managers and as little as possible on engineers, so that is what they did. This of course attracted the kind of manager who only does it for the money and status.
In the end, the company went belly-up. Apparently you can't survive selling an inferior product for a much higher price than much smaller, leaner competitors did. Especially if your organisational structure is diamond-shaped.
I wouldn't say I'm particularly good at being a manager (or, for that matter, enjoy it particularly), but the only universal truism I've discovered is that you have to let each person decide on their own what makes a good manager and try your best to be that manager for them.
Specifically, wit respect to one on ones, I just decided to punt, errr... delegate their scheduling to my reports at whatever periodicity they think is best and just make a point of asking at the end if it's still working on the current schedule for them.
It has to be real of course - not “we have 30 minutes to fill what do you want to talk about”.
Here's where I think it cause problems: right now, if I feel like working from home on a given day, and I have no meetings, I just do it. If I was supposed to meet with my manager every single day, then now it's like I'm cancelling that meeting, so now I'm self-conscious that he thinks I'm slacking, and I would probably just not bother and drag myself in every day. Boom, reduced morale.
The best managers I've had would just show up at your desk either at the start or end of the day and ask about how it's going. The worst ones show up at my desk and ask what I'm working on.
Unless the manager was also a friend, but that usually isn't the case (nor should it be).
Now, i'm not saying that more one-on-one time isn't helpful with many employees. Nor am I saying that your experience isn't true.
But given that its in direct opposition to my own experience, i'm guessing its either a low-probability thing, that we're in different jobs/fields, different cultures, that some of your staff are either shutting up and bearing it just to get a paycheck, or the ones that disagree with you have quit/resigned/gotten another job/transferred.
And you won't. No one is ever going to be real and honest with their manager or with anyone in a position of power over them.
Even if your reports don't like all the attention, as a manager you become a better manager as you understand your reports better and they understand you better.
I don't find that difficult at all. That's what work is, you become a person who can find into the machine. I think you are overestimating your abilities.
As a manager you might know a report does not like you and is being two faced, but you won’t do anything about it unless it is affecting performance.
As a manager I would rather not know about your personal life unless it is impacting on work. One of the downsides about devoting so much time to people is they feel like they can share their most intimate personal feelings with you. The stories I have been told over the years still continue to amaze me.
He's often in meetings the majority of the day (or doing code reviews, or writing up tasks), so the onus is more on me not to bother him too much unless I really need to.
That seems to work out pretty well.
I've also been the project lead on several projects for a couple of previous companies, and except for priority, design, or time estimate meetings (usually one or two a week), I left them alone almost completely, and simply worked on development tasks unless they came to me with questions.
Some days there'd be enough questions at random intervals that I couldn't ever get into the flow of things and didn't get much coding done on my own, and some days there'd be no questions and I'd get a ton of coding done.
One time the boss brought me into his office to say how well he thought I was doing as project lead, and I was like "Really? I kind of just let them work." And he said "Maybe that's why you're good. You know how to leave them alone."
We mostly stayed on top of things and never really had a crisis moment, though, because we had a boss that would talk to the client and "manage his expectations" since he made so many ridiculous claims and demands anyway (inventing features he never discussed with us and wondering why it wasn't in the builds yet, asking for things that were pretty much impossible and thinking it could be done in a couple of weeks, changing the entire direction of the project based on an article he read the night before, etc.)
That's basically shooting the shit during coffee/pomodoro/eye-strain breaks.
When I was at Intuit, every manager had to schedule an hour every two weeks with each of his direct reports. This worked reasonably well, and most times, it would take less than 10 minutes for me and my manager to update each other and then we'd go back to work.
that sounds like 3 hours worth of manager "full attention" every week.
Half a working day, week after week, with "full attention" on me. Sounds like some kind of cult ;-)
Life isn't worth living like that and I'd run for the hills ;-)
Sure you need open communication on all levels, not a manager forcing you to talk to him 3 hours every week "with undivided attention", which is just weird.
Surely the solution to this is to introduce a middle layer of management between you and your formerly-direct reports?
Assuming a limit of 15 direct reports, managing 1000 people will require 3 layers of management - 67 front-line managers, 5 middle managers, and one Boss of All the Bosses. One person can't do it.
My experience is more than eight direct reports starts to build up management debt if you have other things to do. Once you go over this you can only make it work by doing a lot of overtime. At one point I had 14 direct reports and I did nothing other than work, sleep and eat. Of course this is not sustainable.
What do you talk about for an hour a day, every day, that is so important that it justifies allocating 16% of all development hours to communication? I don't see how this much communication could ever be a net win (or even come close to breaking even).
How would you implement it with a remote team though?