Hacker News Reader

Comment by zamnos | Hacker News Reader

Fortunately for middle and line managers, the vaunted 1:1 hasn't been automated yet, nor does it scale, so the technology doesn't allow managers to have more than, say, 60 direct report effectively. Meeting with each of them for 1 hour every other week only leaves 20 hours every other week for work that isn't a 1:1. I think middle management will be safe for a little while longer.

View on HN

Why is meeting with direct reports needed every other week?

Less frequent than that and people start forgetting the gripes and inconveniences they need help with.

Managers are supposed to work on the system, at least in theory. 1on1’s are for the manager like server metrics are for the SRE. An early warning system of future problems. Ideally you can fix issues before the problem blows up into an alarm.

> 1on1’s are for the manager like server metrics are for the SRE.

I'm not sure that is accurate. As a manager, I have a bunch of production metrics on my people. I can tell who's getting work done, who isn't, who has high defect rates in their work, who makes fewer defects, who is positive ROI, and who is not paying their keep. Where the one on ones are useful is when they are informed by the metrics, and those conversations don't take anywhere near one hour every two weeks. They take 10 minutes - 15 minutes, max.

Ok sure but there’s more to people than raw output numbers. Where do you get info on how they’re doing as people? Whether they’re pulling 12 hour days and that’s why the output looks good or they’re happy as a clam living their best life and that’s why output is great?

Sometimes you gotta kick people to go take a vacation lest their mind/body takes an unplanned vacation for them. Even if the raw numbers are looking great. You’d prefer to have a planned outage wouldn’t you?

And hey, if you don’t need a full hour, it’s okay to make 1on1s shorter! Few people will complain about getting more time back in their lives.

But be warned: The good stuff usually comes out 5min before the end of a meeting when an employee says ”Oh yeah one more thing that’s been on my mind …”. It takes time to relax into that area of concern that’s a little scary to bring up.

Longtime manager of technical people here and can confirm the "oh yeah one more thing" is where so much of the really good stuff comes up.

No matter how explicitly you state it, ask for it, overcommunicate that you're approachable even if seemingly busy... people are averse to the impression that they're interrupting their management even when they have something important to discuss. When you create the space and have even that quick 10 to 15 minute chat every couple of weeks, you're creating space for your people to have your attention without worrying about getting your attention. And people often take advantage of that path of least resistance.

So many of the most important conversations to have with the team are less about their output and more about things they've got going on or need to know _despite_ their output. All the standard sprint metrics are just one piece of the puzzle.

I agree with you that there's more to people than numbers. But it's a lot easier to surface that when you have a frame of reference and some consistency in how you measure:

"so, last week you had a -23.5% contribution... You usually are on the positive side, so what's up?" and the employee tells me that their lead stuck them on a project where they hand no experience, and didn't have time to learn how to do x or y before getting thrown at a ticket... or, "I'm having some issues with <personal>..."

Stuff as a manager you can sometimes help a lot with... and other times, well, you can be supportive. Just because numbers are involved does not mean we have to be cold and heartless... At the same time, I've found managing without numbers to just lead to cliqe-y political culture where people's ability to schmooze is rewarded more than their contribution to the team and that drives away the most effective contributors.

> And hey, if you don’t need a full hour, it’s okay to make 1on1s shorter!

Agree... I think I just realized that the exception should be a long 1 on 1. Just because I schedule 15 minutes doesn't preclude taking more time if there's something in the 1 on 1 that should take longer.

This is an interesting take, and one that directly contradicts most leadership books. Are you aware of that, and how did you come upon this management style?

If you’re only talking to your directs for 10-15 minutes every two weeks you are neglecting your duties as a manager. The standard is 30 minutes 1x week with every direct report.

Maybe the idealised standard but certainly not what is going on at most companies

Perhaps. That’s my standard for my team and the managers that report to me.

> I can tell who's getting work done, who isn't, who has high defect rates in their work, who makes fewer defects, who is positive ROI, and who is not paying their keep

I've been doing engineering management for ten years and I've never seen a set of metrics that can tell you these things.

What software engineering metrics tell you who has positive ROI?

A professional midwestern 1-on-1 starts with the assumption that no work was performed since the last one and it falls on the underling to prove otherwise during this time.

In manager speak, because the meeting was created by someone higher on the org chart, it doesn't stand to reason that we can find fault with it.

Just wait until employees are told to do their 1:1 with a chatbot...

Pshht, don't feed them with more such ideas.

Heh that might even be a better experience

Reply on news.ycombinator.com