8 ms·

My experience is you must spend considerable one-on-one time with each of your reports to be a “good” manager. You need to allocate at least 30 minutes per day

My experience is you must spend considerable one-on-one time with each of your reports to be a “good” manager. You need to allocate at least 30 minutes per day (1 hour is better) just talking (averaged over the week) and not micromanaging. You don’t even need to talk about work, you just need talk devoting 100% of your attention to the person. If you do this then everything will be great no matter what else happens - if you don’t you just build up management debt that will come back and bite you in the backside at some point in the future. 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 :)

thaumasiotes 11y ago
> 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 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.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  This is exactly why middle management exists :) 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.
  - capitalsigma 11y ago
    I heard the same thing (>= 8 reports --> all of your time is 1:1s) from my manager.
  - eitally 11y ago
    I'm with you on most of your ideas, but I don't want people thinking 8 is some kind of magic number. For new managers, it might be 3. For experienced managers managing other experienced managers providing mostly strategic guidance but not getting into weekly supervision, it could be 20. For me, an experience leader of people, I get uncomfortable above about 6 directs because I know I can't commit to knowing enough about their work to adequately assess their performance, or coach them through career success ... but that "6" is a very personal and somewhat arbitrary number. Maybe in five more years I'll be able to do more ... or maybe I'll become yoda-like and only tackle one pet at a time.
nwjtkjn 11y ago
Just a counterpoint: I would be incredibly annoyed if my manager suddenly wanted to start talking to me for 30 minutes a day. I much prefer the hands-off, stay-out-my-way-and-let-me-do-my-job approach, which thankfully is exactly what my current manager does.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  You would be surprised. If your manager actually did devote 30 minutes per day one-on-one giving you their full attention you might find you like it. I have yet to find a single person who didn’t like it - once you have a manager that cares about you as a person and your work most love it. It has to be real of course - not “we have 30 minutes to fill what do you want to talk about”.
  - ams6110 11y ago
    I can guarantee you I would hate it. Guarantee. Unless the manager was also a friend, but that usually isn't the case (nor should it be).
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      If your manager really cares about you they will become a friend. I am sure there are some people that won’t respond to genuine one-on-one time, but I have yet to come across any.
      - zzzcpan 11y ago
        > I have yet to come across any 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.
        danieltillett 11y ago
        It is very hard to maintain a false front when you spend a lot of time with someone who is paying you their full attention. Some people can pull it off, but not many. 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.
plinkplonk 11y ago
daily one on ones is a bit much. If I had a manager who tried to do that, I'd be running for the hills screaming. 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.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I didn’t actually suggest daily one-on-one, just that they average at least 30 minutes over the week.
  - plinkplonk 11y ago
    " If your manager actually did devote 30 minutes per day one-on-one giving you their full attention" 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 ;-)
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      It does have the effect of binding the team together amazingly tight and ensuring everyone is pulling in the same direction. Issues that crop up are solved early rather than festering away until they get to be a huge.
      - plinkplonk 11y ago
        you don't need this kind of cultiness with a manager at the centre to 'bind a team tight'(from experience of working on high productivity, high focus teams). 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.
ACow_Adonis 11y ago
Just another counterpoint, the airing of which is therapeutic in stopping me from downvoting due to rising tension at the thought of what you've suggested and my experience with managerial-ilk and their uselessness in the past (and I haven't, because I think you're contributing, but understand just how visceral my feelings are towards this). There needs to be a counterbalance to your advice. 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."
- Panoramix 11y ago
  You did mention it was hyperbole, but still, saying that executives, marketers, HR and even managers are "useless" people makes my blood boil. A company is a team, and these are crucial parts of a team - especially so for larger enterprises.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aaargh20318 11y ago
golergka 11y ago
Good advice. How would you implement it with a remote team though?
- danieltillett 11y ago
  I have had employed remote developers and you do exactly the same thing. Just because someone is remote does not mean you do not speak to them - if anything you need to spend more time because they miss out on all the peer-to-peer conversations.
calvins 11y ago
> You need to allocate at least 30 minutes per day (1 hour is better) just talking (averaged over the week) and not micromanaging. 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).

thaumasiotes 11y ago

> 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 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.

danieltillett 11y ago
This is exactly why middle management exists :) 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.
- capitalsigma 11y ago
  I heard the same thing (>= 8 reports --> all of your time is 1:1s) from my manager.
- eitally 11y ago
  I'm with you on most of your ideas, but I don't want people thinking 8 is some kind of magic number. For new managers, it might be 3. For experienced managers managing other experienced managers providing mostly strategic guidance but not getting into weekly supervision, it could be 20. For me, an experience leader of people, I get uncomfortable above about 6 directs because I know I can't commit to knowing enough about their work to adequately assess their performance, or coach them through career success ... but that "6" is a very personal and somewhat arbitrary number. Maybe in five more years I'll be able to do more ... or maybe I'll become yoda-like and only tackle one pet at a time.

nwjtkjn 11y ago

Just a counterpoint: I would be incredibly annoyed if my manager suddenly wanted to start talking to me for 30 minutes a day. I much prefer the hands-off, stay-out-my-way-and-let-me-do-my-job approach, which thankfully is exactly what my current manager does.

danieltillett 11y ago
You would be surprised. If your manager actually did devote 30 minutes per day one-on-one giving you their full attention you might find you like it. I have yet to find a single person who didn’t like it - once you have a manager that cares about you as a person and your work most love it. It has to be real of course - not “we have 30 minutes to fill what do you want to talk about”.
- ams6110 11y ago
  I can guarantee you I would hate it. Guarantee. Unless the manager was also a friend, but that usually isn't the case (nor should it be).
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    If your manager really cares about you they will become a friend. I am sure there are some people that won’t respond to genuine one-on-one time, but I have yet to come across any.
    - zzzcpan 11y ago
      > I have yet to come across any 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.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        It is very hard to maintain a false front when you spend a lot of time with someone who is paying you their full attention. Some people can pull it off, but not many. 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.

plinkplonk 11y ago

daily one on ones is a bit much. If I had a manager who tried to do that, I'd be running for the hills screaming. 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.

danieltillett 11y ago
I didn’t actually suggest daily one-on-one, just that they average at least 30 minutes over the week.
- plinkplonk 11y ago
  " If your manager actually did devote 30 minutes per day one-on-one giving you their full attention" 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 ;-)
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    It does have the effect of binding the team together amazingly tight and ensuring everyone is pulling in the same direction. Issues that crop up are solved early rather than festering away until they get to be a huge.
    - plinkplonk 11y ago
      you don't need this kind of cultiness with a manager at the centre to 'bind a team tight'(from experience of working on high productivity, high focus teams). 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.

ACow_Adonis 11y ago

Just another counterpoint, the airing of which is therapeutic in stopping me from downvoting due to rising tension at the thought of what you've suggested and my experience with managerial-ilk and their uselessness in the past (and I haven't, because I think you're contributing, but understand just how visceral my feelings are towards this). There needs to be a counterbalance to your advice. 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."

Panoramix 11y ago
You did mention it was hyperbole, but still, saying that executives, marketers, HR and even managers are "useless" people makes my blood boil. A company is a team, and these are crucial parts of a team - especially so for larger enterprises.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Aaargh20318 11y ago

golergka 11y ago

Good advice. How would you implement it with a remote team though?

danieltillett 11y ago
I have had employed remote developers and you do exactly the same thing. Just because someone is remote does not mean you do not speak to them - if anything you need to spend more time because they miss out on all the peer-to-peer conversations.

calvins 11y ago

> You need to allocate at least 30 minutes per day (1 hour is better) just talking (averaged over the week) and not micromanaging. 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).