3 ms·
Status emails are not a "Potemkin supervisory framework". They're a scalable way of communicating progress broadly in a way that can be referenced later, rather
by emmett 10y ago
Status emails are not a "Potemkin supervisory framework". They're a scalable way of communicating progress broadly in a way that can be referenced later, rather than an ephemeral way to communicate to one person.
- leroy_masochist 10y agoThat's kind of the point I was trying to make when I said that sending weekly stats is valid. I'm not saying that status emails are implicitly bad, I'm saying that they're poorly implemented. The problem is that status emails containing substantive subjective summaries of the challenges faced by the person writing them are often used by incompetent managers as a replacement for constructive dialogue between them and their direct reports. At least, this was the case at the two companies I worked at that had a required status email as part of the weekly drumbeat. And I've heard a fair amount of anecdotal evidence from friends at other places that the problem is widespread.
- mikeryan 10y agoIsn't that the whole point of the linked article?
- paulcole 10y agoPretty sure he didn't read it.
- leroy_masochist 10y agoNot really, I think the article is basically a how-to guide for good status emails and what I am saying is that even if they're well implemented they can be an impediment to effective management and intra-company communication.
- wahsd 10y agoI think it depends. I find the notion of centralized status updating far more useful. Simply have a central status reporting location that is part of the progress management process so you don't need to squander time on weekly emails and can look at the status of all projects whenever you want. The whole notion of emails being sent around seems like another one of those inherent contradictions of the tech world like co-location.