3 ms·

Sounds to me like the real problem is that Steve Blank does not have a system to get enough context from individual contributors to know that a project is slipp

Sounds to me like the real problem is that Steve Blank does not have a system to get enough context from individual contributors to know that a project is slipping well before the deadline. This is a management problem being cast as a individual contributor problem (we need to fire those lazy, incompetent employees who don't ask for help when they should /s), what a bizarre inversion of reasoning. Edit: Management should be the ones held accountable for projects slipping their deadlines. The individual contributors don't just auto-assemble into on-time results.

sprafa 10y ago
Thank god someone got it. Toyota Production system talks about exactly the same thing. It's the manager's job to make sure everything is running on time.
- valuearb 10y ago
  Toyota makes cars, most of the employees are doing specificsly defined tasks, they aren't usually knowledge workers. It's the managers responsibility that schedules are met, but empowering subordinates to work independently and only interrupt for problems they can't solve is far more efficient than micromanaging each one.
valuearb 10y ago
You miss the point that "no excuses" is exactly that system. A manager shouldn't have to ping every subordinate every day for status updates, that's annoying to both and should be unnecessary. Management only works through delegation, you need to trust your subordinates to do delegated tasks without hand-holding, but you also need to give them a protocol for exceptions, which is exactly what this is. Managers usually have other work besides managing people, from their own projects to strategic planning and budgeting. If you are required to also micromanage the projects of your subordinates, you have the wrong subordinates.
- cardiffspaceman 10y ago
  I abhor status meetings with the round-robin format. As an individual contributor I love to collaborate with anti-meeting managers. The catch is to get the IC's to provide timely information on successes and blocks. I like the idea of asking that all the IC's email announcements of their successes as they happen. There's one less reason for the "status" meeting. The rest of the equation is to get people to automatically network about their blocks. That takes care of another major, routine component of status meeting. Now it can be valuable to workshop or otherwise, in one place, collaborate about a problem. I once had a manager who supported classic-form scrums. He was the one who had the Outlook fu for scheduling a meeting on the calendar, so he scheduled the scrums, but he did not appear at the scrums. He did circulate among his reports, but he didn't have to have long conversations with them, because all the other mechanisms were getting the work done. A regularly-scheduled meeting tends to become the ONE channel for communication, and with such a meeting on the calendar it is a little unconvincing for a manager to say that they want to hear about blockers before the meeting instead of during it.
Mz 10y ago
It sounds to me like he walked into a situation where accountability did not exist and then he fixed the problem. He inherited the problems. He didn't create them. The piece is full of good advice on how to set up a culture where things actually get done.
tonylemesmer 10y ago
He does have a system. Communication between managers and doers. That's all he's asking for.

sprafa 10y ago

Thank god someone got it. Toyota Production system talks about exactly the same thing. It's the manager's job to make sure everything is running on time.

valuearb 10y ago
Toyota makes cars, most of the employees are doing specificsly defined tasks, they aren't usually knowledge workers. It's the managers responsibility that schedules are met, but empowering subordinates to work independently and only interrupt for problems they can't solve is far more efficient than micromanaging each one.

valuearb 10y ago

You miss the point that "no excuses" is exactly that system. A manager shouldn't have to ping every subordinate every day for status updates, that's annoying to both and should be unnecessary. Management only works through delegation, you need to trust your subordinates to do delegated tasks without hand-holding, but you also need to give them a protocol for exceptions, which is exactly what this is. Managers usually have other work besides managing people, from their own projects to strategic planning and budgeting. If you are required to also micromanage the projects of your subordinates, you have the wrong subordinates.

cardiffspaceman 10y ago
I abhor status meetings with the round-robin format. As an individual contributor I love to collaborate with anti-meeting managers. The catch is to get the IC's to provide timely information on successes and blocks. I like the idea of asking that all the IC's email announcements of their successes as they happen. There's one less reason for the "status" meeting. The rest of the equation is to get people to automatically network about their blocks. That takes care of another major, routine component of status meeting. Now it can be valuable to workshop or otherwise, in one place, collaborate about a problem. I once had a manager who supported classic-form scrums. He was the one who had the Outlook fu for scheduling a meeting on the calendar, so he scheduled the scrums, but he did not appear at the scrums. He did circulate among his reports, but he didn't have to have long conversations with them, because all the other mechanisms were getting the work done. A regularly-scheduled meeting tends to become the ONE channel for communication, and with such a meeting on the calendar it is a little unconvincing for a manager to say that they want to hear about blockers before the meeting instead of during it.

Mz 10y ago

It sounds to me like he walked into a situation where accountability did not exist and then he fixed the problem. He inherited the problems. He didn't create them. The piece is full of good advice on how to set up a culture where things actually get done.

tonylemesmer 10y ago

He does have a system. Communication between managers and doers. That's all he's asking for.