5 ms·

That's true, people leave managers not jobs. A good manager: 1. Make you feel comfortable in expressing your inputs 2. Bats for you in upper management witho

That's true, people leave managers not jobs. A good manager: 1. Make you feel comfortable in expressing your inputs 2. Bats for you in upper management without you knowing a bit of it 3. Pushes you for taking up bigger assignment even if you don't feel confident. This will help in learning a lot & getting bigger share in overall contribution. 4. Never says immediate no for your ideas. Takes time & gives a thorough feedback 5. Keeps you informed about your progress in 1x1's 6. Is open for feedback 7. Keeps things cool even if his/her back is on fire 8. Never micro manages 9. Always makes sure you get your credit & visibility for the contribution you have done 10. Has a very good understanding of stack/technology/project you are working on

piyush_soni 7y ago
I'm doing all this, although after 2 years now I feel the very fact that I am not 'micro managing' is affecting our team's productivity. I notice my team is on social networking websites for a long time daily with some work (we all sit together), come late and go early, and I don't say a word to them and am always that 'cool' with them. I'm thinking may be that's a bit wrong on my part, but there is just no way to tell them these things without sounding 'uncool' and micro-managing.
- maddy1512 7y ago
  You misunderstood accountability with micro-managing! If they are using social media sites its their choice, you should not call them out, because that would be micro-management. But if the same thing is not allowing them to be productive call them out for poor performance. That's how you teach accountability.
  - cstrasen 7y ago
    Performance and, to a much lesser extent, accountability are not the easiest topics in software engineering outside of strict waterfall. Still, awareness of these is critical for teams. In that particular example that you are replying to I would go a few "why" steps deeper though. Why are they not motivated enough by their work maybe? Are they not aware maybe how a higher than "normal" engaging in distracting activities will hinder their development and ultimately their career? Slacking off once in a while is perfectly normal. It is rare to find the perfect situation of engineer's brains being constantly on fire, churning out great solutions because they are so motivated, in the right place at the right time being asked to and capable to do the right thing in the right way. No manager can make their team get closer to that nirvana alone - It needs a good environment but most of all an intact network of trust inside the team and the openness to speak about lack of motivation or other issues and trying to tackle it together. Imho it is your task to help them become aware (calling out and other methods), reflect on the issues and gain the confidence that a change can be made that benefits them.
    - maddy1512 7y ago
      > It needs a good environment but most of all an intact network of trust inside the team and the openness to speak about lack of motivation or other issues and trying to tackle it together. Openness is the key, but still I have seen team mates judging you when you talk about being non-productive at work. Better to talk about it 1-to-1 with your manager and avoid it during meetings where everyone is present.
      - piyush_soni 7y ago
        Yes, that's a good idea. Thanks.
    - cgiles 7y ago
      > Why are they not motivated enough by their work maybe? Are they not aware maybe how a higher than "normal" engaging in distracting activities will hinder their development and ultimately their career? Great point, and I think it needs elaboration. Particularly if increased slacking/FB use is something that has increased over time for a person, I would also take it as a sign that they are losing motivation. Banning FB or chastising them when you see them use it won't restore that motivation. A lot of people go through phases like this. It can be symptomatic of: - Overwork, stress, potential burnout - A workload the person finds repetitive, not challenging, or uninteresting (maybe they need a change in task type) - A feeling that work is not rewarded, possibly that person needs more praise or recognition, or even just interest from manager/others about what they are doing - Person is lost or stuck on what to do next, the task may be too hard for them or they need to talk it over with someone. Many introverts especially will not ask for help when stuck. > engineer's brains being constantly on fire The elusive flow. In my experience flow states are most common when: (A) there is sufficient freedom to explore the problem space, (B) fairly rapid feedback, and (C) people are impressed by or interested in what I am doing. Success breeds success. I am convinced that one of the most important jobs of a manager is to cheerlead for the team and remind them why their work is interesting and valued. Who else is going to do that if not the manager? Feelings of success and confidence breeds more success. Having people do quick demos or small green-field projects, even if it isn't exactly the top priority at the moment, then complimenting the result, is a good way to boost morale and interest in my experience.
- isostatic 7y ago
  How productive do you expect them to be How productive are they being How productive do they think they should be Once you have those answers, then you can have a conversation about making all 3 answers match.
- thrower123 7y ago
  They are engineers, it's normal. Is the work getting done? If yes, then who cares? If not, then you might need to crack the whip a little, but butts-in-seats time and blocking Facebook are incredibly ineffective ways to get people back on track. These are highly trained, competent people, presumably, so treat them like it, not like they are unruly third-graders.
  - piyush_soni 7y ago
    Yes, the 'work' is getting done, but again I think it could be around 40% more productive. I do realize that we have to refresh ourselves time to time but when it's a long stretch of time on work looking at investment/finance websites, I think these are signs of trouble. Of course, no one wants to block anything from anyone, or have butts-in-seats time. But I think at "some level" little bit of accountability is needed, I will need to have that uneasy conversation in some or the other way :|.
    - knightofmars 7y ago
      "I think it could be around 40% more productive." Why do you think this? What metrics do you have to support this thought? The one thing I wish managers everywhere would burn into their memory is this, "If you can't measure productivity outside of time spent in chair (looking at code), then you're not actually measuring productivity." Productivity should be measured based on whether or not a team is meeting both their team goals as well as the team's individuals meeting their own goals. These goals need to be clear and realistic. A manager that is setting unrealistic, vague, or otherwise unclear goals is a problem. When teams and individuals repeatedly meet their goals then you can increase the amount and/or difficulty. Or if it is an agile shop, the team should be increasing their "velocity" or whatever metric is used to determine work done, you shouldn't be left with too many empty days in a sprint. If you increase the amount of work or difficulty of work and these individuals are still looking at investment/finance websites after accomplishing their goals, then it is likely that you as the manager were under-utilizing the skills of the individuals on your team. The other important thing to remember is that engineers get blocked. Sometimes more frequently than is desirable. When this happens, managers need to get involved in order to work with others in the organization to alleviate the block and potentially alter processes for the long-term.
- koboll 7y ago
  Let me provide an alternative perspective. I've been on a team with someone who basically does this -- spent half the day not working, usually selected a single low-difficulty task at a time from Jira to drag out over a couple days or a week, and often went home having put 30-45 minutes less time in per day than others on the team. There was an unspoken but very palpable dissatisfaction from everyone else on the team. No one wanted to be the Bad Guy that calls them out on it, but the manager was unwilling to push them to do more, and a result they were able to get away with slacking off while others were actually putting in effort. It was tremendously bad for morale. That's the biggest effect it had. All the other team members were bitter about the manager's unwillingness to keep the team on a level playing field. If you let this slide, you're ultimately letting everyone else on the team down. The point absolutely shouldn't be to police someone's time; it should be to ensure that, if they have time to slack off, they should be pushed to take on more tasks during sprint planning. "That seems like it won't take too long, can you take on these two tasks as well?" is really all it takes.
  - cgiles 7y ago
    This is actually a difficult problem, because there are two kinds of slackers: (1) the kind that work less but produce roughly the same as, or sometimes even more than, everyone else (i.e., smart but lazy), and (2) the kind that don't work or produce. Dealing with (2) is absolutely the manager's job and such a person should be fired if attempts to identify and fix an underlying problem fail. But (1) is really difficult. We have one of those right now, let's call him Bill. Our manager is hesitant to do anything about him, because the manager wants to incentivize productivity, not butt-in-chair time (we're all salaried, with no set hours). But Bill comes in 4 hours a day, seemingly works 1 of them, and spends the other 3 trying to distract everyone else with off-topic conversations. If he comes in at all. Amazingly Bill does get work done, somehow. But it is terrible for morale. Worse, some of the junior members are starting to think they can get away with the same thing Bill is doing, and they can't. As the senior dev, the "big brother" to our manager's "dad", it falls to me to do something about it, but I have no idea what, if anything. Manager fears that if he rewards finishing tasks quickly with more work, it will also harm morale and productivity. And there is a decent argument to be made for that. Having experienced that firsthand, it is highly irritating and incentivizes people to work slowly. Additionally, in reply to GP, a manager that has great technical skills (10) and good managerial skills (1-9) must be as rare as a unicorn. Even a manager who started with good technical chops inevitably will lose them over time when they are an Outlook jockey all day. OTOH, I have seen plenty of otherwise decent managers who think their technical chops are good when they aren't. Pretty much the whole premise of Dilbert. The best realistic alternative seems to be managers who know their technical limits, delegate, and seek advice from their subordinates.
- dahart 7y ago
  I see the long discussion about micro-managing, but allow me to suggest that addressing that employee’s problem may not micro-managing at all. Micro-managing would be saying something if you ever saw Facebook on their screen even once, and doing it every time. But seeing a clear pattern, and feeling that their behavior is being noticed by all and affecting team morale, that is a real problem that needs to be addressed, and it’s not micro-managing to try and fix it. In addition to the GP’s great list, good managers also tackle problems when they see them, immediately. Don’t let something slide because it’s awkward! Do attempt to fix the problem the first time without blaming or shaming the employee. You can save that for the second warning if the person doesn’t respond by fixing their behavior. Here are a couple of ideas: - Make sure that you or your company have set clear enough guidelines in the first place. Clearly the employee doesn’t think what he’s doing is wrong, therefore it might be a failure to set expectations for work time. Find out or decide what they are and say them in a way that makes clear that hours on social media while at work isn’t part of the deal for getting paid. - Ask the employee to define what is a normal amount of social network time while at work, and then ask them to track their own time using a time tracking app. They might not be aware of how much time they’re spending. You could even ask the whole team to do it, but I would recommend not doing that as a way to avoid confronting the individual directly. The other people on your team won’t respect a move that affects them without directly dealing with the problem. - Rather than accuse the employee, ask them how they feel at work and find out if there’s a motivation problem. Maybe they feel stuck. Sometimes a problem like this is due to the person not feeling like they fit it, not having or understanding their identity or role in the team/company.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  Your job is not to be their friend, your job is to make them as effective a team as possible by identifying impediments to them becoming their best selves. If their work is being done, objectively you should know this, then your next task is to find ways to improve the with being done. If there's enough time to socialize then there's enough time for improvement. This is where you find time for projects that might not work, experiments that might improve quality, quantity, or just improve the overall experience for you customers and team members. There are tons of ways to be firm without micro managing. Here's what I would recommend for you. * Define the primary work that needs to be done. What is the purpose of your team? How effective are they at this? * Identify the gaps. Where can you improve? What can you be doing better to delight your customers? What skills or process improvements can you add that will make things better? * Who can you build to take your spot? You can't be promoted if no one could fill your role. This is hard and you'll get it wrong a few times, that's fine. Just keep working to build up your team Complaints and gripes are common at first. No one likes change. Eventually it will become normal and your team will adjust. No need to micromanage, no need to complain about showing up on time unless it's crucial, i.e. a call center, just set your expectations and took forward the work starts with you though.
thanatos_dem 7y ago
I’d toss an asterisk onto #5 1 on 1s can vary a lot from person to person. I absolutely love my manager, but we’ve never had a 1 on 1 where she spelled out how I’m tracking towards goals. That’d be wayyyyy too formal for the nature of our working relationship. She just lets me know if I make mistakes as they happen, and relies on me to raise issues to her when it makes sense. Now that I’m a manager as well, I have some team members who prefer to keep things less formal, in the same vein as me and my manager, and some that prefer more direct and organized feedback. I think a good manager needs to be adaptable and willing to match the working relationship that each person is most comfortable with.
xenocratus 7y ago
"3. Pushes you for taking up bigger assignment even if you don't feel confident." Oh, man, I'm leaving my current company exactly because most developers don't get that. Instead, a group of select few get all the assignments. It gets so frustrating and depressing in the long run.
- mcv 7y ago
  I realize now that this is also why I left the company where I've worked the longest. Fun company, but at some point I noticed that my job was going to be to maintain all the legacy sites while a separate team was doing all the exciting cool new stuff.
- codeandrun 7y ago
  Can relate. Tho, I will add that, often, I've realized how the onus actually lied with me in asking for more challenging work. In my case, I felt that I wasn't clear with what I expected.
robaato 7y ago
Generally agree, except for: 10. Has a very good understanding of stack/technology/project you are working on A manager doesn't need to understand details of the stack etc, for example they can delegate those decisions to tech leads or senior people. Manager does need to know enough tech to detect BS though! They need to be sufficiently aware of overall process to avoid counter productive measurements such as lines of code or some such (happened to me way back when). One of my best managers, on a real crunch project, focussed on recruiting a great team, and then he ran high level interference and let us get on with it.

piyush_soni 7y ago

I'm doing all this, although after 2 years now I feel the very fact that I am not 'micro managing' is affecting our team's productivity. I notice my team is on social networking websites for a long time daily with some work (we all sit together), come late and go early, and I don't say a word to them and am always that 'cool' with them. I'm thinking may be that's a bit wrong on my part, but there is just no way to tell them these things without sounding 'uncool' and micro-managing.

maddy1512 7y ago
You misunderstood accountability with micro-managing! If they are using social media sites its their choice, you should not call them out, because that would be micro-management. But if the same thing is not allowing them to be productive call them out for poor performance. That's how you teach accountability.
- cstrasen 7y ago
  Performance and, to a much lesser extent, accountability are not the easiest topics in software engineering outside of strict waterfall. Still, awareness of these is critical for teams. In that particular example that you are replying to I would go a few "why" steps deeper though. Why are they not motivated enough by their work maybe? Are they not aware maybe how a higher than "normal" engaging in distracting activities will hinder their development and ultimately their career? Slacking off once in a while is perfectly normal. It is rare to find the perfect situation of engineer's brains being constantly on fire, churning out great solutions because they are so motivated, in the right place at the right time being asked to and capable to do the right thing in the right way. No manager can make their team get closer to that nirvana alone - It needs a good environment but most of all an intact network of trust inside the team and the openness to speak about lack of motivation or other issues and trying to tackle it together. Imho it is your task to help them become aware (calling out and other methods), reflect on the issues and gain the confidence that a change can be made that benefits them.
  - maddy1512 7y ago
    > It needs a good environment but most of all an intact network of trust inside the team and the openness to speak about lack of motivation or other issues and trying to tackle it together. Openness is the key, but still I have seen team mates judging you when you talk about being non-productive at work. Better to talk about it 1-to-1 with your manager and avoid it during meetings where everyone is present.
    - piyush_soni 7y ago
      Yes, that's a good idea. Thanks.
  - cgiles 7y ago
    > Why are they not motivated enough by their work maybe? Are they not aware maybe how a higher than "normal" engaging in distracting activities will hinder their development and ultimately their career? Great point, and I think it needs elaboration. Particularly if increased slacking/FB use is something that has increased over time for a person, I would also take it as a sign that they are losing motivation. Banning FB or chastising them when you see them use it won't restore that motivation. A lot of people go through phases like this. It can be symptomatic of: - Overwork, stress, potential burnout - A workload the person finds repetitive, not challenging, or uninteresting (maybe they need a change in task type) - A feeling that work is not rewarded, possibly that person needs more praise or recognition, or even just interest from manager/others about what they are doing - Person is lost or stuck on what to do next, the task may be too hard for them or they need to talk it over with someone. Many introverts especially will not ask for help when stuck. > engineer's brains being constantly on fire The elusive flow. In my experience flow states are most common when: (A) there is sufficient freedom to explore the problem space, (B) fairly rapid feedback, and (C) people are impressed by or interested in what I am doing. Success breeds success. I am convinced that one of the most important jobs of a manager is to cheerlead for the team and remind them why their work is interesting and valued. Who else is going to do that if not the manager? Feelings of success and confidence breeds more success. Having people do quick demos or small green-field projects, even if it isn't exactly the top priority at the moment, then complimenting the result, is a good way to boost morale and interest in my experience.
isostatic 7y ago
How productive do you expect them to be How productive are they being How productive do they think they should be Once you have those answers, then you can have a conversation about making all 3 answers match.
thrower123 7y ago
They are engineers, it's normal. Is the work getting done? If yes, then who cares? If not, then you might need to crack the whip a little, but butts-in-seats time and blocking Facebook are incredibly ineffective ways to get people back on track. These are highly trained, competent people, presumably, so treat them like it, not like they are unruly third-graders.
- piyush_soni 7y ago
  Yes, the 'work' is getting done, but again I think it could be around 40% more productive. I do realize that we have to refresh ourselves time to time but when it's a long stretch of time on work looking at investment/finance websites, I think these are signs of trouble. Of course, no one wants to block anything from anyone, or have butts-in-seats time. But I think at "some level" little bit of accountability is needed, I will need to have that uneasy conversation in some or the other way :|.
  - knightofmars 7y ago
    "I think it could be around 40% more productive." Why do you think this? What metrics do you have to support this thought? The one thing I wish managers everywhere would burn into their memory is this, "If you can't measure productivity outside of time spent in chair (looking at code), then you're not actually measuring productivity." Productivity should be measured based on whether or not a team is meeting both their team goals as well as the team's individuals meeting their own goals. These goals need to be clear and realistic. A manager that is setting unrealistic, vague, or otherwise unclear goals is a problem. When teams and individuals repeatedly meet their goals then you can increase the amount and/or difficulty. Or if it is an agile shop, the team should be increasing their "velocity" or whatever metric is used to determine work done, you shouldn't be left with too many empty days in a sprint. If you increase the amount of work or difficulty of work and these individuals are still looking at investment/finance websites after accomplishing their goals, then it is likely that you as the manager were under-utilizing the skills of the individuals on your team. The other important thing to remember is that engineers get blocked. Sometimes more frequently than is desirable. When this happens, managers need to get involved in order to work with others in the organization to alleviate the block and potentially alter processes for the long-term.
koboll 7y ago
Let me provide an alternative perspective. I've been on a team with someone who basically does this -- spent half the day not working, usually selected a single low-difficulty task at a time from Jira to drag out over a couple days or a week, and often went home having put 30-45 minutes less time in per day than others on the team. There was an unspoken but very palpable dissatisfaction from everyone else on the team. No one wanted to be the Bad Guy that calls them out on it, but the manager was unwilling to push them to do more, and a result they were able to get away with slacking off while others were actually putting in effort. It was tremendously bad for morale. That's the biggest effect it had. All the other team members were bitter about the manager's unwillingness to keep the team on a level playing field. If you let this slide, you're ultimately letting everyone else on the team down. The point absolutely shouldn't be to police someone's time; it should be to ensure that, if they have time to slack off, they should be pushed to take on more tasks during sprint planning. "That seems like it won't take too long, can you take on these two tasks as well?" is really all it takes.
- cgiles 7y ago
  This is actually a difficult problem, because there are two kinds of slackers: (1) the kind that work less but produce roughly the same as, or sometimes even more than, everyone else (i.e., smart but lazy), and (2) the kind that don't work or produce. Dealing with (2) is absolutely the manager's job and such a person should be fired if attempts to identify and fix an underlying problem fail. But (1) is really difficult. We have one of those right now, let's call him Bill. Our manager is hesitant to do anything about him, because the manager wants to incentivize productivity, not butt-in-chair time (we're all salaried, with no set hours). But Bill comes in 4 hours a day, seemingly works 1 of them, and spends the other 3 trying to distract everyone else with off-topic conversations. If he comes in at all. Amazingly Bill does get work done, somehow. But it is terrible for morale. Worse, some of the junior members are starting to think they can get away with the same thing Bill is doing, and they can't. As the senior dev, the "big brother" to our manager's "dad", it falls to me to do something about it, but I have no idea what, if anything. Manager fears that if he rewards finishing tasks quickly with more work, it will also harm morale and productivity. And there is a decent argument to be made for that. Having experienced that firsthand, it is highly irritating and incentivizes people to work slowly. Additionally, in reply to GP, a manager that has great technical skills (10) and good managerial skills (1-9) must be as rare as a unicorn. Even a manager who started with good technical chops inevitably will lose them over time when they are an Outlook jockey all day. OTOH, I have seen plenty of otherwise decent managers who think their technical chops are good when they aren't. Pretty much the whole premise of Dilbert. The best realistic alternative seems to be managers who know their technical limits, delegate, and seek advice from their subordinates.
dahart 7y ago
I see the long discussion about micro-managing, but allow me to suggest that addressing that employee’s problem may not micro-managing at all. Micro-managing would be saying something if you ever saw Facebook on their screen even once, and doing it every time. But seeing a clear pattern, and feeling that their behavior is being noticed by all and affecting team morale, that is a real problem that needs to be addressed, and it’s not micro-managing to try and fix it. In addition to the GP’s great list, good managers also tackle problems when they see them, immediately. Don’t let something slide because it’s awkward! Do attempt to fix the problem the first time without blaming or shaming the employee. You can save that for the second warning if the person doesn’t respond by fixing their behavior. Here are a couple of ideas: - Make sure that you or your company have set clear enough guidelines in the first place. Clearly the employee doesn’t think what he’s doing is wrong, therefore it might be a failure to set expectations for work time. Find out or decide what they are and say them in a way that makes clear that hours on social media while at work isn’t part of the deal for getting paid. - Ask the employee to define what is a normal amount of social network time while at work, and then ask them to track their own time using a time tracking app. They might not be aware of how much time they’re spending. You could even ask the whole team to do it, but I would recommend not doing that as a way to avoid confronting the individual directly. The other people on your team won’t respect a move that affects them without directly dealing with the problem. - Rather than accuse the employee, ask them how they feel at work and find out if there’s a motivation problem. Maybe they feel stuck. Sometimes a problem like this is due to the person not feeling like they fit it, not having or understanding their identity or role in the team/company.
cannonedhamster 7y ago
Your job is not to be their friend, your job is to make them as effective a team as possible by identifying impediments to them becoming their best selves. If their work is being done, objectively you should know this, then your next task is to find ways to improve the with being done. If there's enough time to socialize then there's enough time for improvement. This is where you find time for projects that might not work, experiments that might improve quality, quantity, or just improve the overall experience for you customers and team members. There are tons of ways to be firm without micro managing. Here's what I would recommend for you. * Define the primary work that needs to be done. What is the purpose of your team? How effective are they at this? * Identify the gaps. Where can you improve? What can you be doing better to delight your customers? What skills or process improvements can you add that will make things better? * Who can you build to take your spot? You can't be promoted if no one could fill your role. This is hard and you'll get it wrong a few times, that's fine. Just keep working to build up your team Complaints and gripes are common at first. No one likes change. Eventually it will become normal and your team will adjust. No need to micromanage, no need to complain about showing up on time unless it's crucial, i.e. a call center, just set your expectations and took forward the work starts with you though.

thanatos_dem 7y ago

I’d toss an asterisk onto #5 1 on 1s can vary a lot from person to person. I absolutely love my manager, but we’ve never had a 1 on 1 where she spelled out how I’m tracking towards goals. That’d be wayyyyy too formal for the nature of our working relationship. She just lets me know if I make mistakes as they happen, and relies on me to raise issues to her when it makes sense. Now that I’m a manager as well, I have some team members who prefer to keep things less formal, in the same vein as me and my manager, and some that prefer more direct and organized feedback. I think a good manager needs to be adaptable and willing to match the working relationship that each person is most comfortable with.

xenocratus 7y ago

"3. Pushes you for taking up bigger assignment even if you don't feel confident." Oh, man, I'm leaving my current company exactly because most developers don't get that. Instead, a group of select few get all the assignments. It gets so frustrating and depressing in the long run.

mcv 7y ago
I realize now that this is also why I left the company where I've worked the longest. Fun company, but at some point I noticed that my job was going to be to maintain all the legacy sites while a separate team was doing all the exciting cool new stuff.
codeandrun 7y ago
Can relate. Tho, I will add that, often, I've realized how the onus actually lied with me in asking for more challenging work. In my case, I felt that I wasn't clear with what I expected.

robaato 7y ago

Generally agree, except for: 10. Has a very good understanding of stack/technology/project you are working on A manager doesn't need to understand details of the stack etc, for example they can delegate those decisions to tech leads or senior people. Manager does need to know enough tech to detect BS though! They need to be sufficiently aware of overall process to avoid counter productive measurements such as lines of code or some such (happened to me way back when). One of my best managers, on a real crunch project, focussed on recruiting a great team, and then he ran high level interference and let us get on with it.