5 ms·

"They only serve to make a manager feel like they know what everyone is doing, all the time." As a manager it is critically important that I have a sense of wh

"They only serve to make a manager feel like they know what everyone is doing, all the time." As a manager it is critically important that I have a sense of what my staff is doing. New assignments come in all the time that require quick turnaround. I need to know who on my staff is available for such projects.

SoftTalker 4y ago
As a manager how can you not know what your staff is doing at any given time? I've worked in some places where developers chose their own stories but we had morning standups to communicate what we were working on.
- massysett 4y ago
  We don't have morning standups. Why is a 1:1 a waste of time, but a morning standup isn't?
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Yeah morning standups are not great either TBH but more efficient than a manager trying to gatekeep and broker information via 1:1s with each developer.
    - massysett 4y ago
      So having a standup every single day is more efficient than meeting once a week with your manager? You'd rather have to take time out every single day to hear other people talk about stuff that may have no relevance to what you do, rather than meet with your manager once a week - a meeting that might take only a few minutes if there turns out to be little to discuss? OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
      - mshake2 4y ago
        The point of a stand is for the team to synchronize and raise potential issues. If the team is small, cross-functional, and working in the same area, it has a lot of value. You seem to be looking at this from the perspective of "what can I, the manager, get out of this" instead of "what can the team get out of this."
        massysett 4y ago
        That's laughable - my team does not want stand-ups and after I asked them many times whether they would like regular meetings, they suggested doing a team meeting every few weeks, so you have no idea how I am looking at this.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        mshake2 4y ago
        You opened this line of conversation with "As a manager it is critically important that I have a sense of what my staff is doing." Not "it's very important to my team that they have X process." I only know what you tell me.
      - SoftTalker 4y ago
        If I have an issue blocking me now, yes it's more efficient to raise that at standup today with the group of people who might be able to help, than wait until next Thursday to discuss it 1:1 with the manager and then wait for the manger to find help for me. But I'm not a huge fan of standups either, don't get me wrong. They aren't a great use of time, I just think they are better than weekly 1:1s to communicate things like "what I'm working on" or "what's blocking me."
      - 8note 4y ago
        If they're work has no relevance to yours, I don't think you're on the same logical team? You don't need cross team stand-ups unless you're working on a project together
  - OJFord 4y ago
    For me, as a non-manager IC, I find it a complete waste of time. Unless I actually had an issue, but I'd rather not sit on an issue waiting for stand-up, and only would if it were close and I wanted to have something to say. But managers, or at least the one that replied when I mentioned the above once, seem to like them, here what everyone's doing all at once ... Without having to read Jira titles themselves I suppose. Perhaps ideal then would be some kind of Slack bot/app where everyone has to submit a quick video or voice clip once a day, and it queues them all up to play at whatever time the next day/stand-up period the manager wants the report.
    - partdavid 4y ago
      That does sound like a waste of time, and my experience agrees with yours, that it's quite common. Which is too bad, because in my opinion, if a standup is a readout of work in progress, that's dysfunctional. A good standup is about identifying and resolving conflicts, dependencies and blockers, something that can be hard to do except as a group--it should not be a list of "what everyone's working on."
      - OJFord 4y ago
        I just don't think that should wait for stand-up, even if they're daily. If you're blocked, mention it in the Slack channel or whatever we're using - someone can probably help; if not they know you need it. If a call is required, you can arrange that then with the relevant people, which may or may not be everyone.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Hear* I meant of course.
- CuriousCosmic 4y ago
  In some types of matrix orgs it makes sense as there is a distinction between project leadership and staff leadership. - The staff/personnel manager is there for managing the engineers and getting their time allocated to projects. The 1:1s are for these managers to understand their engineers' skills, weaknesses, goals, and direction for growth/development so they can effectively allocate them. - The team leads and project managers participate in standups so that the teams can effectively operate, work gets done, and project leadership knows what is happening. The division makes sense when you have a lot of projects which may only be funded for parts of the year or where development isn't regular. Doubly so in industries which have a legal requirement for strong compartmentalization of knowledge & involvement. In these environments, your team leads, project managers, and standups will change like hats over the course of weeks, months, and years while you likely will only change personnel managers and 1:1s a few times over the course of a decade.
candiddevmike 4y ago
A 1:1 seems like a wildly inappropriate place to discern that information.
mshake2 4y ago
You should be able to know this through a defined engineering process, and the signals that this process produces (standups, ticket progress, etc). Regularly interrupting people to get status updates is not the way to do it.
- massysett 4y ago
  1. I am not an engineer and this is not an engineering firm. 2. Why would 1:1 be a waste of time, but a standup isn't? 3. I am not "regularly interrupting people," this is a regularly scheduled 1:1. Why is that an interruption, but a standup isn't?
  - mshake2 4y ago
    Sorry, I assumed that you were part of tech. I only know about good processes for software development.
  - partdavid 4y ago
    I agree with you on points 2 and 3 (I don't think a standup covers the same kind of thing as a 1:1 anyway, and as you point out, you're not interrupting people. But to be fair on the first point, you were replying directly to someone who is (obviously), so it's a reasonable assumption. However, even at that, long before I was involved in software development I still hated the redundant reporting of status and availability in repeated verbally or specially-prepared status reports. Do you really not have any system to track all of these work requests? To fit them into project plans using transparent and queryable project management tools? Do you wait to make assignments until you've had the week's 1:1 with everyone? How do requesters or other stakeholders know the status of requests--don't you track that? Even if it's a spreadsheet with statuses and comments it still seems like this should be continuously updated, not once a week; and available to interested parties for transparency (so you don't have to have the meeting with your boss or other stakeholders where you imperfectly regurgitate what has already been said in 1:1s). Having one-on-one verbal conversations to repeat status and assignments at a snail's pace to each other, up and down the chain, is something I find very annoying. I don't think 1:1s are a "waste of time", I just think it's a waste to do status reporting and work allocation using anything other than an agreed-upon tool. The tool might need to be reinforced by verbal meetings, depending on the employee, because different people need managed in different ways. So yeah, there are people who need to be told what to do and be reminded to use a tool, of course. Which is why I think a 1:1 is the time do things differently depending on what each employee needs (since your group meetings are not individualized), and they should probably have the most influence in what you do in a 1:1. Some people need to talk about feelings. I like to use it as a brief social connection, to build social trust and rapport at work--for me, that's much more valuable than status updates. Others maybe need to review the work that they're doing.

SoftTalker 4y ago

As a manager how can you not know what your staff is doing at any given time? I've worked in some places where developers chose their own stories but we had morning standups to communicate what we were working on.

massysett 4y ago
We don't have morning standups. Why is a 1:1 a waste of time, but a morning standup isn't?
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Yeah morning standups are not great either TBH but more efficient than a manager trying to gatekeep and broker information via 1:1s with each developer.
  - massysett 4y ago
    So having a standup every single day is more efficient than meeting once a week with your manager? You'd rather have to take time out every single day to hear other people talk about stuff that may have no relevance to what you do, rather than meet with your manager once a week - a meeting that might take only a few minutes if there turns out to be little to discuss? OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
    - mshake2 4y ago
      The point of a stand is for the team to synchronize and raise potential issues. If the team is small, cross-functional, and working in the same area, it has a lot of value. You seem to be looking at this from the perspective of "what can I, the manager, get out of this" instead of "what can the team get out of this."
      - massysett 4y ago
        That's laughable - my team does not want stand-ups and after I asked them many times whether they would like regular meetings, they suggested doing a team meeting every few weeks, so you have no idea how I am looking at this.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        mshake2 4y ago
        You opened this line of conversation with "As a manager it is critically important that I have a sense of what my staff is doing." Not "it's very important to my team that they have X process." I only know what you tell me.
    - SoftTalker 4y ago
      If I have an issue blocking me now, yes it's more efficient to raise that at standup today with the group of people who might be able to help, than wait until next Thursday to discuss it 1:1 with the manager and then wait for the manger to find help for me. But I'm not a huge fan of standups either, don't get me wrong. They aren't a great use of time, I just think they are better than weekly 1:1s to communicate things like "what I'm working on" or "what's blocking me."
    - 8note 4y ago
      If they're work has no relevance to yours, I don't think you're on the same logical team? You don't need cross team stand-ups unless you're working on a project together
- OJFord 4y ago
  For me, as a non-manager IC, I find it a complete waste of time. Unless I actually had an issue, but I'd rather not sit on an issue waiting for stand-up, and only would if it were close and I wanted to have something to say. But managers, or at least the one that replied when I mentioned the above once, seem to like them, here what everyone's doing all at once ... Without having to read Jira titles themselves I suppose. Perhaps ideal then would be some kind of Slack bot/app where everyone has to submit a quick video or voice clip once a day, and it queues them all up to play at whatever time the next day/stand-up period the manager wants the report.
  - partdavid 4y ago
    That does sound like a waste of time, and my experience agrees with yours, that it's quite common. Which is too bad, because in my opinion, if a standup is a readout of work in progress, that's dysfunctional. A good standup is about identifying and resolving conflicts, dependencies and blockers, something that can be hard to do except as a group--it should not be a list of "what everyone's working on."
    - OJFord 4y ago
      I just don't think that should wait for stand-up, even if they're daily. If you're blocked, mention it in the Slack channel or whatever we're using - someone can probably help; if not they know you need it. If a call is required, you can arrange that then with the relevant people, which may or may not be everyone.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Hear* I meant of course.
CuriousCosmic 4y ago
In some types of matrix orgs it makes sense as there is a distinction between project leadership and staff leadership. - The staff/personnel manager is there for managing the engineers and getting their time allocated to projects. The 1:1s are for these managers to understand their engineers' skills, weaknesses, goals, and direction for growth/development so they can effectively allocate them. - The team leads and project managers participate in standups so that the teams can effectively operate, work gets done, and project leadership knows what is happening. The division makes sense when you have a lot of projects which may only be funded for parts of the year or where development isn't regular. Doubly so in industries which have a legal requirement for strong compartmentalization of knowledge & involvement. In these environments, your team leads, project managers, and standups will change like hats over the course of weeks, months, and years while you likely will only change personnel managers and 1:1s a few times over the course of a decade.

candiddevmike 4y ago

A 1:1 seems like a wildly inappropriate place to discern that information.

mshake2 4y ago

You should be able to know this through a defined engineering process, and the signals that this process produces (standups, ticket progress, etc). Regularly interrupting people to get status updates is not the way to do it.

massysett 4y ago
1. I am not an engineer and this is not an engineering firm. 2. Why would 1:1 be a waste of time, but a standup isn't? 3. I am not "regularly interrupting people," this is a regularly scheduled 1:1. Why is that an interruption, but a standup isn't?
- mshake2 4y ago
  Sorry, I assumed that you were part of tech. I only know about good processes for software development.
- partdavid 4y ago
  I agree with you on points 2 and 3 (I don't think a standup covers the same kind of thing as a 1:1 anyway, and as you point out, you're not interrupting people. But to be fair on the first point, you were replying directly to someone who is (obviously), so it's a reasonable assumption. However, even at that, long before I was involved in software development I still hated the redundant reporting of status and availability in repeated verbally or specially-prepared status reports. Do you really not have any system to track all of these work requests? To fit them into project plans using transparent and queryable project management tools? Do you wait to make assignments until you've had the week's 1:1 with everyone? How do requesters or other stakeholders know the status of requests--don't you track that? Even if it's a spreadsheet with statuses and comments it still seems like this should be continuously updated, not once a week; and available to interested parties for transparency (so you don't have to have the meeting with your boss or other stakeholders where you imperfectly regurgitate what has already been said in 1:1s). Having one-on-one verbal conversations to repeat status and assignments at a snail's pace to each other, up and down the chain, is something I find very annoying. I don't think 1:1s are a "waste of time", I just think it's a waste to do status reporting and work allocation using anything other than an agreed-upon tool. The tool might need to be reinforced by verbal meetings, depending on the employee, because different people need managed in different ways. So yeah, there are people who need to be told what to do and be reminded to use a tool, of course. Which is why I think a 1:1 is the time do things differently depending on what each employee needs (since your group meetings are not individualized), and they should probably have the most influence in what you do in a 1:1. Some people need to talk about feelings. I like to use it as a brief social connection, to build social trust and rapport at work--for me, that's much more valuable than status updates. Others maybe need to review the work that they're doing.