4 ms·

Wow. With 30 to 50 people to 1 manager, the manager is spending 15-25 hrs simply in 30 min employee 1 on 1s every week. That’s an absolutely insane number. Tha

Wow. With 30 to 50 people to 1 manager, the manager is spending 15-25 hrs simply in 30 min employee 1 on 1s every week. That’s an absolutely insane number. That means if they spread it out evenly over the week, they will be spending 3-5 hrs every day on 1 on 1s. In our company we also don’t have purely people managers. Even when I was managing people who were working on projects that had nothing to do with me, I had to gain a Technical understanding of their projects so we could have educated discussions and I could actually guide and help them with issues they might be facing, even if it was simply knowing who to direct them towards. We also tend to have small teams, with no project exceed about 5 devs. If I was managing 30-50 people, that would have meant having an understanding of 6-10 wildly different projects at least. Again, that seems well beyond the mental capacity of someone who is already spending about 50% of their work hours simply on 1 on 1s every week.

vasco 4y ago
You wouldn't do 1-1s like this with 50 direct reports.
- nunez 4y ago
  yes because you would be managing seven managers who are managing seven people each. the one on ones would be with your seven directs, not your 50 skip levels.
blitzar 4y ago
> The manager is spending 15-25 hrs simply in 30 min employee 1 on 1s every week. That leaves them with nothing to do but the crossword for the other 15 hours of the week.
ResearchCode 4y ago
But a weekly 1-1 would be excessive regardless
fatnoah 4y ago
> If I was managing 30-50 people,... I directly managed 22 people at one point. 1:1s were an every other week affair. While it was possible, it was not sustainable. Keeping track of everyone and their goals & growth, flogging the PM team, running interference with the Sales team, keeping the exec team from interfering, etc. made it far more than a full time job. I was first in the office and last to leave, just so I could get stuff done.
- zo1 4y ago
  Having a 1 on 1 with each report every 2 weeks is the problem here, not the amount of people. Where did this 1 on 1 stuff make it into the manager bible? You do your job and if you don't like something, ask for a 1 on 1. If your senior notices something, he arranges a 1 on 1. But this is also way too late already. A good manager picks up on issues way before this point.

vasco 4y ago

You wouldn't do 1-1s like this with 50 direct reports.

nunez 4y ago
yes because you would be managing seven managers who are managing seven people each. the one on ones would be with your seven directs, not your 50 skip levels.

blitzar 4y ago

> The manager is spending 15-25 hrs simply in 30 min employee 1 on 1s every week. That leaves them with nothing to do but the crossword for the other 15 hours of the week.

ResearchCode 4y ago

But a weekly 1-1 would be excessive regardless

fatnoah 4y ago

> If I was managing 30-50 people,... I directly managed 22 people at one point. 1:1s were an every other week affair. While it was possible, it was not sustainable. Keeping track of everyone and their goals & growth, flogging the PM team, running interference with the Sales team, keeping the exec team from interfering, etc. made it far more than a full time job. I was first in the office and last to leave, just so I could get stuff done.

zo1 4y ago
Having a 1 on 1 with each report every 2 weeks is the problem here, not the amount of people. Where did this 1 on 1 stuff make it into the manager bible? You do your job and if you don't like something, ask for a 1 on 1. If your senior notices something, he arranges a 1 on 1. But this is also way too late already. A good manager picks up on issues way before this point.