3 ms·
Manager is the one who can't code, love meetings (part of their job), love Office (so they won't get boring for doing reporting all day).
by revskill 3y ago
Manager is the one who can't code, love meetings (part of their job), love Office (so they won't get boring for doing reporting all day).
- eduction 3y agoYou say that like it’s a bad thing.
- igetspam 3y agoI can code. I hate meetings. I like my home office and have been remote for about eight years. I don't think you know what people managers do.
- ecshafer 3y agoI haven't had a manager before who didn't complain about how many meetings they have, but I think they are a necessary evil for the position. My short stint in management sure saw meeting numbers balloon.
- Raidion 3y agoI'm a manager for two dev teams (~10 people) my breakdown per week is: * 2.5h for 30 minute 1:1s for people that want them once a week * 1.25h for 30 minutes 1:1s for people that want them every other week * 2.5h for team standup (15 mins/day * 2 teams) * 4h for project meetings (status or technical discussions) (4 projects at 1h a day, but might be two 30m) * 2h ceremonies a week (could be refinement/planning/retro) * 1h compliance meeting (internal or external as my department is heavily regulated) * 1h manager sync with my peer managers + director * 30m 1:1 with my boss (director) * 30m 1:1 with product * 30m 1:1 with project manager * 2h "what's next" meetings with product + staff engineers + mgmt for our rough sizing and product pipeline (not every week, but if we're in the midst of a BIG project, swap this with syncs with other parts of the org working on the same thing) That's 18h of meetings a week. Add on some recruiting/hiring meetings, ad hoc "let's get in a room and talk about it" risk discussions, random all hands, and some bursty higher level stuff (OKRs/goal setting/etc). That's >20h a week, and I do feel like people need all of those to be productive. If I cut the 1:1s, attrition rises. If I cut the status meetings, stuff gets off track and fingers start being pointed. I'm pretty aggressive when it comes to cancelling 1:1 or status meetings. We'll do a lot of "we don't need this cross team sync meeting unless someone has something they want to talk about or ask questions on". Any time I spend on people or making sure we know what we're trying to accomplish has huge ROI, IMO. FWIW: Was a former lead developer with decade plus experience hands on coding, so I believe I can bring at least some developer perspective. I have a CS degree, not a management one.
- kenjackson 3y agoThat's pretty standard. And where I work we have each manager also drive at least one major initiative that spans multiple teams. So that ensures that you're the domain expert in at least one thing above and beyond what your team is working on.
- smcleod 3y agoI’ve never seen a manager like you describe but I’d sure like to have more of this!
- badcppdev 3y agoHave you considered the possibility that you are not a "True Manager". /jk
- balls187 3y agoAlso ensures communication vertically and horizontally across the org, works with partner teams, provides guidance and mentorship, and who’s efficacy is the number 1 cause of attrition. If you deal with “bad” managers, that’s a function of working at a “bad” company and you only have yourself to blame for that.
- nine_zeros 3y agoThe amount of communication and reporting required increases with an increase in number of managers. By reducing number of levels and number of managers, you are reducing the amount of communication required in the first place.
- balls187 3y agoTaking your logic to it’s conclusions—getting rid of all levels will reduce communication?
- nine_zeros 3y agoIf the goal was zero communication, sure. But if the goal is to have communication without too much overhead, the overhead needs to be streamlined.