3 ms·

You have to be a bit careful with this approach. If there's one thing that annoys me, it's managers constantly asking me for "status emails", making me go to "

by j_baker 17y ago

You have to be a bit careful with this approach. If there's one thing that annoys me, it's managers constantly asking me for "status emails", making me go to "status meetings", and asking me to do other things with "status" in them. I find that the best managers are the ones who can get the information they need and create a minimal level of disruption in the developer's workflow (not that it's always possible, I understand that disruptions have to happen at times).

Periodic 17y ago
I think the author is trying to encourage the practice in general. There are certainly ways to do it right and ways to do it wrong. Just blindly asking for status emails so you have some numbers and justifications for your charts would probably not go over well. Asking for status emails regarding real milestones and to verify functionality, check metrics, or suggest current progress be analyzed can be very helpful. Good management seems to include knowing when someone needs some guidance or help and when they just need you to stay out of their hair.
- j_baker 17y ago
  I agree. Bear in mind that I said to be careful, not to cut the approach out in general.
qaexl 17y ago
True. However, scrum-like standups mitigate it since you always report the status everyday like clockwork, so it doesn't feel personal for that particular task. Projects should be broken down into things that can be done within a day or less, so it is easier for a dev to stay in the zone. I like the method described by Tim Ferris when he used Indian outsourcers: (1) Have them repeat the task in their own words before the task (2) Set a time limit, 1 - 3 hours into the task before they have to report back and you can make a decision to move forward and complete the task or cut your losses.
sivers 17y ago
Agreed. The "trust" part of "trust but verify" is important, too. For me, it was learning to build ways where I could invisibly monitor someone's progress without bothering them. Setting up Subversion/Git to alert me at commits. Having the database show me a progress of tasks completed/uncompleted, etc. But yeah definitely: interrupting people doing good work, asking them to do things with "status" in them, is the worst way to go.

by j_baker 17y ago

Periodic 17y ago

I think the author is trying to encourage the practice in general. There are certainly ways to do it right and ways to do it wrong. Just blindly asking for status emails so you have some numbers and justifications for your charts would probably not go over well. Asking for status emails regarding real milestones and to verify functionality, check metrics, or suggest current progress be analyzed can be very helpful. Good management seems to include knowing when someone needs some guidance or help and when they just need you to stay out of their hair.

j_baker 17y ago
I agree. Bear in mind that I said to be careful, not to cut the approach out in general.

qaexl 17y ago

True. However, scrum-like standups mitigate it since you always report the status everyday like clockwork, so it doesn't feel personal for that particular task. Projects should be broken down into things that can be done within a day or less, so it is easier for a dev to stay in the zone. I like the method described by Tim Ferris when he used Indian outsourcers: (1) Have them repeat the task in their own words before the task (2) Set a time limit, 1 - 3 hours into the task before they have to report back and you can make a decision to move forward and complete the task or cut your losses.

sivers 17y ago

Agreed. The "trust" part of "trust but verify" is important, too. For me, it was learning to build ways where I could invisibly monitor someone's progress without bothering them. Setting up Subversion/Git to alert me at commits. Having the database show me a progress of tasks completed/uncompleted, etc. But yeah definitely: interrupting people doing good work, asking them to do things with "status" in them, is the worst way to go.