These should be taken as the hypothesis statement at the start of an experiment, that will or won't be borne out by what actually happens. Show, don't tell. One reason: People can be wrong about themselves. Or they can, with varying degrees of either idealism or self-dishonesty, present a rosy view that amounts to little more than a sales pitch for themselves. If it's true, you'll find out soon enough. If it's not, you'll find out soon enough. Therefore these documents have little value and should be kept to the minimum length needed to discuss practical things like email expectations and overall goals - things everybody has to agree on.
I completely agree - this document is worthless without follow through and accountability; which honestly was my motivation for writing mine. I want my reports, peers and boss to know how I expect to work and hold me accountable to the promises I make - I am not perfect, but the principles I outline is what I strive for.
Too many teams I have worked in have way too little personal on-boarding in my opinion. At least with these presentations I know how the manager "wants" to present him/herself, if this turns out to be false, as you say, I'll know soon enough.
On the other hand there are managers that do not introduce themselves enough to new employees which forces you to effectively learn by trial and error how you should interact with them.
My point is I would appreciate an idealist sales pitch about a new manager more than just an unplanned, informal conversation.
+1 what bites you next time is not the same time as what bit you last time. Hard to imagine how anyone will respond in an untrained situation. Interesting to see how quickly these things become a fad in silicon valley
There seems to be a fair amount of skepticism about this method, but I think it’s a great system - and it can with great success be extended to everyone else in the company too - not just managers. At Dropbox, a lot of employees have (and we’re all encouraged to have) a “Working with me” document that describes your personality and work style, how you like to get and receive feedback, your career goals, your schedule and communication preferences etc.. it helps people work with each other in a more compatible, effective and empathetic way. But there’s definitely a level of vulnerability and trust that is needed to make it work, however it’s a powerful tool if you have a good culture to support it. Just my 5 cents.
Were the "working with me" documents started by employees or was that something someone pitched/asked for from management? I'd like to do like that. Even as an individual contributor, there are times where I find myself describing my working style or communication style to new teammates.
Interesting that many seem to prefer weekly 1:1s. That seems far too much to me. I would absolutely dread having to spend so much time on that with my manager or my managees and I can’t imagine there are substantial benefits to it (does anyone REALLY have meaningful thoughts about their job/career path EVERY WEEK?)
Whenever I've managed people, I've made a point of scheduling weekly 1:1s; did that even with 12 or so reports, and it did take a significant chunk of time, but it was IMO one of the most important things, if not the most important thing, I could do for them as a manager (and also the one I enjoyed the most about the role).
As other commenters have said, the 1:1 time is the report's time. It's a chunk of time in which I'm entirely and exclusively available to them. I have a set of standard questions I can default to, mostly trying to understand how they're feeling, and open-ended enough that they can talk about whatever they want. Some are done in 5 minutes with a progress report, some take close to an hour in which they sometimes share personal stuff; it's all good from my POV, happy employees are productive employees.
It's absolutely not just about their job/career path. You wouldn't believe what a MASSIVE difference it makes for people just to be heard and have your undivided attention.
I give my reports an opportunity to raise any topics they wish to discuss. Then, following the example set by a previous manager of mine, I always ask these 4 questions:
- On scale of 1-5 (3 being ok, 5 being really bad), what’s your stress level?
- What has been the most challenging thing since our last meeting?
- What has been the most rewarding thing since our last meeting?
- Are there any resources that could assist you or our team with our projects/goals?
I meet every other week for a half-hour with each of my reports. I've found it invaluable and am a strong proponent.
I've also had one-on-one with managers who just wanted to shoot the breeze or complain about other people we worked with. And during one really bad stretch, I had regular one-on-one's with a manager who, after putting me on a PIP, would quiz me about random details of our applications in an effort to collect evidence for HR that I was unqualified for my job. So YMMV.
(I'm one of the managers with a README in the article)
It really depends - I've had direct reports that have had plenty to cover on a weekly basis, and others that don't really have anything new -- the point of the weekly 1:1's is that they have dedicated time whatever they want or need from me - and it's their time to use as they see fit. If they want to skip that week because there's nothing new on their side, that's fine (but not every week), and if they are done in 10 minutes that's fine too. Other people have wanted closer to 2 hours a week of 1:1 time. It really comes down to the individual.
I had a job where my Manager didn't schedule weekly 1:1s, and what ended up happening is that the only face time I got with my manager was when I did something wrong and needed to get beaten up. I dreaded all contact. After some years of this, I suggested we have weekly 1:1s instead, and it was great, because we could share other topics: good things, when things were going good, career growth, etc. Totally changed things.
I agree. I've had managers who like to do the weekly 1:1 and in every case I've ultimately left those jobs. It's too time-consuming, too intrusive, too personal, for no benefit that I ever saw.
One thing to distinguish is whether that's a scheduled opportunity or a forced occurrence.
For example, I have weekly scheduled 1:1s with my manager, as does everyone else he manages (we can see the times on his calendar), but rarely do we actually chat every single week. I think my last one was 2 or 3 weeks ago.
Additionally, my manager isn't actually on the team, and has no idea what goes on day-to-day. Our 1:1s are usually him getting caught up on what the team is doing and my perspective on our newer team members, rather than anything about myself. Often it gets sidetracked by something totally unrelated - one of these 1:1s was how I learned his favorite superhero is the Hulk, though I don't remember at all how the conversation actually got there.
Being able to chat often like that, and get comfortable talking to your manager, makes it a lot easier when you actually need to talk to them about something important.
I thought the same thing. Weekly 1:1s are worthless. That’s coming from an employee who had to do them and a manager who refuses to do them.
I found them a waste of time when I had to do them. I hated them because if I needed to discuss something with my boss I would, and I had better things to do with my time than talk to him. They are also an interruption, so even if they are only 5 minutes, that’s at least 30 minutes of ramp up and down time.
Eh, I think it depends on the individual. I have a 1:1 with my manager every three weeks, and that's plenty for me. If something urgent comes up between meetings (which is pretty rare), he's just a Slack message away. But some employees have enough to discuss that weekly is great for them. I think it's nice for a manager to at least give their reports the option of a weekly 1:1; if there's nothing to discuss sometimes, it should be ok to cancel, and if you just need a 5-minute check-in, that should be fine too.
It's not about there being meaningful / weighty subject matter every week! Rather, by establishing a weekly cadence (which has value per se in creating and strengthening an interpersonal, human connection), it ensures that if/when there _is_ a momentous discussion, there is minimal friction involved, in having the conversation and in how that conversation goes.
"So much time" means they are taking longer than they need to. There is no reason a weekly 1:1 needs to take more than a more than a couple if minutes in some cases: "I'm still buried in $project", "Need anything from me?", "No, I'm good".
It does seem natural for people to want to fill some minimum time period though. I always seem to be the one calling "anything else for this meeting?" to cut them short before the rambling sets in. If nobody is guiding the meeting, then it is your job.
Consider that a lot of meetings happen because people need to look busy not because what is agreed on the agenda (if there is agenda in the first place)
I have weekly 1 to 1s. They aren’t typically about career path or job, they are protected time so that you can go through priorities and talk about any conflicts between scheduling - and they are useful for getting your boss to commit to decisions. Sometimes they only take 15 minutes. Sometimes they take an hour.
Doesn't this mean that the office operates 9.5 to 10 hours a day because people work schedules are different? Means not that a single person works that much, not even the Manager but it could mean that its expect to get requests at any time in these 10h.
The best company I've ever worked for had no managers (beside owners). They made it to $1B, loved by HN crowd, their products used by many of you, and nobody ever wanted to manage anything there. People just discussed stuff and decided to do whatever looked super interesting. One team there had actually a person that was behaving like a manager, and that product completely flopped on the market.
If you mean Valve... there's a guaranteed low-effort revenue stream, the Steam client has been awfully stagnant (and the parts that are client-only, like your games library, are the most stagnant of all -- Steam has slowly added tools to help curate the store, but none of those things like tags have made their way to the library, and if you've ever binged at a few Steam Sales and bought some Humble Bundles boy could you use such tools). And a lot of the people responsible for the most beloved projects have left[1][2], and they've had a bonfire of consumer goodwill over the lack of a Half-Life 3 or Half-Life 2 Episode 3. Their last game release was in 2013 with Dota 2, unless you want to count letting Nexon release some free-to-play games using their branding and a VR demo.
What I'm saying is, maybe they could use some managers?
Valve (presumably the company you're talking about) is sitting on a money faucet, and while they seem to be good at some things, they're pretty bad at a lot of software/services features which a more traditional management structure could easily do. Flat structure seems like it made more sense for what Valve was 5 years ago than what the product is today.
It sounds like you worked at Valve, or possibly Gor-tex, or another company with similar values.
If so, I have a question. How does compensation review actually work? Like what are the detailed logistics?
I understand the whole no managers thing and that your peers determine your salary, but how? How does that actually work? Who actually says, "this is the number" and who tells you the number?
I can see it working, up to a point; introducing management can shift how things work overall, but if a company can get away with it, and that's what works for them, then great!
I feel strongly that the kind of people who identify the need to create a document like this are probably not the people who most need such a document written about them.
That is, in order to feel it necessary to write something like this, you must be a manager who prioritizes answering the question "what can I do to maximize the happiness and productivity of my direct reports," over "what can I do to ensure my own personal success, regardless of anyone else." Such a person is already going to do the right things, and is much less likely to be hard to work with.
The people who really need these kinds of documents written about them are the ones who are actually difficult to work with - but for many very good reasons, that won't happen.
A lot of these README’s seem a bit samey. Is this a trend that was stared somewhere? Was there some dude middle-managers all look up to who suggested an example README that was used to provide inspration?
This is phenomenal. Not only do I find some of the concepts mentioned in each README to be useful in my own work, but I also want to work for all of these managers!
If you know how to read through the lines, these documents are pure gold. Bosses who say "work under/for me"? Stay away, egomaniacs. You always work for an organization, not an egomaniac. My job is to "give you context"? Weasel words alert. Fake freedom. The best is this one: "1. you should do what you think is right 2. I can fire you"
I wonder how many direct reports these managers have. Does anyone have insight? I believe 1on1 is good from my experience in companies where there is a lot of change and a lot going on the #1 feedback I get is people want more information, more 1on1, more team time. With roughly 40 direct reports 1on1 is nearly impossible with the other demands.
At one time I had multiple teams with 16 direct reports - at that point it was very hard to have a weekly cadence for 1:1's with everyone, as that would've been 8 hours a week. My solution to this was to start with bi-weekly 1:1's, having 8 people scheduled one week, the other 8 the following week. Then each week I had office hours scheduled - this was time dedicated to the team to be able to book my time and was not allowed to be booked for any other meetings - this way people who wanted to meet on an off week could. The second step was determine who could (and wanted) to step up in to management roles - ultimately, this lead to promoting two managers under me, and moving their direct reports to being a monthly skip level 1:1, reducing my overall bi-weekly 1:1's across my part of the org.
Honestly, I think 40 direct reports is borderline insane. You can't effectively support that many people (as you note yourself). Speaking as the author of two of these READMEs, at Netflix I had at peak around 12 direct reports (one was a manager with his own reports) and at Slack I have 3 (all of whom manage their own teams).
[+] [-] rdiddly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliottcarlson|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrbarrol|8 years ago|reply
On the other hand there are managers that do not introduce themselves enough to new employees which forces you to effectively learn by trial and error how you should interact with them.
My point is I would appreciate an idealist sales pitch about a new manager more than just an unplanned, informal conversation.
[+] [-] perseusprime11|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daniel_iversen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] numbers|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silveroriole|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggambetta|8 years ago|reply
As other commenters have said, the 1:1 time is the report's time. It's a chunk of time in which I'm entirely and exclusively available to them. I have a set of standard questions I can default to, mostly trying to understand how they're feeling, and open-ended enough that they can talk about whatever they want. Some are done in 5 minutes with a progress report, some take close to an hour in which they sometimes share personal stuff; it's all good from my POV, happy employees are productive employees.
It's absolutely not just about their job/career path. You wouldn't believe what a MASSIVE difference it makes for people just to be heard and have your undivided attention.
[+] [-] klenwell|8 years ago|reply
https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/32765/what-is-...
I give my reports an opportunity to raise any topics they wish to discuss. Then, following the example set by a previous manager of mine, I always ask these 4 questions:
- On scale of 1-5 (3 being ok, 5 being really bad), what’s your stress level?
- What has been the most challenging thing since our last meeting?
- What has been the most rewarding thing since our last meeting?
- Are there any resources that could assist you or our team with our projects/goals?
I meet every other week for a half-hour with each of my reports. I've found it invaluable and am a strong proponent.
I've also had one-on-one with managers who just wanted to shoot the breeze or complain about other people we worked with. And during one really bad stretch, I had regular one-on-one's with a manager who, after putting me on a PIP, would quiz me about random details of our applications in an effort to collect evidence for HR that I was unqualified for my job. So YMMV.
[+] [-] elliottcarlson|8 years ago|reply
It really depends - I've had direct reports that have had plenty to cover on a weekly basis, and others that don't really have anything new -- the point of the weekly 1:1's is that they have dedicated time whatever they want or need from me - and it's their time to use as they see fit. If they want to skip that week because there's nothing new on their side, that's fine (but not every week), and if they are done in 10 minutes that's fine too. Other people have wanted closer to 2 hours a week of 1:1 time. It really comes down to the individual.
[+] [-] ryandrake|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Izkata|8 years ago|reply
For example, I have weekly scheduled 1:1s with my manager, as does everyone else he manages (we can see the times on his calendar), but rarely do we actually chat every single week. I think my last one was 2 or 3 weeks ago.
Additionally, my manager isn't actually on the team, and has no idea what goes on day-to-day. Our 1:1s are usually him getting caught up on what the team is doing and my perspective on our newer team members, rather than anything about myself. Often it gets sidetracked by something totally unrelated - one of these 1:1s was how I learned his favorite superhero is the Hulk, though I don't remember at all how the conversation actually got there.
Being able to chat often like that, and get comfortable talking to your manager, makes it a lot easier when you actually need to talk to them about something important.
[+] [-] apple4ever|8 years ago|reply
I found them a waste of time when I had to do them. I hated them because if I needed to discuss something with my boss I would, and I had better things to do with my time than talk to him. They are also an interruption, so even if they are only 5 minutes, that’s at least 30 minutes of ramp up and down time.
[+] [-] kelnos|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisweekly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stubish|8 years ago|reply
It does seem natural for people to want to fill some minimum time period though. I always seem to be the one calling "anything else for this meeting?" to cut them short before the rambling sets in. If nobody is guiding the meeting, then it is your job.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] a_imho|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Angostura|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mdekkers|7 years ago|reply
I think that depends on how happy you are where you work. Some people might have thoughts about that every hour or so.
[+] [-] exolymph|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] z3t4|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angersock|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] munchor|7 years ago|reply
This is from the "Expectations" section of one of the linked "READMEs" (Forter's). Does anyone else this is a very aggressive expectation?
[1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sx5ssYb_xMrmwPpyjD5xP7Rv...
[+] [-] shubidubi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bootloop|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitL|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwyers|8 years ago|reply
What I'm saying is, maybe they could use some managers?
1) https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/02/valve-chet-faliszek-writ... 2) https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/kim-swift-leaves-valve-fo...
[+] [-] rdl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|8 years ago|reply
If so, I have a question. How does compensation review actually work? Like what are the detailed logistics?
I understand the whole no managers thing and that your peers determine your salary, but how? How does that actually work? Who actually says, "this is the number" and who tells you the number?
[+] [-] elliottcarlson|8 years ago|reply
Relevant: https://getlighthouse.com/blog/flat-organizational-structure...
[+] [-] jonas21|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hossbeast|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivraatiems|7 years ago|reply
That is, in order to feel it necessary to write something like this, you must be a manager who prioritizes answering the question "what can I do to maximize the happiness and productivity of my direct reports," over "what can I do to ensure my own personal success, regardless of anyone else." Such a person is already going to do the right things, and is much less likely to be hard to work with.
The people who really need these kinds of documents written about them are the ones who are actually difficult to work with - but for many very good reasons, that won't happen.
[+] [-] fergie|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RexM|8 years ago|reply
> This is how I prefer to be managed...
[+] [-] rsingla|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hitekker|8 years ago|reply
Right now, this article is positively fawning.
[+] [-] 20171026|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thomas|8 years ago|reply
Employee number whatever: Here are your new instructions, deal with it.
[+] [-] apple4ever|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] piccolbo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zippo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliottcarlson|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CrankyFool|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blattimwind|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kostarelo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tomcooks|8 years ago|reply
Blah.