by ryanlm on 7/28/16, 1:12 AM with 98 comments
by leroy_masochist on 7/28/16, 2:56 AM
To be clear, I'm all for pushing stats to the central org. Every week when I was a company commander in the Marines, for example, we sent our battalion HQ a big Excel sheet with a summary of who was on light duty, who was going on leave, weapons count, etc -- that kind of basic accountability is fine to put in a weekly email IMO.
What is not fine is abdicating your responsibility as a leader by living within a Potemkin supervisory framework that reduces or even eliminates your need to have daily face-to-face (or telephone/VTC) conversations with the people you have the privilege of supervising in order to figure out what challenges are in their way and what you and the larger organization can do to help.
The straightforward way to do it is not weekly status emails, it's limiting the number of direct reports anyone has to a reasonable number and holding them accountable for everything their portion of the org does or fails to do. They in turn should be holding their people to a high standard of not letting bad news age and being forthright about what's not working.
by robert_tweed on 7/28/16, 2:10 AM
- Brief summary of what was done since last report
- What's next
- Any blockers
- Anything else important (optional)
The only difference is the inclusion of OKRs/KPIs, which makes sense if you are using them. I tend to do something similar with project status reports as well, which will usually have red/amber/green in the subject line and if the status isn't green, the email starts with the reason!
by cel1ne on 7/28/16, 7:41 AM
In theory this sounds good, but that is an emotionally charged and negative way of saying it. "Tell me what you promised to do and if you actually did it." You would not use such a construct in a negotiation except to intimidate the other.
In certain people, this destroys motivation, even when they didn't achieve a prioritised task because they found a better way or reprioritised for good reasons.
by SmellTheGlove on 7/28/16, 3:50 PM
The only time I asked members of my team to write them was when I needed certain individuals to really think about their work and focus on what was important vs low priority. We talked about it, but then I had them write status each week for a while mostly to force them to stop and think about the connection of their work to the larger business objectives. I really value developers who have some level of business acumen and ability to understand the "why" of their work at a more strategic level - and if someone doesn't have that I'm going to coach it. That's just one way that works for some people. More of a coaching tool than an actual status report, though.
by elgoog1212 on 7/28/16, 4:01 AM
by philip1209 on 7/28/16, 1:58 AM
1. What did you focus on this week?
2. What are your plans and priorities for next week?
3. What challenges or roadblocks do you need help with?
4. Is there anything else on your mind you'd like to share?
Managers then can review and comment on each part of the check-in. That happens the same day, which means that it doesn't feel like a waste of time. Even just an emoji as a comment can provide positive feedback.
I like this process because it's efficient. I also enjoy a log of what I have done in past weeks to reinforce that we are progressing. Lattice is primarily a goal-tracking app, so tying goal updates to weekly check-ins makes the process easier.
This works for us, but we're a small team. Weekly status emails sound like a different beast relating to tiers of tiers of teams.
I suspect that part of the difficulty of the "weekly status email" is keeping track of updates from memory. As the author describes the Zynga framework, it's clear that it's easy because it asks for fairly objective things - like OKRs. It sounds like scaling a solution like Lattice to larger companies would ideally prepopulate reports with data - like "Closed these 7 goals . . . , closed these 8 pull requests . . . , analytics shows goal X did Y" - then allow the manager to edit and provide context.
by lawnchair_larry on 7/28/16, 2:47 AM
Are there effective teams who don't do anything like this at all?
by wiradikusuma on 7/28/16, 1:45 AM
by cyphunk on 7/28/16, 9:03 AM
Perhaps there are projects that require this level of management and communication, and perhaps there are people that work well with it. But there are also probably many projects that do not need such management overhead and where some types of people do not work very efficiently in. So, what I'm saying is that I think this management style shouldn't be an assumed default.
by engi_nerd on 7/28/16, 4:02 PM
You can guess what happened next -- someone would check the document out of Sharepoint, locking it for everyone else. Then that person would inevitably get interrupted and go handle the latest crisis. Meanwhile everyone else was unable to enter their status into the shared Word document.
Eventually management gave up and returned to having us send emails.
Fortunately I don't work there anymore.
by iamleppert on 7/28/16, 3:25 AM
by swsieber on 7/28/16, 3:41 AM
I do feel like OKR has a fair amount in common with GTD as well, though I'm not actually familiar enough with GTD to assert that, though from the outside they are similar.
by brlewis on 7/28/16, 1:26 PM
by pzh on 7/28/16, 2:00 PM
by bitshaker on 7/28/16, 2:48 AM
by PapaSlug on 7/28/16, 3:30 AM
by ktRolster on 7/28/16, 4:25 AM
by hga on 7/28/16, 11:56 AM
Sure, "No plan survives contact with the enemy", but I've always found the process of planning to be invaluable.
As others are noting, all this is very subject to abuse, but it can be a very good thing.