Hello! Welcome to Lyncredible's digest for the week.
Here are the blog posts I wrote this week.
A list of just the links:
And the full content of all the posts, if you want to
read everything in this email.
I spend a ton of time in 1:1 meetings. I meet with my team members weekly, including people I support and peers on my first team. I have bi-weekly syncs with engineering managers from adjacent teams, and I do monthly checkins with a bunch of other folks. I easily spend more than 10 hours every week between attending these meetings and preparing for them. My feelings of how my week goes are largely predicated on the effectiveness of my 1:1 meetings.
Effective, not efficient
You can only be effective with people. You can never be efficient with people. That was the first words of wisdom that Jay Shirley shared with me, and I feel so fortunate to work with him.
As an engineer, I tend to focus on efficiency, which means doing more things with fewer resources. Therefore, I had this innate impulse to optimize my 1:1 meetings when I first became a manager. That was especially true because I spent so much time on them. I wanted to get more things done with less time, but I found it challenging to apply the same mindset. It turned out that, unsurprisingly, people were different from computers.
Huge was the mindset shift to have effective, but not necessarily efficient 1:1 meetings. I started out having 50-minute 1:1s with my team, thinking that I could shorten them to 25-minute ones once we built mutual trust. I was wrong. We did build mutual trust, but the length of the 1:1 meeting should not be decided by how much we knew each other. Instead, it should be long enough so that we could have effective, sometimes insignificant conversations. After having that realization, I no longer optimize for shorter 1:1 meetings. I am so much happier.
I also learned to leverage 1:1 meetings to roll out policy changes iteratively. Take the Project Buddy as an example. It took us four rounds of 1:1s to roll out. I spent time with my team members to brainstorm about the problem space, to socialize the idea of Project Buddy, to discuss the initial trial, and to eventually ask for commitment. A month was probably not efficient by usual standards, but I believed this was an effective way to build rapport and resolve frictions. At the end of the day, a one-on-one meeting is the safest place for people to share disagreements and critical feedbacks.
I crave structures. I need tools to organize myself, more so for 1:1 meetings where I spend a lot of time. I would feel overwhelmed if I did not prepare, and my week would be predictably awful in that case. Below are some tools I have learned over time to help me be happier and more effective:
- Up-to-date recurring calendar invites with an adequately sized room and/or video conferencing setup. The calendar entry should be modifiable by both parties.
- Separate yet overlapped calendar invites as reminders to have career conversations. I prefer to have them once every month while doing weekly 1:1s with my team. This does not apply to 1:1s with other people.
- A shared Google Doc linked from or attached to the calendar entries. This document is meant for preparing agendas and taking high-level notes. Access to the document should be strictly limited to the two persons only.
- A separate weekly plan document for myself. It is useful to write down common talking points across the team. For example, the project buddy discussions would begin with similar narratives for everyone during its rollout phase.
- Some common conversation starters. This list of 1:1 questions was featured on HackerNews a few days ago. I personally like to start with how-is-life and gradually shifts to what-is-holding-you-back-at-work.
- Offering to discuss items on the other person’s agenda first in every 1:1 meeting. I usually mention that I have, say, three things to discuss, but I would first defer.
That is it for now. I hope this post is effective, if not efficient.
What could go wrong? That was the question my own manager asked me when I proposed to replace standups with weekly checkins. That question was a powerful one. It got me to think. I contemplated what could go wrong, and more importantly how to mitigate the risks. I eventually came out feeling much more confident, and I would go on to ask myself what could go wrong many more times.
With less frequent meetings, projects could go off-track longer before someone took notice. Not only would we lose precious time, but also it could create wasteful work that required more time to clean up. Things would be worse if said project is on a critical path for many other teams to depend on.
Regardless, there appeared to be an upper bound. A project could go off-track for up to a week. That seemed acceptable. Would I want that to happen? Absolutely not. Would I be okay to deal with the consequences if it did happen? Of course.
To gain more confidence, I turned to my previous manager and now peer, Anders Conbere. His response? Nothing would go terribly wrong in a week. Managers also need to take vacations!
Feeling good about the maximum downside, I started sketching ways to mitigate the risk. That turned out not to be too hard as soon as I accepted the risks:
- I did some calendar shuffling. The sprint checkin was on Fridays, so I moved my 1:1s to Mondays through Wednesdays. I did not need to go into project details in the 1:1s, but a quick what-is-holding-you-back was always helpful.
- I created the policy Project Buddy, which provided another regular checkpoint to examine if projects were on track.
Between the 1:1s, the project buddy sync, and the sprint checkin, we would have three checkpoints per week for each project. That was not too bad compared to the three standup meetings we had before. Two out of the three were 1:1 meetings, which meant that we could dive into problems if any without alienating other people. It was actually pretty good, I thought.
With the potential downside limited, I would go on to confidently replace standups with weekly checkins. We would continue to reap the benefits from the seemingly unlimited upside, and that was made possible only by the simple question: what could go wrong?