[MattGaiser]

> This is doubly true of my bosses. It sucks, but there's no way around it.

So many opportunities in my life have come from casual interactions with my bosses, i.e. they spot something in an email and because I am sitting nearby, they propose it to me or they are coming out of a meeting and mention some corporate goal.

Working remotely, I do not even speak to my boss every week now. I am a microservice outputting work.

[moriarty-s3a]

This is completely cultural. I had a manager that I didn't meet in person for over a year and he was constantly sharing stuff like this with me, frequently multiple times a day. As the sibling points out, if you aren't speaking with your manager weekly, or really almost daily, then something is very wrong.

[cl0rkster]

I agree completely. Reading these responses, there's a lot of negativity to communicating with your manager. While I've been in times that I completely understand this, I chose my latest job purely on manager. It pays less and I couldn't be happier. He was innovative in using a shared Google doc that gets updated with tasks, goals, and progress by both of us daily. We meet officially on a schedule once a week, but often chat in the interim. Personally, I use the Google doc as my running, living Todo list. It helps keeps thoughts organized, and my manager sees a lot more than he ever could in a daily stand up. Sometimes, here's even able to proactively assist. Which, if you work hard, is an excellent thing. My manager and I would never hang out as friends, but we're both fascinated by technology and business culture and speak on it often. Worry more about positive relationship than specific method, I'd say. And if you hate your manager, job search on primarily that criteria and take a job your want with enthusiasm even if it pays less. You can't quantify peace in dollars.

[ryanwaggoner]

I know I’m asking a lot, but could you share more about this google doc? How is it organized, do you both edit it, do you use comments, etc?

[antipaul]

Not OP.

I use it with my manager to asynchroneously share updates and todos. It's in reverse chronological order, with a big heading for each weekly 1-1. We both write directly in the doc, and tag each other with comments for updates.

An extreme of this, is that some teams (was it Netflix?) basically use google docs as project trackers. The project is described in the google doc, and you talk about it via comments - whenever you want, and as a replacement for meetings (who doesn't love getting rid of meetings?)

In general, the idea with a gDoc is of a central repository of useful knowledge, an improvment over searching through chat messages and endless meetings.

[ryanwaggoner]

I appreciate it, thanks!

[cl0rkster]

The way I personally use it may differ from my other coworkers, but there's a heading for each day. I start the day by copying everything up from the previous day that wasn't completed, then I prioritize the bullet points and highlight what I hope to finish that day. Each week has an "accomplishments" header that is used at review time. I choose what goes there. My boss rarely adds things other than just prior to our one on one so he doesn't forget. Having a running daily Todo that begins as a copy of yesterday's mind map makes focus so much easier. Then when I have a status update that I don't want to disturb his busy schedule with, I tag him in a document comment or assign a task. I can message or email for urgent needs, but this is a lower percentage occurrence. Hope that gives some insight. Happy to answer any other questions.

[hordeallergy]

Just to provide the opposite perspective, that sounds like my hell. A weekly catch-up, fine, and the rest of the time if I have anything worth chatting about I will. I can't stand the ritual ceremonies.

[ryanwaggoner]

This was helpful, thanks for sharing!

[cosmodisk]

If I need to speak to everyone in my team daily or even weekly,it means the whole thing isn't working and it would fall apart as soon as I walk through the door. I do trust people in what they do and I don't micromanage. I'm always available if anyone needs help or any kind of support or advice,but it doesn't mean I'd walk around daily asking how's work every day. Again, this depends on a role as well,as for instance, I do spend a lot of time discussing technical aspects with the business analyst.

[Edit] The above applies to office environment,where I could see all my team in one place and there were lots of 'hints' that could tell whether I need to have a chst with someone: difficult call, challenging situation, too much work,issues at home and etc.All this is almost invisible when working remotely. Casual calls are necessary to check on people and to make sure they are fine.

[MattGaiser]

Fair, it is going to depend on the boss and how your office interactions were before everything went remote.

> if you aren't speaking with your manager weekly, or really almost daily, then something is very wrong.

I am someone who likes a lot of autonomy.

In-office, beyond my Scrum team, I am otherwise trusted to deliver what I need to deliver. That leads to few check-ins and mostly social banter with my boss as I will be in touch if I require anything. No news means all is well.

It is just that remote removes most of the social banter and problems don't pop up for weeks.

[52-6F-62]

There are alternatives. For instance my smaller team has a very brief daily stand up now in a video call each morning.

Our larger department has a Monday check-in and a Friday check-in wherein our boss's boss speaks to each one of us—checks in with how we're doing, whether we need anything, if we're stuck or whatever, and also raises questions to us that have come up in their own work. That is often mixed with more congenial banter and chats. Sometimes we throw in a game of Jackbox or something.

My own team has taken to at least a round of something like Counter Strike for the last hour of the day each week. Sometimes almost every day depending on our work load.

Combined with Slack my immediate manager and higher-level bosses are as reachable as ever.

I'm sure once things can safely open up again there will almost immediately be some kind of meet up for drinks and whatever because of course that can't quite be replaced, but I don't think being remote most of the time has to be such a social handicap.

[patcon]

This is def speculation on my part, but I've got a hunch that these "good manager" types often learn this wonderful communication style from working with ppl in-person -- high touch communication spaces are where ppl learn and hone those skills that they then bring into digital spaces with such effectiveness

[WWLink]

I don't want my coworkers touching me. :P

[lalos]

When does the line blur and it becomes micro-managing if speaking daily?

[chc]

Micromanagement isn't about frequency of contact so much as the amount of control the worker has over their work. The biggest micromanager I ever worked for would forget I existed for days or a week at a time, only to come in tell me to throw out hours of work and do very specific, arbitrary things instead because he just liked it better a different way. The most hands-off boss I've ever had would drop by for a chat almost every day, but mostly just to get thoughts on overall direction and discuss ideas he was mulling.

[MattGaiser]

We could speak daily and not have it be micromanagement. There is just not anything to speak about most days. We did good morning in the chat for a while, but that just died after the first few weeks.

[cddotdotslash]

"Speaking" doesn't imply "managing" in a negative sense. It's simply a medium to convey information. Is it micro managing to see a direct report in the hallway or at lunch and casually say "Hey, Alice was saying that we could really use a new X, what do you think about that?" That level of discussion would very rarely occur over Slack or during a scheduled 1:1.

[RHSeeger]

> "Hey, Alice was saying that we could really use a new X, what do you think about that?" That level of discussion would very rarely occur over Slack

Out of curiosity, why? I have this kind of discussion in Slack fairly often, sometimes in a (smaller) channel, sometimes in direct messages (occasionally with >2 people in in). A quick conversation about an idea, where people can respond as time permits, seems fairly optimal for Slack.

[ericlewis]

just say good morning?

[woeirua]

Not speaking with your subordinates at least once a week is a pretty solid indication of a shitty manager...

[MattGaiser]

More just a consequence of an project that is generally going well (or at least was) and a lot of prior autonomy. Plenty of weeks there has been nothing to say.

We had a sprint planning (he isn’t on the development team for that), we completed the sprint, we did it again. Nothing to report.

In the office, it is a nice amount of autonomy to not have to provide yet another status update all the time. The project team already has enough Scrum reporting requirements so it works well to keep the admin burden down.

You just have to wonder if you are forgotten when working remotely.

[jeffasinger]

A good manager should be doing a lot more than just asking you for status updates in your 1:1s. At a minimum they should be:

1) Providing updates on things going on with the rest of the organization that may affect you. Technically this doesn't have be in a 1:1, but is often a good venue. 2) Learning more about any problems facing the team, and discussing potential solutions. 3) Giving feedback on both what the employee has been doing well and any areas they could improve. 4) Helping to set goals that will advance the employees career goals.

While you might be able to get everything done well with lots of autonomy, you're probably still leaving value on the table by not meeting more regularly.

[MattGaiser]

That is interesting as I never would have thought those would be in the scope of what managers did (especially the career goals as that means helping people leave).

I was under the impression that the less your manager needs to deal with you, the better you are doing.

> you're probably still leaving value on the table by not meeting more regularly.

Am definitely going to think about this over the next little while. Thanks.

[AlisdairO]

Yeah, to add to this: the best year of my working life, I got an average review. I just happened to be an expert in a bunch of tech that my team had forced on them, ramped them all up, and generally contributed a bunch. And I failed to communicate with my manager - as in, I went three months without meeting him. He had no real idea how much I'd contributed. Now obviously, that's on my manager as well, but ultimately it was me it affected. Since then I've made an effort to own the communication with my manager more, and it's had much better results career-wise.

[golover721]

Ultimately a manager is judged by his/her superiors by their ability to get the most value out of the teams which they are in charge of. So as a report, frequent communication with your manager discussing whats going well, what can be improved, and ideas on how to do it helps them meet their goals as well as making your life easier. It also is likely a primary factor that will help you with your career progression.

From what I have seen over the years theres the top performers who communicate a lot with the manager in the way described above. Also bottom performers communicate frequently with their manager, but for negative reasons. The middle performers often hardly communicate with the manager, and they are likely not going anywhere (which is fine too, if thats what they want).

[woeirua]

At the end of the day, a good manager wants to see their reports progress professionally and personally. They should be helping you get to the next level, regardless of what that is for you. Sometimes that means saying goodbye to really talented employees, knowing that they're moving on to bigger and better things than you can provide for them.

[markkanof]

I think some of the replies to your comment and surrounding comments are missing an important point, which I'm going to assume you were making. In a remote work situation, managers need to check in for more than just directly work related conversations.

The comment that started this thread was making the claim that people have difficulty comprehending others as people that they don't directly see in person. So managers (everyone really) should be checking in at least once a day, even if it's just to ask "how's it going" (generally, not a work status report), have a conversation about something non-work related, crack some jokes, whatever. Basically, maintaining that human connection sometimes needs to be forced a little bit, because it's so important and leads to a tighter knit team.

[binarymax]

Calling your employees "subordinates" is also a solid indication of the same.

[Aeolun]

How would you then call people below you in the org tree? I’m struggling to think of a clearer term.

[jes]

With no snark intended, I simply call them my colleagues. If there is a question about whether they report to me or not, I'm happy to clarify.

[PeterisP]

Colleagues does strongly imply an equal level and similar duties, a teamlead's colleagues are other teamleads and not the individual developers whom they're managing (who do a different job) and not their managers who are also doing a quite different job.

[exolymph]

"Direct reports" is the default euphemism.

[artificial]

Child processes, managed processes, automatons, acolytes, minions... villagers? No, too RTS ;)

[winkeltripel]

units?

[artificial]

Heck yeah, I like it. I always associate that with C&C: Red Alert.

[dagnabbit]

'my org', 'my team' or 'my reports' for all below; 'my direct reports' for those immediately below.

[throwaway3563]

Underlings... minions... henchmen...

[newtoday]

Team members?

[Xelbair]

Coffee fueled logic generators?

[rdiddly]

It's not like "employees" is the greatest. Those who are employed, i.e. used.

[krzyk]

It depends. I don't want to speak to my manager to often, I prefer to do my work without distractions.

And I must say I'm loving this whole pandemic forced WFH on everyone - it means all of us are on the same level, no more speaking with managers/directors over a cigarette or at lunch/coffee. A great equalizer of opportunities and pure work :)

[watwut]

Depends how many people work in the team. But really, most of time you dont need to work with manager and frequent communication typically means the manager is dealing with some problem with you or near you.

[JamesBarney]

One thing bosses are looking for in subordinates isn't necessarily excellence but understanding. Do I know what choice they'd make and would they make the same choice I would when confronted with the same problem.

And the best way to figure that out is to get to know someone.

A lot of my promotions have been good reviews but some have been grabbing beers with the boss.

[sokoloff]

I see it slightly differently. In my subordinates, I want confidence that they'll consistently make decisions that they believe are in the best long-term interests of the company. If they consistently do that, I can work on anything else (including making sure I help them better understand the long-term interests as I understand them).

That will often mean "would make the same choice I would", but I'm happy if they merely use the same rubric.

[JamesBarney]

Say you're a consultant and you thought the best way to make a client happy was delivering a great product even if it's late and over budget.

If your subordinate thinks the best way to make a client happy is to always deliver on time and budget even if they have to cut a bunch of corners and deliver a buggy product, are you still going to be happy about that?

Are you going to stil be happy with his decision when you have to justify to the client and your boss why it was a good decision to release a buggy version early than a more polished version late? Despite the fact that if you were put in that exact same situation you would have made the opposite choice.

There are plenty of other examples too. You both believe that company goals are driven by great effective teams. You believe effective teams are born out of great morale and shared goal. He believes effective teams are the sum of their parts. There is someone that isn't pulling their weight. You would mentor them because they're always upbeat and positive and it'd be crushing to morale to fire this person. Your subordinate fires them because he believes he's slowing down the team.

[sokoloff]

In the short run, I may very well be unhappy in those examples, but only if the client ended up unhappy or if the team performance took a sustained dip. Some clients care greatly about budget. Some team’s morale improves when poor performers leave. The people closest to the client/team probably can make a better decision than I can. IOW, maybe my approach would be the wrong one.

I’m also confident that I can work with those hypothetical leaders because they share a common foundational compass.

I can talk about the trade offs of time/budget. I can talk about the trade offs of morale vs peak individual performance. Most importantly, I can be sure they have a guiding framework that pulls us in the same direction, even if the near-term paths are different.

I have two leaders working for me today (one of whom may well read this) who make markedly different decisions than I would. We talk openly about it; they get great results for the company via a different route to the same destination and I don’t try to make them into mini-mes. (I lead quite differently than my own boss as well.)

There are many paths to Rome.

[tylerjwilk00]

Sounds specific to your boss.

My team and I are mostly remote, doubly so since pandemic, we are all chatting and vidconfing with our boss and each other daily. It's a nice well connected environment.

[cosmodisk]

But then what's stopping you from picking up the phone and giving him a call? What I noticed was the opposite: instead of having some rare encounters with our CEO( I report directly to him but we are in different buildings so we mainly meet in meetings only) and ending up doing something 'urgent' or distracting, I now have less of these. However, having said that, it's harder to pull out the information I want when on the phone versus when face to face.

[MattGaiser]

> But then what's stopping you from picking up the phone and giving him a call?

Inherently nothing. I could call him, but I have little reason to beyond a social chat as there is nothing to report, so it would be a "hey boss, how is the new baby doing?"

I haven't given much thought to the career implications of remote as I expect it to be relatively temporary in my case so I do not feel pressured to solve the problem.

> However, having said that, it's harder to pull out the information I want when on the phone versus when face to face.

I don't envy our business analyst.

[cosmodisk]

>I don't envy our business analyst.

This can actually be a blessing in disguise for him as long as he sticks to 'put it in writing'. Here's what will happen: some won't write and won't ask again because they have no clue how to put what they want in writing.Some will write some incomprehensible thing and it will require 20 more emails to find out that all they want is Comic Sans in Word and etc. Also it will tame some 'motivated ones',who could go on for hours about what they would want.

[philliphaydon]

> Working remotely, I do not even speak to my boss every week now. I am a microservice outputting work.

I've spent this past week rubber ducking with my boss. I think we've spoken MORE since we both started WFH because he's got less distractions now he isn't in the office.

[gofreddygo]

Most 'opportunities' presented to me by my higher ups in casual interactions are just them trying to get more unofficial work done without being called out for it.

No thanks.