I've been an engineering manager for a couple of years. I'm still expected to do 50% engineering and 50% people management. As the article describes, it is a struggle to do both well. I don't see this responsibility split changing in my current role. I do often wonder what it would be like to be 100% people focused, and whether or not I would miss engineering too much.
When my role first changed, I was very intimidated by doing one-on-ones. I never felt satisfied with the one-on-ones/catch-ups I had with the managers throughout my career, and I wanted to make sure I was doing a good job with that aspect of my role.
I initially did lots of research on how to do one-on-ones, but it was only after getting experience talking to people that I finally felt comfortable. I started getting some nice feedback from my lines, so I wrote some thoughts about how I like to do one-on-ones:
[link redacted]
I think good one-on-ones are very important to keep people happy and productive. I'd recommend any new engineering managers to spend time learning how to do them.
Regarding the advice in your link, how can an employee trust their manager when they're trying to get them to open up like a therapist, while at the same time gathering notes to use as "evidence" in an annual review? This is an inherent conflict of interests, and I've always regretted revealing any difficulties to managers. It usually comes back to bite me, as in "doesn't work well with others," or getting passed over for tech lead because I expressed doubts about my leadership abilities.
Speaking as another engineering manager, the advice in that link is pretty shallow. I think it encourages a rapport that feels efficient for the manager but is plain insubstantial for the report.
> I have found 30 minutes is the ideal length of time. Longer meetings tend to lead to us talking about normal day-to-day work, or going off topic altogether.
Compare this bit of advice to Andy Groves's, the former CEO of Intel and big evangelist of 1:1's:
> "I feel that a one-on-one should last an hour at minimum. Anything less, in my experience, tends to make the subordinate confine himself to simple things that can be handled quickly.” [1]
People need time to express themselves; to air their resentments, frustrations, disappointments, disillusionments. Cutting a report off before they can tell you what's really on their minds or in their hearts, does not seem like "quality 1:1 time" to me. Or at least not in the context of managing high performing knowledge workers.
It's kind of ridiculous for a company to 'expect' 50% engineering and 50% people management. It should be fluid and vary depending on the skill level of the team and the complexity and criticality of various projects over time. It shouldn't be fixed at 50% like some magic number.
Agree. For all but the smallest of teams, this just means being both a poor manager and a poor engineer.
Trying to balance this was one of my first mistakes as a manager. I was a roadblock to shipping things because of my limited coding bandwidth, and I wasn't spending enough time focusing on growing people, having career conversations, ensuring my org was structured for success, etc.
Finally putting down the keyboard was the key to me being a much better manager. Yes, I don't have the depth on every framework like I used to, but I still have over 15 years of hands-on-keyboard experience and the "engineering" part of "software engineering" is less about fluency in languages, but more about how to effectively set goals, mitigate impact of external dependencies, design for performance, etc. That knowledge is still very useful.
My hope is that those illustrate the 'spirit of the law' of taking both responsibilities equally serious. An issue is when middle management, so often comprised of literally minded number crunchers, interferes.
The agenda for one on ones should be driven by each direct report!
If your meetings are stale ask them to start setting the agenda. The time is for them, let them take the lead.
As a basic format, try 15minutes for them , 15minutes for you
The time for them should be whatever they want.
The time for you should be about directing them to what they should do next, understanding if they have roadblocks, giving feedback, identifying opportunities for coaching, and thinking about their long term progression.
Their concept is based on the idea that the key activities of all managers should be primarily focused on one on ones, feedback, coaching, and delegation.
If you do all 4 well then you will be able to grow your direct reports career and help them to better align their output with their career goals and also what the business needs them to deliver.
I'm also in the same boat but my split is 80/20 engineering/managing. It may be the product of whose on my team (many independent and senior level devs) but there are those who need more help/mentoring/etc.
Contrary to a lot of the other commenters, I feel like this team works but it may be a product of it being made up of these people rather than a broader generalization.
When my role first changed, I was very intimidated by doing one-on-ones. I never felt satisfied with the one-on-ones/catch-ups I had with the managers throughout my career, and I wanted to make sure I was doing a good job with that aspect of my role.
I initially did lots of research on how to do one-on-ones, but it was only after getting experience talking to people that I finally felt comfortable. I started getting some nice feedback from my lines, so I wrote some thoughts about how I like to do one-on-ones:
[link redacted]
I think good one-on-ones are very important to keep people happy and productive. I'd recommend any new engineering managers to spend time learning how to do them.