The rule I use is "The rule of 11" -- you really can't have more than 11 direct reports.

I try to give 30 minutes to each direct report every day. This is not to "manage" them. This is not to "socialize" with them. I do not see them outside the office, and they are not my "friends".

Each person becomes invested in the job. They become better performers. They feel that the company is important. At 11, there are no longer enough hours -- so, if the number of direct reports gets to 11, you need another management layer.

The reason for this? If this is done, this is the easiest way to get maximum performance from the team members.

In your analysis, my team members each spend 30 minutes talking with me -- but 7.5 working. And, working more effectively. I am never surprised and schedules are always met.

What do we talk about? Process improvement. What is going wrong, with suggestions to fix it. Especially introverts, who can see what is happening, but are loath to communicate.

Using this simple approach can give a "10x" multiplier to a team. The "kinds of people that can get work done well, in a steady state" also benefit. By telling me how to improve the "steady state".

FredW

Sorry to break it to you, but you have 11 people who are putting up with your stupid 'help' because you are their boss and there is no way for them to avoid having you waste their time every day.

If you are spending 6 hours a day chatting with people, you are probably just being manipulated anyway, since your only concept of what is going on in your work is what people are telling you.

Good luck getting your 10x multiplier.

This is an incredible unhelpful response to a poster who has explained their experience. Unless you work for them you don’t know what their team is like or how they function.

You really talk about process improvement for 30 min a day with every single team member separately? As a developer that is unimaginable to me.

Understand that as a developer, you are more important than me. It is likely you make more money than I do (at most organizations I have been in).

But, say something goes wrong. The defect is then tracked back to your work. What happens? (PS. this is purely hypothetical, I just want to make it imaginable for you).

We talk, and I may bring up "Five Whys". Are you familiar with this technique? Assume you are not. We may discuss the role of process. Not for process sake, but process improvement. To make your life easier. Since you spend 1/3 of your life at work, you have an interest in this. I then suggest you google this, and that we should carry on this discussion in (say) a weeks time.

Note that this entire discussion takes 30 minutes. The follow-up will take 30 minutes a day over 4 days, but you will be doing the bulk of the talking. Because you want to. I don't get angry with you. I shield you as much as possible. But (again, this is hypothetical), this is your mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. What is interesting is that you know more about fixing this than I do. After all, I am but your manager. I want to teach you techniques to learn from what happens, listen, and propose approaches.

See? That is management. I will let you push the idea(s) to others. Actually, the modification of the idea that works for you.

Initially, I find I drive the conversation. But, as people become comfortable with me, they drive the dialog. I facilitate and eliminate problems to productivity.

Now, for the bonus answer -- rule #2 for an effective manager is to deal with issues immediately. Your desk should always be clear (as best as possible). I maintain all current open issues on a white-board, where status is immediately inspectable.

Back to "5 Whys" -- if I think that will be valuable to more people, I may create a training session -- which will be referred to in the 1 on 1s. And this is how I would manage a larger group (7 to 11 people). And, the value I can provide to being a "manager of managers"; value to the people I am indirectly managing.

Yes, I try to give 30 minutes a day for every team member.

FredW

Tbh you sound like a terrible manager. I imagine some developer rolling his eyes as he gets called into your office to hear another technique blathered at him for a defect he couldn't have possibly prevented. His coworkers took him out for beers later where they cheered him up with jokes at your expense. You weren't there of course, you're not their friends.

An important part of a manager's job is helping keep self-centered self-unaware primadonnas contributing productivity to the team, despite their short-sighted immature attitude. It's rather like parenting in that respect.

You are like a personification of everything that people hate about professional managers.

Wait for a problem to happen, then make a big show about 'managing' the problem.

Any organization that would employ you is very broken.

Personally, I have a weekly 30min-ish 1:1 with each of my team members + an extra monthly 1:1 to talk personal development. Most weeks there's an ad hoc 1:1 with at least a couple of them to talk about project issues they need help with, or to brainstorm new ideas. Overscheduling is unreasonable (almost dictatorial), especially because employees see meetings as formal events governed by specific norms.

As a manager, my job is to help you succeed through managing the "what" and "how" of your work. I also manage the "whys", but those are what often come out in casual interactions rather than formal meetings.

I also focus cycles on "who" and "where", but most of that is personal reflection on how things are going. Still management, but may not be visible to you, and may be me spending time in discussion with my manager & peers.

Hopefully they meant per week...hopefully.

> my team members each spend 30 minutes talking with me -- but 7.5 working

makes it sound like it's 30 minutes per day.

>The rule I use is "The rule of 11" -- you really can't have more than 11 direct reports.

That really depends on the industry and the situation. It's probably true for tech work, but I managed more than double that in a blue-collar type job and didn't have much trouble.

I also had a job managing six computer operators and the combination of my inexperience and the personalities in the group caused the whole thing to blow up.