upvote
>trying to get visibility

They could review PRs and commits and specs to get visibility and reduce comms overhead, if they had the skills and time.

The non-technical manager also takes great conveniences in making technical people spend their time translating things. But no one ever asks the manager to learn new skills as much as they make developers do it.

reply
The standups are also organized around disrupting a small group of people for the convenience of one.
reply
Standups should eliminate almost all other meetings engineers need to attend. Except to go deeper on questions that came up in standup that cannot be instantly resolved.

Otherwise yeah there’s really no point.

reply
Do you mean standups as part of Scrum? Scrum dictates several other meetings.
reply
I will allow one more meeting to start a new sprint and end the previous one. Everyone should have prepared ahead of time to report on all their sprint items and whether they were completed, if not why not, and to present the work they will be doing in the next sprint.

If the Scrum Master or whatever their title schedules any other repeating process meetings, fire them.

reply
I would be pleased with the standup if it eliminated other meetings, but that has definitely not been my experience.
reply
Be the change you want to see.
reply
there should be only 3 regular meetings in an agile engineering team - weekly iteration planning (1-2 hours max) - daily standup (15 mins max) - weekly demo & retro (1-2 hours max)

literally everything else is work off the kanban board or backlog.

in my teams everyone was told to decline all meetings unless it explicitly led to the completion of a weekly planned story/task. this way all meetings for the team have a clear agenda and end in mind.

for mandatory external meetings & running interference with external parties, there are ways to insulate the majority of the team from that.

reply
Is that three kinds of regular meetings? Because I count 8 meetings (and four kinds, as I don't think I've ever had demo and retro combined due to different groups of people being in both).
reply
Strong agree. When I started managing there was very little oversight. It wasn’t perfect and we went a bit astray, and we also did phenomenal work and had everyone on the team deeply engaged and moving with autonomy.

On my second team, the visibility theater took over, upper management set and reset and reset and reset our direction, and nobody was happy. In retrospect, I should have said no immediately. Trusting and empowering your people is hard to beat.

reply
Communication overhead is a quadratic function. In teams with n people it takes n^2 time to keep everyone informed.

That's why the most effective teams are wolf packs - roughly 6-10 highly performant members where communication overhead is still low enough that it barely matters, but have enough people to be way more productive than an individual.

Obviously there's a minimum level of competence you need to have for this to work. The smaller the team the less freeloaders are tolerated.

reply
In my opinion, 4 is the best size. 7-10 is horrible - meetings and conversations use up so much time.

You want to break a team of 10 in half if you can. Not always easy. But if you can manage it, do it.

reply