“I don’t think they would put out material that fails to apply to them.”
I think we mostly agree but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. My impression is that they mainly study what’s useful to their clients and from what I can glean from their book, those clients are mostly big and corporate. I think they might fall outside of their main target audience.
Going back to company size, we’ve done 3 studies comparing the effect of WO3s in small, medium, and large organizations. We have never been able to find any significant difference in R&R improvements based on organization size. We have measured statistically similar improvements in companies of less than 50, and companies greater than 100,000 employees.
WO3s … weekly one-on-ones,
R&R … results and retention
This is not directly relevant to the article above, but it’s about one-on-ones, which are a core MT thing and which chapter 4 of the Effective Manager book is about.
Another excerpt, talking about their data in general:
We’ve measured and followed tens of thousands of managers in academia, and government, and non-profits. Hospitals, and charities, and religious organizations, and medical practices, and retail firms like grocery stores and mall-based clothing chains. We’ve measured over a quarter of a million managers in the Fortune 500 alone.
They often say that their guidance is for 90 % of people 90 % of the time. And their goal is: ‘Every manager effective, every professional productive.’
(Since I realize that I sound like a shill for MT, I’ll say again that I’m not affiliated nor have any hidden agenda. It’s just that my article refers to a lot of MT material and I’m trying to add evidence for their authority.)
Makes sense. I’m a bit worried that people reading this will take away: ‘We’re a small shop, therefore MT doesn’t apply at all.’ This is not the case and I think Howie would agree. I’ve never worked at a big organization and MT still has helped me a lot. I’ve also read and listened to a ton of non-MT material on leadership, doing work, business, processes etc. So I could well be putting MT guidance in its proper context without being aware of it.
I definitely agree that takeaway would be a mistake. I think my view is more like “if the specifics of what MT says on a particular topic don’t feel like they really fit your organisation, you should not feel bound to them. Especially if you’re a small organisation with an unusual culture or if their advice seems to clash with conventional wisdom from other sources, especially in silicon valley.
I’d endorse their book as useful for managers at any org. A lot of the basic takeaways (especially having consistent one on ones) seem pretty robust and it would be surprising if you shouldn’t do them at all.
“I don’t think they would put out material that fails to apply to them.”
I think we mostly agree but I don’t think that’s necessarily true. My impression is that they mainly study what’s useful to their clients and from what I can glean from their book, those clients are mostly big and corporate. I think they might fall outside of their main target audience.
+1 to Paul grahams essays.
Addendum – from https://www.manager-tools.com/2019/01/manager-tools-data-one-ones-part-1-hall-fame-guidance:
WO3s … weekly one-on-ones, R&R … results and retention
This is not directly relevant to the article above, but it’s about one-on-ones, which are a core MT thing and which chapter 4 of the Effective Manager book is about.
Another excerpt, talking about their data in general:
They often say that their guidance is for 90 % of people 90 % of the time. And their goal is: ‘Every manager effective, every professional productive.’
(Since I realize that I sound like a shill for MT, I’ll say again that I’m not affiliated nor have any hidden agenda. It’s just that my article refers to a lot of MT material and I’m trying to add evidence for their authority.)
Makes sense. I’m a bit worried that people reading this will take away: ‘We’re a small shop, therefore MT doesn’t apply at all.’ This is not the case and I think Howie would agree. I’ve never worked at a big organization and MT still has helped me a lot. I’ve also read and listened to a ton of non-MT material on leadership, doing work, business, processes etc. So I could well be putting MT guidance in its proper context without being aware of it.
I definitely agree that takeaway would be a mistake. I think my view is more like “if the specifics of what MT says on a particular topic don’t feel like they really fit your organisation, you should not feel bound to them. Especially if you’re a small organisation with an unusual culture or if their advice seems to clash with conventional wisdom from other sources, especially in silicon valley.
I’d endorse their book as useful for managers at any org. A lot of the basic takeaways (especially having consistent one on ones) seem pretty robust and it would be surprising if you shouldn’t do them at all.
I agree. Thanks for taking the time to hash this out with me!