Bad habits for stand-up: ↳ Letting one blocker hijack the meeting. ↳ Rambling task updates like a status report. ↳ Micro-management of anything that is in the sprint. Good habits for stand-up: ↳ Focus on blockers first. "I’m stuck on X. Can someone pair with me after?" ↳ Keep it quick. If it’s not blocking the sprint, take it offline. ↳ Plan the day. Everyone has a dedicated focus. The goal is to start the day with energy, not without it. Stop reporting. Start executing. How do you manage your stand-ups? ~~~ 👉🏻 Join 50,001+ software engineers getting curated system design deep dives, trends, and tools (it's free): ➔ https://lnkd.in/dkJiiBnf ~~~ If you found this valuable: 👨🏼💻 Follow Alexandre Zajac 🔖 Bookmark this post for later ♻️ Repost to help someone in your network #softwareengineering #coding #programming
One practice that works really well in our org is something we call the “Parking Lot Meeting” (PLM). We keep our daily standups super focused just quick updates, capped at 15 minutes. If someone needs to dive deeper into a topic or discuss something with specific folks, they just call out a PLM during the standup. It happens right after, and only those involved join in. Both the standup and PLM are recurring, but PLMs are optional unless you’re part of the discussion. It’s been a great way to protect everyone’s time and mental bandwidth, especially in the mornings.
One upon a time, we had a hard 15 minutes until the next team had their stand up. With a team of 8 we had 90 seconds each. Keeping everyone focused on delivering their responses in their segment helped keep our standouts short. If someone started to get bogged down, we prompted them to discuss it after the meeting and to answer the next question. On subsequent teams, I was fearless about telling the staff-seniors, the TGM, and others, to take things offline so that our standups could keep rolling.
I think it is down to those assembled in the stand up to point out that a stand up should not turn into a discussion session. I know I've been guilty of beginning such a discussion in the past and I have also been the one to point out that such a discussion has begun. Now if the stand up is an online meeting then I think it is reasonable to allow that discussion to go on but only after all the other points have been covered and people are free to leave the meeting. If the stand up is in an office then I'd also encourage people to take it to a meeting room so that others can concentrate on their work.
I have yet to see any org actually do standups correctly. They always have a manager/team lead present (red flag), it’s always early in the day (they’re wasting the team’s dopamine), and they’re nothing but a status report for managers (which could be done as easily on slack). Daily standups don’t help, they hurt. Good managers stay out of the standup and let the team decide how often they need them. Everyone has slack and can communicate blockers in a shared channel. Want real progress? Give your devs a few days to make it. Otherwise you’re spending your most precious resource, the dev’s ability to focus and be productive, on making up some kind of appeasement story for managers every day. Learn how the brain works, what the window of tolerance is, and why making people nervous every morning is going to reduce quality.
I'm going to disagree, a bit... "Letting one blocker hijack the meeting" If there's a blocker, that should be the priority for the team. Everyone who can, should be contributing to removing that blocker. If it's not important or urgent enough for the whole team to work on, it should be ignored, unless/until it is. Yeah, I know. Most teams work in a scatter-gather approach, and what I'm saying sounds like heresy. But maybe try it. I bet your team's throughput will drastically improve.
Broadly speaking, management people completely misunderstand what a stand-up even is, and you can't explain it to them. That it's not a status reporting session. Standups are supposed to be short, help with communication. They're stand-ups, because they're not supposed to be long enough to make sitting down necessary.
I think starting with blockers is key to effective stand-ups; it keeps the focus and energy high, preventing wasted time on tangents.
I fully believe a standup should be short and to the point. When I ran my UI team, the standup would be run as quickly as possible. If any blockers came up that couldn't be handled within two sentences would move to the back of the queue so everyone could have their turn within 15 minutes. The rest of the time was additional to resolve any issues, and if they couldn't within the allotted time we ended the call but I'd have to personally make sure their issues were resolved and assist where I can. Because I never wanted this exact thing to staff into the workday. If the status meeting is 8:00am-8:15am, then it's meant for status, not for one of the many Matts or Mike's to watch for an hour while Joel and I talked about how to fix a component that would randomly bounce between two tabs on its own like a haunted tilt-a-whirl. That was for after the meeting, during what I jokingly called office hours (as if I was an adjunct prof). Which I set for right after the stand-up. I valued my teammates' time, which is why the meeting is a quick in and out, and anyone who needs more attention can get it without holding everyone else up.