Not sure if this is the best place to post this question but I THINK it is!?
I'm a relatively new director (within the last year) with 2 managers, each has 3-4 supervisors below them and each sup has 8-12 Field Service Engineers. We were recently acquired by a much larger company (700 employees to 70,000 employees) and as you might expect rumors are running rampant, lots of feelings of disconnected-ness, etc. In conversations with my managers I'm flabbergasted by some of the things that the sup's and below are asking as I "thought we talked about that" but obviously the message isn't getting across. We're planning a meeting next week with my managers and supervisors to talk about things abit more. This got me thinking about starting a regular cadence of skip meetings.
I've been reading about skip level meetings and just listened the first podcasts "Skip Levels". I was always under the impression that skip level meetings were essentially occasional one-on-ones with your skips (in my case, the supervisors). Listening to the podcasts it appears to be more of a group setting. Is this how you've done your skip meetings? I know that we don't want to do weekly "Skip one-on-ones" but are quarterly skip O3's acceptable? Too much? Anyone have any thoughts about remote skips? We are scattered over the country and 100% remote.
I'd like any insight anyone has to this as my work scope is about to expand...with a couple additional manager/directs and some supervisors and more technicians. I feel like I need to get this right.
What'cha got brain trust?
By the way, I'll be at the M-Conference next week!
I think you're looking for "town halls"
Go to "Map of the Universe" link. In the search box, type "town hall". That podcast, and a few of its peers there in the same category about skip-level meetings, might be of interest.
Also might browse through whatever comes up for "communication plan". Click the "Get Started" link on this page's header, then type into the "Get Answers/Search" entry-box and click the "Search" button. eg the first hit for me was show-notes for "Managerial Communications" podcast of 17 January 2006.
Also might want to consider browsing (or even working through) the podcasts under Map of the Universe | "Executive Management". I don't remember seeing anything specific to directors among the podcasts, and I don't know how close you are to that point.
Random thought: is there a need to re-emphasize managers are communicated through? Map of the Universe | Hall of Fame | Communication | "Managers are Communicated THROUGH"
Skip Levels
Hi Kevin!
Looking forward to meeting you at M Conference!
Okay, let's talk about Skip Level Meetings. These are group meetings, and these are meetings between a boss and his directs' directs. In your case, you and the supervisors. Here is the podcast link for the meeting itself: https://www.manager-tools.com/2006/04/skip-levels?start=461
Their purpose is to improve communications by (a) providing the senior manager a forum to communicate deeper and differently to his or her organization, and (b), more importantly, to allow skips to ask questions.
We never recommend Skip Level One On Ones, short answer is because they undermine the relationship that your direct has with their direct. However, we do have a podcast that can go into a more detailed explanation: https://www.manager-tools.com/2020/05/dont-do-skip-level-one-ones
I agree with Joseph that Town Hall Meetings would be a good option to have for multiple levels in a meeting and that everyone can attend. Also, Joseph was spot on with his other recommendations too, because we know we all need to communicate more.
Have a great day!
In reply to Skip Levels by Amanda Chase
Thanks!
Thanks Amanda, exactly the info that I was looking for.
In reply to Skip Levels by Amanda Chase
If Skip meetings are always positive....
Here's the part that I don't get, as an IC: Career Tools gives the rather sensible guidance that everything skip reports say in a group meeting with their skip-level manager should be positive. Sure thing!
So then, if the only qualitative info flowing to the skip boss is from their own direct and from a highly-filtered meeting with that person's directs, how does the skip boss know what's going on? That makes two levels that are highly incentivized not to talk about problems, so what's the point of the of the Skip meeting exercise?
Granted another source of data is observables -- employee retention, team deliverables, etc. Obviously that kind of data is the real bottom line but it seems time lagged and dependent on a good baseline of data. If half the skip directs leave within 6 months because of the direct/manager, that seems a bit late to fix the problem, no?
MT Skip Level Meetings Work
I have used the Manager Tools suggested format for quarterly skip levels, and they work great. The first meeting with each team is always a little awkward as the employees aren't sure what to expect (even with a pre-printed agenda). It's one of the best ways I've seen to quickly build a level of trust with skips. The meetings are especially helpful for teams that I am less familiar with.
All you need to do is pull up the show notes for that podcast, and follow the agenda.
In reply to MT Skip Level Meetings Work by Jon Snyder
Quartely skip level meeting agenda
Where can i find this agenda?
In reply to Quartely skip level meeting agenda by Trevor Foreman
Skip Level Agenda
Hi Kevin,
In the podcast: https://manager-tools.com/2006/04/skip-levels-part-2
At the beginning of this podcast they start by talking about the layout of the agenda. If you have a license and access to the shownotes, it is also written out there.
Hope this helps!
Amanda
This topic came back to mind
This topic came back to mind because I still haven't solved the riddle. What's the "MT officially approved" way that the following situation is supposed to turn out?
In my case I finally went to my skip mgr (director) and was fairly well received, largely because I had made several efforts before going up the chain of command. My manager still is confident in her own quality of feedback, but now I feel more empowered to document specifics and follow-up -- not something I would ever recommend someone else do without a really good reason, some trust, and a little bit of risk-embracing. Pretty sure MT wouldn't recommend it. Plus there are some intersecting issues of neurodiversity policy that make me feel a little safer than I did before.
But seriously, how would a director ever know the feedback issue needs attention? They're not on the call when the 1st line manager gives ineffective feedback, so how do they know to give metafeedback unless a bold IC like me sets aside "What I think Career Tools would tell me" and takes the gamble?
In reply to This topic came back to mind by Philip Reed
Results and retention
When a leader gives effective feedback, the skip level manager can see the results in productivity, attrition, and employee surveys. Behavioral issues stop quickly and hr is needed less frequently to escalate disciplinary processes. For me, I also ask my supervisors directly for examples of feedback and how it turned out in our O3s.
In reply to Results and retention by Jon Snyder
Thank you. I really
Thank you. I really appreciate your answer, as it gets at the heart of what I'm piecing together in my mind.
Asking for examples strikes me as the practice of a really excellent director. How common is this?
As for judging by results -- makes perfect sense. I do wonder about time lag, sample size, and sensitivity to confounding variables though. For example, let's assume a mediocre first-line manager will lead to more turnover and that the director values retention. So maybe the first real sign of a problem is when the first IC leaves, but switching jobs carries friction and takes a while. When it happens, it could be interpreted as reflecting all kinds of reasons (including macroeconomics, the industry's labor market, compensation, job challenge outside the control of the manager, etc.) So would it take an N > 1 before the director interprets poor retention as a reflection of management acumen? By that point a lot of damage could be done.
Anyhow I really appreciate the perspective of someone who's been there and I don't want to nitpick speaking from ignorance. I'm legitimately curious how information flows up an org chart, and your reply gave me a lot of insight. Thanks!
In reply to Thank you. I really by Philip Reed
Don't let perfect be the enemy of better
You bring up really good points about the statistical validity of what I described. It's certainly not a perfect system, but I find that over time, mediocrity can't hide forever and exceptions are seen as exceptional. Most orgs (including most leaders of other departments in my org) don't do significant measuring and think of results as some sort of black arts. But results come from practicing the fundamentals over time. The more time and experience, the easier it becomes to see the correlations (whether or not you can give the math behind them).