3 ms·

I've been on both sides of the 1-on-1; was a manager for a while, decided to go back to focusing on the technology. I've only observed the power dynamic you des

I've been on both sides of the 1-on-1; was a manager for a while, decided to go back to focusing on the technology. I've only observed the power dynamic you describe with managers who actually care about power over their subordinates--and in that case, you've got a much bigger problem than a 1-on-1 meeting! Done right, these meetings are simply an honest conversation. When wearing my manager hat, I've had employees freely express frustration with company decisions, say our strategy is stupid, etc., and those were all very important discussions for both me and the employee. That stuff shouldn't be buried; it'll boil over if not dealt with. If you can't have an honest conversation with your manager, there's something really broken. I don't know your circumstance, of course, and maybe you just work for a power-hungry (bad) manager. But maybe they want that honest conversation and your relationship will greatly benefit from opening that line of communication. EDIT: another tool for defusing the superior/subordinate awkwardness is to change the location of the meeting. Most 1-on-1 meetings (in my experience) happen in the manager's office, which immediately puts the employee on the defensive. Suggest moving the meeting off-site, e.g. to a local coffee shop. That does a lot to reduce subconscious power dynamics--it's just two people talking over coffee.

mc32 11y ago
I've experienced both. In the end you're relying on them to "see" your side. The bad ones will bring up small things and hold them against you for any number of reasons, motivational, demotivational, power play, to steer conversation "harp", etc. Best case scenario you're banking on them being impartial as well as your advocate when their role implies conflict of interest, at least in one facet.
- jdcarter 11y ago
  Well, best case scenario is that both of you are impartial. Sometimes the manager will actually have a sensible explanation for why something is the way it is. I do actually sympathize with the scenario you describe, I've been downstream from a manager who valued his power above the good of the organization. (Worse, I was a manager myself at the time, so I had to act as a buffer between him and my team. That was a mess, and that's why I got out of management.) In organizations that value power and finding someone to blame when things go wrong, I do agree that you need to be careful in 1-on-1 meetings, and not just those. "CYA" is an art form I never mastered, and frankly I don't want to, so I can't give you much advise. I just found a different organization to work for at the earliest opportunity.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    >Well, best case scenario is that both of you are impartial. This is exceeding the best case scale and entering into fantasy scale. Both entities would only operate impartially if both were independently wealthy and only did the job as a form of private amusement to which they felt no real connection. If that's not the case, and it almost never is, both entities have a strong bias toward self-preservation, even if they say they don't.
    - jdcarter 11y ago
      But is it really so unreasonable to have a conversation where you listen to and consider the other person's point of view? We're never perfectly impartial, of course, but I'm talking about a reasonable effort to have a two-way discussion. This assumes a level of psychological safety in your manager/employee relationship, and I gather from the tone of this comment thread that many people don't have that. That's really unfortunate; a good manager is an essential component to job satisfaction.
      - cookiecaper 11y ago
        You can have some psychological safety and should be able to have a discussion without a lot of anxiety. However, both parties need to cognizant of the effect of the context and circumstances on the interaction. You can't accept much of anything in employment at face value. It's a very politically-charged environment and it is certainly wise to refrain from getting too comfortable around your superiors (and other colleagues, for that matter). Politics is everywhere people are (politics is the management or attempted management of others' perceptions and opinions). It becomes a big deal as soon as you get even one rung up the ladder; if you're an in-demand skilled professional, you might be able to get away being more or less politically ignorant up until you get one report. At that point, it's unavoidable. People who are not in high demand spend their entire careers playing political games, because it's the only way to survive, let alone advance. Employment is a popularity contest. If you want to make it as an employee, you have to be winning it.
cookiecaper 11y ago
Having been on both sides as well, the influence is present whether people acknowledge it or not, and if you're failing to account for it as a manager, you're setting yourself up for failure. Modern company structures simply do not allow for honest feedback. The employee's livelihood is tied to the manager's satisfaction with him, and it's pretty likely that the employee's chances for advancement and increased compensation are too. As long as that's the case, almost all people are going to be in self-preservation mode whenever they're operating in range of that manager. If you want honest feedback, you have to make the person independent to the degree which you want them to be honest. An employee's honesty ratio is a sliding scale inversely linked to their dependence on and/or interest in your goodwill. To get to 100% honesty, they have to be willing to "burn their bridges" with you; that's when people say what they're really thinking. The exceptions to this are people who are too young and/or naive to anticipate the normal reaction to honest feedback, and thus don't quite have their honesty:dependence:goodwill ratio in equilibrium yet. I once had a manager convince me that he just wanted everyone to be open, honest, and straightforward. I'm sure I was a good intel source for him as probably the only person there that would just tell him what I was thinking, but it was ridiculously naive of me to believe that stuff, and I didn't last a year at that company. I learned well there that no matter what people say, it's extremely likely that they're going to fall back to the basic situational incentives. In isolated, rare incidents of political heroism this may not happen, but it should never be depended upon, and it certainly should never be assumed to be the basis of an elongated supervisory relationship.
manyxcxi 11y ago
> EDIT: another tool for defusing the superior/subordinate awkwardness is to change the location of the meeting. Most 1-on-1 meetings (in my experience) happen in the manager's office, which immediately puts the employee on the defensive. Great tip! I had a manager a long time ago that did just that. If we couldn't go grab coffee or something they would book a conference room other than their office. He explained to me why he did it and it was on of the first things I made sure to do when I began managing.
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  This is a good point. Most of our 1:1s are in small 2-3 person conference rooms or walks outside if it's nice out. There are no offices.

mc32 11y ago

I've experienced both. In the end you're relying on them to "see" your side. The bad ones will bring up small things and hold them against you for any number of reasons, motivational, demotivational, power play, to steer conversation "harp", etc. Best case scenario you're banking on them being impartial as well as your advocate when their role implies conflict of interest, at least in one facet.

jdcarter 11y ago
Well, best case scenario is that both of you are impartial. Sometimes the manager will actually have a sensible explanation for why something is the way it is. I do actually sympathize with the scenario you describe, I've been downstream from a manager who valued his power above the good of the organization. (Worse, I was a manager myself at the time, so I had to act as a buffer between him and my team. That was a mess, and that's why I got out of management.) In organizations that value power and finding someone to blame when things go wrong, I do agree that you need to be careful in 1-on-1 meetings, and not just those. "CYA" is an art form I never mastered, and frankly I don't want to, so I can't give you much advise. I just found a different organization to work for at the earliest opportunity.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  >Well, best case scenario is that both of you are impartial. This is exceeding the best case scale and entering into fantasy scale. Both entities would only operate impartially if both were independently wealthy and only did the job as a form of private amusement to which they felt no real connection. If that's not the case, and it almost never is, both entities have a strong bias toward self-preservation, even if they say they don't.
  - jdcarter 11y ago
    But is it really so unreasonable to have a conversation where you listen to and consider the other person's point of view? We're never perfectly impartial, of course, but I'm talking about a reasonable effort to have a two-way discussion. This assumes a level of psychological safety in your manager/employee relationship, and I gather from the tone of this comment thread that many people don't have that. That's really unfortunate; a good manager is an essential component to job satisfaction.
    - cookiecaper 11y ago
      You can have some psychological safety and should be able to have a discussion without a lot of anxiety. However, both parties need to cognizant of the effect of the context and circumstances on the interaction. You can't accept much of anything in employment at face value. It's a very politically-charged environment and it is certainly wise to refrain from getting too comfortable around your superiors (and other colleagues, for that matter). Politics is everywhere people are (politics is the management or attempted management of others' perceptions and opinions). It becomes a big deal as soon as you get even one rung up the ladder; if you're an in-demand skilled professional, you might be able to get away being more or less politically ignorant up until you get one report. At that point, it's unavoidable. People who are not in high demand spend their entire careers playing political games, because it's the only way to survive, let alone advance. Employment is a popularity contest. If you want to make it as an employee, you have to be winning it.

cookiecaper 11y ago

Having been on both sides as well, the influence is present whether people acknowledge it or not, and if you're failing to account for it as a manager, you're setting yourself up for failure. Modern company structures simply do not allow for honest feedback. The employee's livelihood is tied to the manager's satisfaction with him, and it's pretty likely that the employee's chances for advancement and increased compensation are too. As long as that's the case, almost all people are going to be in self-preservation mode whenever they're operating in range of that manager. If you want honest feedback, you have to make the person independent to the degree which you want them to be honest. An employee's honesty ratio is a sliding scale inversely linked to their dependence on and/or interest in your goodwill. To get to 100% honesty, they have to be willing to "burn their bridges" with you; that's when people say what they're really thinking. The exceptions to this are people who are too young and/or naive to anticipate the normal reaction to honest feedback, and thus don't quite have their honesty:dependence:goodwill ratio in equilibrium yet. I once had a manager convince me that he just wanted everyone to be open, honest, and straightforward. I'm sure I was a good intel source for him as probably the only person there that would just tell him what I was thinking, but it was ridiculously naive of me to believe that stuff, and I didn't last a year at that company. I learned well there that no matter what people say, it's extremely likely that they're going to fall back to the basic situational incentives. In isolated, rare incidents of political heroism this may not happen, but it should never be depended upon, and it certainly should never be assumed to be the basis of an elongated supervisory relationship.

manyxcxi 11y ago

> EDIT: another tool for defusing the superior/subordinate awkwardness is to change the location of the meeting. Most 1-on-1 meetings (in my experience) happen in the manager's office, which immediately puts the employee on the defensive. Great tip! I had a manager a long time ago that did just that. If we couldn't go grab coffee or something they would book a conference room other than their office. He explained to me why he did it and it was on of the first things I made sure to do when I began managing.

seanp2k2 11y ago
This is a good point. Most of our 1:1s are in small 2-3 person conference rooms or walks outside if it's nice out. There are no offices.