4 ms·
This entirely depends on the discussion. As a manager, I use 1:1 to discuss matters related to or pertinent to the individual. I use group discussions to discu
by jroseattle 9y ago
This entirely depends on the discussion.
As a manager, I use 1:1 to discuss matters related to or pertinent to the individual. I use group discussions to discuss group-level matters -- this is usually something related to project work, i.e. scope, design decisions, etc.
I don't compare the two because they are both "meetings". Each serve a purpose, and ideally both are executed well.
- valuearb 9y agoDo you always distribute an agenda before your group meetings? If not, they aren’t executed well.
- dvlsg 9y agoI used to work at a place where if a meeting did not have a clearly defined agenda and purpose, it was automatically considered optional for all requested attendees. Worked out pretty well.
- jroseattle 9y agoYes and no. Yes -- the subject matter of the meeting is well-defined beforehand and distributed to all. No -- our topics ARE the agenda and it's normally highly focused. We have on occasion had a second bullet point, but it's rare. We do lots of other things to keep discussions brief and ensure our time is spent effectively, but you didn't ask about those.
- valuearb 9y agoWhat do you do with decisions made from the Meeting?
- apple4ever 9y agoYou execute them and follow up.
- apple4ever 9y agoThat's not necessarily true. You can have well executed group meeting without an agenda. In fact I used to distribute agendas before our weekly meeting, and then stopped because it wasn't helpful. The meetings were quite productive with and without the agenda- but I saved my time and my teams time by not preparing an agenda. That's not to say that agenda's should never be used, just that they are necessary for well execution.