7 ms·

One-on-one meetings are underrated, whereas group meetings waste time (2017)

132 points by lkrubner 7y ago

gamesbrainiac 7y ago
This article is quite nefarious. I would not recommend this kind of management in order to instill fear and division among your team.
- cfqycwz 7y ago
  I have to agree. The premise in the headline is so obviously agreeable, but the application described sounds like it would make for a terrible place to work. This isn't an article about building a supportive work environment that sets realistic expectations and fosters a mutually-supportive team environment. It's about the one-on-one meeting as the most effective tool to extract as much work as possible out of each individual worker—which obviously is quite hard in a group meeting. Of course, a manager who does that effectively is also doing their job as a manager well. One reason I will always refuse to become a supervisor is that being a good manager (i.e. nice and reasonable to work for) and being a good manager (i.e. extracting the maximum surplus value out of each worker) are often directly in conflict, as this article shows. ETA: In fact, I can think of a manager just like this at an employer I recently left. Individual meetings were a tool to push each of us to the limit, try to pit us against each other, &c. Employees hate this boss, but management loves them!
  - kjar 7y ago
    I ignored the article admittedly, and was focused on peer meetings - scanning it now the article seems to be evoking a prison warden / informant model which is just terrible.
  - bigred100 7y ago
    I wonder why perspectives like this are considered more or less acceptable, if Machiavellian, but an article on eg how to read your manager for signs of political weakness and use it for your own benefit would probably be considered extraordinarily immoral.
  - overgard 7y ago
    > One reason I will always refuse to become a supervisor is that being a good manager (i.e. nice and reasonable to work for) and being a good manager (i.e. extracting the maximum surplus value out of each worker) are often directly in conflict, as this article shows. You seem to think that getting the most out of the employee is harmful to the employee, but I don't think that makes sense. If you're not asking them to work extra hours, it just means you're figuring out the best way to make them efficient. That's good for THEM (promotions, new skill-sets, new opportunities). It's also good for the business. Also, as long as they're using ethical means, why would the business trying to get the most bang for their buck be an implicitly bad thing? As an employee (I'm not a manager), I'm happier if I feel like my time is being used productively, and I'm less happy if I feel like I'm collecting a pay check but my services are not being put to good use. I want to work reasonable hours, but I'm an adult and I'm not there to slack, I feel better about myself and my situation if I'm earning my paycheck.
- overgard 7y ago
  I'm curious which part seems nefarious to you? I guess I didn't perceive it that way, but a lot of people have.
- vbuwivbiu 7y ago
  bad implementation of a good idea
kjar 7y ago
In my experience a 1 to 1 meeting cane help avoid defensive impulsive responses. Removing the reduced fear of broad judgement I think is a factor. They also covey personal respect which helps and feels good. Cutting out distractions from uninformed meeting participants also helps IMO.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cousin_it 7y ago
> They can offer negative opinions about their co-workers, without worrying that their co-worker will find out and retaliate. In my experience, if everyone on the team knows that they're expected to comment on each other in one-on-ones with the manager, that does wonders against team cohesion and morale.
- overgard 7y ago
  I think you're reading more into the quote than is fair -- he says they can offer opinions, not that they have to. Also you're leaving out that he mentions it gives people an opportunity to praise teammates, whereas in a public context it might be awkward/seen to have ulterior motives. (Maybe I'm weird but I've done this a lot in one-on-ones with managers. Especially if I was mentioning someone that might have been shy/didn't want the spotlight)
  - gamesbrainiac 7y ago
    I think you need to look into the intent of that statement, and by doing so understand its consequences.
    - overgard 7y ago
      The intent seems to be to create a safe space for employees to share opinions about the status of the team. Is that not what a manager should do?
      - gamesbrainiac 7y ago
        Or you can see it as a manager getting plenty of ammunition on members of the team to use at his or her whim. You're not creating a safe space, but rather a miasma of fear. Trust will break down in the team.
  - sanderjd 7y ago
    Yes please, I would much rather be praised in private than in public.
blatherard 7y ago
I think the author should consider acquiring some facilitation skills, rather than rejecting any other model than him and someone else talking.
mattoxic 7y ago
Lost me at having a meeting with marketing people. No one should have to do that.
soneca 7y ago
I am bootstrapping a 1:1 meeting tool, so I always pay attention to the subject here on HN. I chose the idea because I believe it is a great resource for a manager to build trust and a team as a whole improve. This is the article that was most upvoted in HN about the topic and it has a complete opposite take. It goes for a _"divide for conquest"_ tactic that seems very hostile to the team members.
dang 7y ago
Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16002687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16002687
overgard 7y ago
I'm not a manager, but it seems to me that one of the biggest obstacles managers face is that they often have less information than the people they manage. Humans are gossipy creatures, but we tend to gossip with peers, not with those we perceive to be higher or lower status. (A lot of times the person that is most clued into the happenings in the office is the receptionist). I think managers would be smart to focus more often on one-on-one meetings. I'm always baffled when managers don't have time to talk to low-level employees. If I were a manager, I think I'd definitely want that.
maxxxxx 7y ago
I hate "meetings" but I am big fan of conversation. When I worked in a team room with 3 other engineers we just naturally had good conversations from time to time. There was no schedule, no agenda, no start or end time. But we solved a lot of things that way. I also chat with my manager several times a week about stuff. I feel if there is a need to schedule formal one-on-one meetings it indicates a dysfunctional environment.
- sanderjd 7y ago
  I'm the exact opposite. Short meetings with a small group (preferably just one other person, as discussed in the OP) at a scheduled time with an agenda are a much more efficient use of my time than ambient conversation. I've worked on teams and with people who feel like you do and it drives me pretty nuts. I'm constantly getting pulled into low value conversations that are a distraction from what I'm doing. I can't determine ahead of time whether the conversation is more or less valuable than whatever else I'm doing because there is no agenda for "hey you got a sec?". What I don't know is: am I just wrong about this, or are you, or is it just pure subjective preference? If it's just subjective, what's the best way to structure teams with respect to this? Is it all or nothing, or can you build a team with both kinds of people in such a way that they respect each other's preference? Edit to add: To make a different point, I'm a big fan of standing closed-door 1:1s with your manager, because the conversations you can only have with your manager are the most awkward ones and asking for a one-off closed door meeting when it's uncommon makes it way worse. For instance, if you're having strife with a co-worker that you need to bring up with your manager, the last thing you want to do is walk over to their desk and say, "can we talk privately?". Waiting for your next standing meeting is a much better option.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    “What I don't know is: am I just wrong about this, or are you, or is it just pure subjective preference? ” Yes. It’s subjective. It probably also depends on the people you work with and the nature of the things you are working on.
go_ruby 7y ago
The reality is that both need to happen regularly. Issues that are too sensitive for the entire group are talked about during the regularly scheduled 1 on 1 or an ad hoc 1 on 1 if the issue is urgent.
bharam 7y ago
As someone who manages people I think the author's approach will lead to a culture of fear. Ultimately it will lead to poor results and retention. I prefer the guidance given by Manager Tools (https://www.manager-tools.com/ https://www.manager-tools.com/)
- sjellis 7y ago
  Manager Tools is amazing: the single best source of practical guidance for managers that I know.
scottlegrand2 7y ago
The best way I have seen to handle this was by a former manager who made sure we ate lunch together most days as a team. It wasn't mandatory, but it was informally expected to happen. That team had zero communication problems.
- raindropm 7y ago
  Having lunch together is the most overlooked things ever in team building aspect. It sounds so insignificant, so silly, but it is the natural way to build camaraderie between team member. People lower their guard, and have nothing to 'prove', unlike...uh, work.
  - dboreham 7y ago
    Even better with beer.
  - tuesdayrain 7y ago
    > It sounds so insignificant, so silly, but it is the natural way to build camaraderie between team member. This strongly depends on the type of people you are working with. If I knew I'd be expected to have group lunches every day I would not even bother applying to the company. Based on my experience with team lunches, it means that I can expect at least an hour(often even more) of every day to be lost to uninteresting, forced conversations. I am so much more productive now that I have a job where I can casually continue my work while eating lunch alone.
  - byte1918 7y ago
    Yeah, I hated that. Lunches are personal time, since I have to recover it anyway, I would prefer to have a few moments where I enjoy a meal and not have to think about work.
- whycombagator 7y ago
  Interesting, for me personally having the expectation I'd eat lunch every day with the team sounds less than ideal
- 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fogetti 7y ago
So the author basically proposes everyone to go behind others' back to stick it to each other and promotes to rat on each other. And he even feels good about it. Wow.
- vbuwivbiu 7y ago
  regardless of meeting size in any company where people don't trust each other there will be more gossip and backstabbing
ineedasername 7y ago
The problem with one-on-on meetings is they proliferate information silos where relevant parties aren't aware of impoprtant details because they weren't involved in conversations. Group meetings don't always waste time. They nearly always waste time, for very simple and fixable reasons: 1) There is often not a clear leader for the meeting. Oh, the ranking manager make be the "leader" but the actual leadership is lacking with no clear attempt to keep things on track. From this follows the next two issues: 2) They nearly always lack a clear agenda, or given an agenda, it is not strictly followed. Issues arise that are allowed to derail things. These frequently involve only a subset of participants that should address these issues "offline" but instead waste everyone's times. 3) Given the agenda slippage, each person ends up feeling they need to say something, to be heard, in order to be seen contributing. So everyone comes up with something they think they have to say, further breaking the agenda for the real reason for the meeting and making it longer. The above contribute to nearly any scheduled meeting I'm involved in going 50% to 100% over time. I however am known for generally being quiet in meetings because I self censor for "is what I need to say relevant to the direct purpose here, to all members of the meeting?" When the answer is "no", I follow up afterwards. Often on issues I wouldn't have been aware of without the group meeting, but that only concern one or two other members, and I would have wasted the time of 5 or 6 or 10 other people to go into detail on it in the meeting itself. In short, group meetings aren't the issue, poor leadership of the meeting it the problem.
darepublic 7y ago
Nice article but some people may not feel comfortable telling the truth in a one on one meeting either. In the article the author even admits that if he deems that his one one one participant falsely blames someone else (which could be subjective) he'll try to boot them off the team if possible.

132 points by lkrubner 7y ago

This article is quite nefarious. I would not recommend this kind of management in order to instill fear and division among your team.

cfqycwz 7y ago
I have to agree. The premise in the headline is so obviously agreeable, but the application described sounds like it would make for a terrible place to work. This isn't an article about building a supportive work environment that sets realistic expectations and fosters a mutually-supportive team environment. It's about the one-on-one meeting as the most effective tool to extract as much work as possible out of each individual worker—which obviously is quite hard in a group meeting. Of course, a manager who does that effectively is also doing their job as a manager well. One reason I will always refuse to become a supervisor is that being a good manager (i.e. nice and reasonable to work for) and being a good manager (i.e. extracting the maximum surplus value out of each worker) are often directly in conflict, as this article shows. ETA: In fact, I can think of a manager just like this at an employer I recently left. Individual meetings were a tool to push each of us to the limit, try to pit us against each other, &c. Employees hate this boss, but management loves them!
- kjar 7y ago
  I ignored the article admittedly, and was focused on peer meetings - scanning it now the article seems to be evoking a prison warden / informant model which is just terrible.
- bigred100 7y ago
  I wonder why perspectives like this are considered more or less acceptable, if Machiavellian, but an article on eg how to read your manager for signs of political weakness and use it for your own benefit would probably be considered extraordinarily immoral.
- overgard 7y ago
  > One reason I will always refuse to become a supervisor is that being a good manager (i.e. nice and reasonable to work for) and being a good manager (i.e. extracting the maximum surplus value out of each worker) are often directly in conflict, as this article shows. You seem to think that getting the most out of the employee is harmful to the employee, but I don't think that makes sense. If you're not asking them to work extra hours, it just means you're figuring out the best way to make them efficient. That's good for THEM (promotions, new skill-sets, new opportunities). It's also good for the business. Also, as long as they're using ethical means, why would the business trying to get the most bang for their buck be an implicitly bad thing? As an employee (I'm not a manager), I'm happier if I feel like my time is being used productively, and I'm less happy if I feel like I'm collecting a pay check but my services are not being put to good use. I want to work reasonable hours, but I'm an adult and I'm not there to slack, I feel better about myself and my situation if I'm earning my paycheck.
overgard 7y ago
I'm curious which part seems nefarious to you? I guess I didn't perceive it that way, but a lot of people have.
vbuwivbiu 7y ago
bad implementation of a good idea

kjar 7y ago

In my experience a 1 to 1 meeting cane help avoid defensive impulsive responses. Removing the reduced fear of broad judgement I think is a factor. They also covey personal respect which helps and feels good. Cutting out distractions from uninformed meeting participants also helps IMO.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cousin_it 7y ago

> They can offer negative opinions about their co-workers, without worrying that their co-worker will find out and retaliate. In my experience, if everyone on the team knows that they're expected to comment on each other in one-on-ones with the manager, that does wonders against team cohesion and morale.

overgard 7y ago
I think you're reading more into the quote than is fair -- he says they can offer opinions, not that they have to. Also you're leaving out that he mentions it gives people an opportunity to praise teammates, whereas in a public context it might be awkward/seen to have ulterior motives. (Maybe I'm weird but I've done this a lot in one-on-ones with managers. Especially if I was mentioning someone that might have been shy/didn't want the spotlight)
- gamesbrainiac 7y ago
  I think you need to look into the intent of that statement, and by doing so understand its consequences.
  - overgard 7y ago
    The intent seems to be to create a safe space for employees to share opinions about the status of the team. Is that not what a manager should do?
    - gamesbrainiac 7y ago
      Or you can see it as a manager getting plenty of ammunition on members of the team to use at his or her whim. You're not creating a safe space, but rather a miasma of fear. Trust will break down in the team.
- sanderjd 7y ago
  Yes please, I would much rather be praised in private than in public.

blatherard 7y ago

I think the author should consider acquiring some facilitation skills, rather than rejecting any other model than him and someone else talking.

mattoxic 7y ago

Lost me at having a meeting with marketing people. No one should have to do that.

soneca 7y ago

I am bootstrapping a 1:1 meeting tool, so I always pay attention to the subject here on HN. I chose the idea because I believe it is a great resource for a manager to build trust and a team as a whole improve. This is the article that was most upvoted in HN about the topic and it has a complete opposite take. It goes for a _"divide for conquest"_ tactic that seems very hostile to the team members.

dang 7y ago

Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16002687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16002687

overgard 7y ago

I'm not a manager, but it seems to me that one of the biggest obstacles managers face is that they often have less information than the people they manage. Humans are gossipy creatures, but we tend to gossip with peers, not with those we perceive to be higher or lower status. (A lot of times the person that is most clued into the happenings in the office is the receptionist). I think managers would be smart to focus more often on one-on-one meetings. I'm always baffled when managers don't have time to talk to low-level employees. If I were a manager, I think I'd definitely want that.

maxxxxx 7y ago

I hate "meetings" but I am big fan of conversation. When I worked in a team room with 3 other engineers we just naturally had good conversations from time to time. There was no schedule, no agenda, no start or end time. But we solved a lot of things that way. I also chat with my manager several times a week about stuff. I feel if there is a need to schedule formal one-on-one meetings it indicates a dysfunctional environment.

sanderjd 7y ago
I'm the exact opposite. Short meetings with a small group (preferably just one other person, as discussed in the OP) at a scheduled time with an agenda are a much more efficient use of my time than ambient conversation. I've worked on teams and with people who feel like you do and it drives me pretty nuts. I'm constantly getting pulled into low value conversations that are a distraction from what I'm doing. I can't determine ahead of time whether the conversation is more or less valuable than whatever else I'm doing because there is no agenda for "hey you got a sec?". What I don't know is: am I just wrong about this, or are you, or is it just pure subjective preference? If it's just subjective, what's the best way to structure teams with respect to this? Is it all or nothing, or can you build a team with both kinds of people in such a way that they respect each other's preference? Edit to add: To make a different point, I'm a big fan of standing closed-door 1:1s with your manager, because the conversations you can only have with your manager are the most awkward ones and asking for a one-off closed door meeting when it's uncommon makes it way worse. For instance, if you're having strife with a co-worker that you need to bring up with your manager, the last thing you want to do is walk over to their desk and say, "can we talk privately?". Waiting for your next standing meeting is a much better option.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  “What I don't know is: am I just wrong about this, or are you, or is it just pure subjective preference? ” Yes. It’s subjective. It probably also depends on the people you work with and the nature of the things you are working on.

go_ruby 7y ago

The reality is that both need to happen regularly. Issues that are too sensitive for the entire group are talked about during the regularly scheduled 1 on 1 or an ad hoc 1 on 1 if the issue is urgent.

bharam 7y ago

As someone who manages people I think the author's approach will lead to a culture of fear. Ultimately it will lead to poor results and retention. I prefer the guidance given by Manager Tools (https://www.manager-tools.com/ https://www.manager-tools.com/)

sjellis 7y ago
Manager Tools is amazing: the single best source of practical guidance for managers that I know.

scottlegrand2 7y ago

The best way I have seen to handle this was by a former manager who made sure we ate lunch together most days as a team. It wasn't mandatory, but it was informally expected to happen. That team had zero communication problems.

raindropm 7y ago
Having lunch together is the most overlooked things ever in team building aspect. It sounds so insignificant, so silly, but it is the natural way to build camaraderie between team member. People lower their guard, and have nothing to 'prove', unlike...uh, work.
- dboreham 7y ago
  Even better with beer.
- tuesdayrain 7y ago
  > It sounds so insignificant, so silly, but it is the natural way to build camaraderie between team member. This strongly depends on the type of people you are working with. If I knew I'd be expected to have group lunches every day I would not even bother applying to the company. Based on my experience with team lunches, it means that I can expect at least an hour(often even more) of every day to be lost to uninteresting, forced conversations. I am so much more productive now that I have a job where I can casually continue my work while eating lunch alone.
- byte1918 7y ago
  Yeah, I hated that. Lunches are personal time, since I have to recover it anyway, I would prefer to have a few moments where I enjoy a meal and not have to think about work.
whycombagator 7y ago
Interesting, for me personally having the expectation I'd eat lunch every day with the team sounds less than ideal
7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fogetti 7y ago

So the author basically proposes everyone to go behind others' back to stick it to each other and promotes to rat on each other. And he even feels good about it. Wow.

vbuwivbiu 7y ago
regardless of meeting size in any company where people don't trust each other there will be more gossip and backstabbing

ineedasername 7y ago

The problem with one-on-on meetings is they proliferate information silos where relevant parties aren't aware of impoprtant details because they weren't involved in conversations. Group meetings don't always waste time. They nearly always waste time, for very simple and fixable reasons: 1) There is often not a clear leader for the meeting. Oh, the ranking manager make be the "leader" but the actual leadership is lacking with no clear attempt to keep things on track. From this follows the next two issues: 2) They nearly always lack a clear agenda, or given an agenda, it is not strictly followed. Issues arise that are allowed to derail things. These frequently involve only a subset of participants that should address these issues "offline" but instead waste everyone's times. 3) Given the agenda slippage, each person ends up feeling they need to say something, to be heard, in order to be seen contributing. So everyone comes up with something they think they have to say, further breaking the agenda for the real reason for the meeting and making it longer. The above contribute to nearly any scheduled meeting I'm involved in going 50% to 100% over time. I however am known for generally being quiet in meetings because I self censor for "is what I need to say relevant to the direct purpose here, to all members of the meeting?" When the answer is "no", I follow up afterwards. Often on issues I wouldn't have been aware of without the group meeting, but that only concern one or two other members, and I would have wasted the time of 5 or 6 or 10 other people to go into detail on it in the meeting itself. In short, group meetings aren't the issue, poor leadership of the meeting it the problem.

darepublic 7y ago

Nice article but some people may not feel comfortable telling the truth in a one on one meeting either. In the article the author even admits that if he deems that his one one one participant falsely blames someone else (which could be subjective) he'll try to boot them off the team if possible.