4 ms·

> i only have a few direct reports and even then i feel weekly is too often 1-1s aren't about how _you_ feel. They're about your directs's feelings, and the re

> i only have a few direct reports and even then i feel weekly is too often 1-1s aren't about how _you_ feel. They're about your directs's feelings, and the relationship between the two of you.

davidw 5y ago
1-1's are a cargo cult thing that someone decided was a Good Management Idea.
- kragen 5y ago
  1-1s have been the basis of most human relationships for millions of years.
  - davidw 5y ago
    Real ones, though, which makes the checkbox corporate ones feel that much more fake, because we all know what the real thing is like.
    - jldugger 5y ago
      Well, let's put it like this: the wrong reason for a manager to cut a 1:1 to biweekly is because they don't have enough time in their calendar to support their directs. A better reason would be because there isn't enough time between 1:1s to fill out the weekly meetings. But the manager isn't the person who can easily make that judgement call. IMO, the correct person to judge that is the direct -- they can't just show up at their managers desk and demand a 30 minute meeting when something important shows up, whereas a manager can (and often does!)
      - davidw 5y ago
        1 on 1's did not use to be 'a thing', and we still got plenty done in those days, which were not that long ago. Generally ideas like this seem to spread because it was part of some successful company and so it got written up and now a lot of people copy it because it's easy to copy and they think it will help make their own company successful. As a result, the thing that actually occurs in a lot of places is a manager reading from a script that they've been trained on a little bit from someone else. It does not feel useful to me.
        stormcode 5y ago
        Take it into your own hands. It's your time. Bring stuff to it. You won't always have an amazing manager, but you can get a lot out of it if you are proactive IMO. Also, I think all managers should be asking what cadence and length of time their directs want for 1:1. The least would be 30 minutes bi-weekly IMO. The most would be 1 hour weekly. Depends on the person, the projects, where they are in their career, etc.
        davidw 5y ago
        If it were up to me, I would not bother with it. I have 20 years of experience in this field, and a vital part of the job is communicating well with other people. I do not need someone's "Management Best Practices Checklist" in order to do that. And I do not think I'm exceptional: most of us got by just fine without all this.
        shukantpal 5y ago
        People have differing opinions on this, so maybe learn to respect that. Seems like 20 years of experience has not done that.
        davidw 5y ago
        These things are mostly not based on opinions where teams get to pick and choose, but some kind of received wisdom that checks a box on someone's list of Best Management Practices and everyone is forced to go through the script, like it or not.
        stormcode 5y ago
        That's why I'm suggesting you take control and turn the meeting into what you want it to be. It doesn't have to be a checklist but it sounds like you -have- to have this meeting at the company you are at. So instead of suffering through it, you can turn it into something beneficial for you. Ya know?
- klyrs 5y ago
  1:1's are a good way to make room for reports to voice concerns, uncertainties, mistakes, backlogs, blockers and unknowns with their manager. If you're the kind of person who feels completely comfortable promptly voicing that sort of thing in front of your team, then good for you, but you're in the minority. If your manager is excellent at consistenrtly handling that in a way that feels good to the whole team, then good for your manager, but they're in the minority. For one example, a manager who has regular 1:1s with their reports probably won't be blindsided when they quit or miss a deadline.
  - davidw 5y ago
    That's the theory. In practice it's a checkbox with an accompanying script in a lot of places. Most places that I've been that worked well, you could send an email or walk over and ask a manager if you could schedule a bit of time to talk, if you needed something.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      And if you're proactive, and don't feel like you're wasting your manager's time, again, good for you. For reports who need a bit of a support in raising issues, this is an effective way to make that space. People new to lecturing are often taught to count out 30 seconds after asking questions, for a good reason: silence is awkward, and questions are the salve that even shy students will reluctantly reach for.
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    Not only I find the fakeness of 1:1s appalling, I also think that putting your weekly fix of human-relationship in a timebox is great to make me want to go through the meeting like a robot and avoid any other contact with the person outside of it.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      I have a personal relationship with my manager, and we often chat outside of our 1:1s. We spend our 1:1s talking about work stuff, and end the meeting early if there isn't enough work stuff to talk about. When we're in the mood to chat person-to-person, that happens organically. When we need to talk business outside of the 1:1, that's more structured. I consider this distinction to be a healthy boundary; you may benefit from the same.
- tayo42 5y ago
  My 1on1s are useful. It's like any other meeting. Have an agenda or cancel it. The people I work with are good about canceling meetings. The standing spot is nice to have.
bllguo 5y ago
It's a fair point that their input on the matter is more important than mine. I like to reiterate that 1-1s are for them, not me. But my feelings are not formed in a vacuum independent of theirs. Plus if it's about the relationship, both sides should have some input and opinion.

> i only have a few direct reports and even then i feel weekly is too often 1-1s aren't about how _you_ feel. They're about your directs's feelings, and the relationship between the two of you.

davidw 5y ago

1-1's are a cargo cult thing that someone decided was a Good Management Idea.

kragen 5y ago
1-1s have been the basis of most human relationships for millions of years.
- davidw 5y ago
  Real ones, though, which makes the checkbox corporate ones feel that much more fake, because we all know what the real thing is like.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    Well, let's put it like this: the wrong reason for a manager to cut a 1:1 to biweekly is because they don't have enough time in their calendar to support their directs. A better reason would be because there isn't enough time between 1:1s to fill out the weekly meetings. But the manager isn't the person who can easily make that judgement call. IMO, the correct person to judge that is the direct -- they can't just show up at their managers desk and demand a 30 minute meeting when something important shows up, whereas a manager can (and often does!)
    - davidw 5y ago
      1 on 1's did not use to be 'a thing', and we still got plenty done in those days, which were not that long ago. Generally ideas like this seem to spread because it was part of some successful company and so it got written up and now a lot of people copy it because it's easy to copy and they think it will help make their own company successful. As a result, the thing that actually occurs in a lot of places is a manager reading from a script that they've been trained on a little bit from someone else. It does not feel useful to me.
      - stormcode 5y ago
        Take it into your own hands. It's your time. Bring stuff to it. You won't always have an amazing manager, but you can get a lot out of it if you are proactive IMO. Also, I think all managers should be asking what cadence and length of time their directs want for 1:1. The least would be 30 minutes bi-weekly IMO. The most would be 1 hour weekly. Depends on the person, the projects, where they are in their career, etc.
        davidw 5y ago
        If it were up to me, I would not bother with it. I have 20 years of experience in this field, and a vital part of the job is communicating well with other people. I do not need someone's "Management Best Practices Checklist" in order to do that. And I do not think I'm exceptional: most of us got by just fine without all this.
        shukantpal 5y ago
        People have differing opinions on this, so maybe learn to respect that. Seems like 20 years of experience has not done that.
        davidw 5y ago
        These things are mostly not based on opinions where teams get to pick and choose, but some kind of received wisdom that checks a box on someone's list of Best Management Practices and everyone is forced to go through the script, like it or not.
        stormcode 5y ago
        That's why I'm suggesting you take control and turn the meeting into what you want it to be. It doesn't have to be a checklist but it sounds like you -have- to have this meeting at the company you are at. So instead of suffering through it, you can turn it into something beneficial for you. Ya know?
klyrs 5y ago
1:1's are a good way to make room for reports to voice concerns, uncertainties, mistakes, backlogs, blockers and unknowns with their manager. If you're the kind of person who feels completely comfortable promptly voicing that sort of thing in front of your team, then good for you, but you're in the minority. If your manager is excellent at consistenrtly handling that in a way that feels good to the whole team, then good for your manager, but they're in the minority. For one example, a manager who has regular 1:1s with their reports probably won't be blindsided when they quit or miss a deadline.
- davidw 5y ago
  That's the theory. In practice it's a checkbox with an accompanying script in a lot of places. Most places that I've been that worked well, you could send an email or walk over and ask a manager if you could schedule a bit of time to talk, if you needed something.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    And if you're proactive, and don't feel like you're wasting your manager's time, again, good for you. For reports who need a bit of a support in raising issues, this is an effective way to make that space. People new to lecturing are often taught to count out 30 seconds after asking questions, for a good reason: silence is awkward, and questions are the salve that even shy students will reluctantly reach for.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Not only I find the fakeness of 1:1s appalling, I also think that putting your weekly fix of human-relationship in a timebox is great to make me want to go through the meeting like a robot and avoid any other contact with the person outside of it.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    I have a personal relationship with my manager, and we often chat outside of our 1:1s. We spend our 1:1s talking about work stuff, and end the meeting early if there isn't enough work stuff to talk about. When we're in the mood to chat person-to-person, that happens organically. When we need to talk business outside of the 1:1, that's more structured. I consider this distinction to be a healthy boundary; you may benefit from the same.
tayo42 5y ago
My 1on1s are useful. It's like any other meeting. Have an agenda or cancel it. The people I work with are good about canceling meetings. The standing spot is nice to have.

bllguo 5y ago

It's a fair point that their input on the matter is more important than mine. I like to reiterate that 1-1s are for them, not me. But my feelings are not formed in a vacuum independent of theirs. Plus if it's about the relationship, both sides should have some input and opinion.