16 ms·

The unreasonable effectiveness of one-on-ones

227 points by sebg 5y ago

ask_b123 5y ago
I had never seen the word "report" used in such way (to refer to a person) and suddenly it is everywhere in this thread.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fastball 5y ago
  It's the word used in the article, so makes sense it is what people will use in the thread.
PaulHoule 5y ago
For some managers they are a weapon they use to gaslight their reports. That is, they tell one person one thing and tell another person another thing. At least in a team meeting you never are thinking that this is going on. It might not be the usual situation but it happened to me once and because of that the 1-1 is going to have a bad smell that's going to require a huge amount of trust in the manager to overcome.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  I read a book a while back called Tribal Leadership that calls out exactly the problems you are referring to. One is that the manager has to say the same thing to multiple reports, which simply isn’t scalable. Second the person at the other end of the 1:1 feels commoditized, and third, people start to spot inconsistencies (intentional or not) between what the manager is telling different reports, which damages their credibility. Their solution is to form triads (three person meetings).
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    You're right also that people can compare notes and find small inconsistencies from somebody honest and blow that up into believing somebody is totally dishonest.
    - worldvoyageur 5y ago
      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” ― Cardinal Richelieu
  - jldugger 5y ago
    I'm just gonna put this out there: none of this sounds like a problem if you don't lie to your reports.
    - PaulHoule 5y ago
      "Lie" is an accusation that I try pretty hard not to use. (Some people are quick to say "you lied to me" as soon as they discover a mismatch between what was said and what the reality is, I try to save that for when it's really clear that deliberate deception is going on.) Frequently people tell untruths because they really don't know the truth or are confused. Also people who hear bits and pieces of a story might come to the conclusion that deception is going on when actually their imagination is getting the better of them. Also information changes over time. You might tell reports A and B that X is the case, then you talk to C who educates you that X is not the case and really Y is the case, then you talk to D and E and tell them that Y is the case. A and B might never get updated or get updated after some time delay in which they might compare notes with D or E and think there is a problem. Even if you don't lie you are going to pay for the sins of other people who lie who hear stories that don't add up and think you are lying.
      - routerl 5y ago
        Let's clear this up: a lie is intentional. "Saying something false" doesn't count as a lie, only if you believed the falsehood. Given this clarification, the original point is fair.
        PaulHoule 5y ago
        I agree with that. It's a good clarification.
- swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
  I find it's often helpful to send messages to relevant people who did not attend summarizing the findings of a 1-on-1. At that point you start a paper trail and can track down where inconsistencies or straight up dishonesty are originating.
- par 5y ago
  It's not good to gaslight people and lie to them. But sometimes you need to have a more direct conversation with someone in a 1x1 than is appropriate to have in a larger group. And sometimes you need to motivate someone in a specific way (performance issue, etc) that may not be right to demonstrate broadly. For instance, in a 1x1 "Jon, I really need you to get the signup flow working as you haven't been meeting your estimates or deadlines at all" ... and then to the team "let's get the new signup flow working, we think it will increase user engagement!"
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    It's a reason to have a 1-1 meeting. It's not a reason to have regularly scheduled 1-1 meetings.
    - jldugger 5y ago
      As a manager, you never have an immediate need for regularly scheduled 1-1 meetings. You can always just ask your directs for their time and expect to get it -- rare is the employee who says no to a request from their manager to talk. Regularly scheduled 1-1s are for the direct, to have a dedicated, planned 30 minutes a week to talk, with a person who controls your access to food, water shelter and all material needs, but whose calendar is often booked solid. Even when there's no immediate need for clarification, approval or discussion, theres still discussion about promotions and career development that need to happen more frequently than once a year or quarter.
      - PaulHoule 5y ago
        I have rarely been unable to talk to a manager when I had a good reason. As for promotions, career development, etc. that's not something that everyone is going to get through the organization that they work in for various reasons. (e.g. "This is a library and if you want to be promoted you have to be a librarian to get ahead") Organizations like that don't deserve to not be able to hire computer programmers and a programmer can be perfectly satisfied working there. That programmer might be somebody who isn't ambitious or if they are ambitious they might pursue their ambitions outside of work in the form of side projects, relationships, etc.
- iamdbtoo 5y ago
  Pretty sure this is exactly what happened to me and it's soured me on 1:1s. I thought he was listening empathetically, but really he was using the information I was giving him, in what was supposed to be a private setting, and used it to paint a very negative picture of me to the rest of the bosses.
  - _y5hn 5y ago
    I've had a manager use exactly what I warned about when later being promoted to executive position. Also having the person bragging confidently about power over their employees.
- XorNot 5y ago
  1:1's are basically a mix of every anti-pattern for CYA in business - they're verbal, they're isolated, they're strongly implied to be considered private, and there's a massive power imbalance in the communication.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
lifeplusplus 5y ago
one-on-ones are kinda anti-pattern, if you have something to say, there should be an easier way to say it. if you have nothing to say it becomes dumb status report about things any competent manager would already be aware of.
- sethhochberg 5y ago
  I've found that many people are really, really averse to the perception that they're "bothering" their manager, no matter how often it is emphasized that ad-hoc conversations about things that are important to the teams' members are part of the manager's job and despite however much effort the manager puts in to genuinely welcoming these ad-hoc conversations when they happen. Regularly scheduled 1:1s are a great backstop for this kind of thing, and let people feel confident and prepared for conversations with their management. If neither party has anything to say, its true the meeting can become a dumb status update - but if neither party has something to say, that implies the time since the last 1:1 saw no growth, no challenges, nothing of note at all to bring up... and this is probably a red flag on its own. I'm perfectly willing to reduce frequency of 1:1s with very senior and self-sufficient members of my teams, but even once a month is valuable.
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    This +10 (if I could). Very regular, very short (if there's not much to discuss) 1:1s can be quite valuable. Especially managing folks who are reluctant to speak up. Doesn't much matter the reason for their reluctance - introverted, self-conscious about not being very articulate, burned by previous shitty management, overbearing co-workers, ...
  - lifeplusplus 5y ago
    once a month seems more useful, but i doubt i'd hold in something for a month. i think it's better to create a culture where managers are approachable human beings then to have dedicated meetings that are so far away, and if they are weekly then you have got a problem having nothing to say on both sides.
- tomcat27 5y ago
brink 5y ago
Can we change the click-bait title? There's nothing unreasonable about one-on-ones being effective.
- djur 5y ago
  I think the reason it's used here is because the one-on-one was surprisingly effective even when applied outside a typical work environment, just like the original usage was that math was surprisingly useful in understanding natural phenomena: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...
  - mekoka 5y ago
    Note that in the original usage of the formula, "unreasonable" meant that there's no valid and explanable reason to why math is so effective in the prediction of physical phenomena. It did not simply mean ill-understood, or explanations to come later. The relationship between math and nature was stated to be akin to a mystery. Most titles borrowing the phrasing nowadays simply mean to say that something is considered very effective and the author finds it surprising.
par 5y ago
Gonna have to strongly disagree on this. Just because the author has specific anecdotes for their 1x1s, there's no way this applies broadly and generically. I've had a thousand+ 1x1s with countless people (both as a manager and as a report), and the majority of them are just time sucking status updates, casual meet and greets, or some performance/process related discussion. Literally never have I walked out of a 1x1 and thought "wow that was unreasonably effective".
- travisjungroth 5y ago
  There’s a common factor to all of your 1:1s, so that may be worth looking into. Like the author, I have had some ongoing 1:1s be incredibly productive. Like really changing my life. Unlike the author, I wouldn’t broadly recommend them. They’re so easy to do in a way that isn’t productive. I think that’s the default, really. So if I was going to tell people to do them I’d be very explicit that you need to do something different than you probably think. Here are exacts steps and characteristics, if you don’t follow these then it won’t work and don’t come to me about it. The overall general trend of why they’re not effective is they’re too surface level. You say some updates to your boss in a way that doesn’t get you fired, maybe complain about some stuff. You kinda just talk about things. It needs to be a time when there is some work really happening. It’s metawork, but it’s still work. Like “what were the things that distracted you last week?” and you write them down, there in the meeting. Not “anything distracting you lately?” “nope I’m fine”. It’s a much more vulnerable, interactive process. This is probably why a 1:1 with your boss isn’t the most effective person. Too much image to maintain. I think the sports model is better. In baseball, the Manager (coach or head coach in other sports) makes decisions about who is playing. Coaches (aka assistant coaches or trainers) are skill experts who help you get better. You can be more vulnerable with them. I think some industries, especially software, would do well to have more of a manager/coach model.
  - nostromo 5y ago
    > There’s a common factor to all of your 1:1s, so that may be worth looking into. This was rude and uncalled for.
Hokusai 5y ago
One on ones are a very good tool. In someone with good training and in a good job environment are incredible to gather feedback, make sure that the company environment is good, and it's an opportunity to help individuals with the kind of problems that is hard to talk in public. Finally, even in functional companies, employees may feel unsure about their performance. Regular meetings help to dissipate any doubts. That the article also applies it to personal life makes sense. It's not just a company tool. If you have been in a company where ones on ones were bad or counterproductive be open to think that it may be a problem on how it was used not inherently a problem with the tool.
brimble 5y ago
In this thread, we explore more ways in which almost any practice or system works great when someone competent and well-meaning does it, and almost none do when someone incompetent or malicious is involved, which is most of the time. See also: all project management methodology discussions.
- lkrubner 5y ago
  Are people capable of learning? If not, then why read Hacker News at all? Here is a technique that clearly is powerful when done well, so why not read the anecdotes and try to internalize the lessons? If you are in a leadership position, how about you push yourself to learn what that means, and then push yourself to get better and better? Stories like this are one of many ways to learn a new leadership technique.
  - brimble 5y ago
    That justifies the article, but I can guarantee this discussion is going to be 99% "nuh uh" and "yeah huh" and both will be right, mostly because of the effect in my post. I'm either a mystic who can predict the future, or these discussions all look exactly the same.
    - baxtr 5y ago
      Welcome to HackerNews!
      - brimble 5y ago
        Fair.
    - taneq 5y ago
      yeah huh
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    The parent poster is saying the technique is less important than being well-meaning and trying sincerely. Having said that, perhaps the lesson we can learn here is that reading is a powerful technique to learn to employ.
robertlagrant 5y ago
> her philosophy department is leaving a lot of productivity on the table The mind boggles as to what could be done with that increased productivity.
- jldugger 5y ago
  Grant more PhDs per year, while reducing the cost of education to the student. Grad student stipends are often meager, assuming you even get funding.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    That's not more productivity, that's more effort.
    - jldugger 5y ago
      Well, it's the same amount of "effort" -- you supervise the same number of students, they just graduate faster. And most department metrics Ive seen measure PhDs granted as an output.
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        Ah yes, in terms of number of PhDs you can chuck out, fair enough.
jll29 5y ago
This isn't so much an article about 1:1s in general, I would say, but more of a rant about bad Ph.D. student supervision in one particular case, which the author generalises from N=1 observations. Of course there are many stories of poor grad school experience and the notable Prof. Smith from the legendary Ph.D. comic; but just to point out that there are also "rock star" supervisors: for instance, I was blessed to be able to email drafts of conference papers to mine at 11 p.m. and get corrections back by 5 a.m. For example, here are some interesting supervision anecdotes from CMU (computer science, not philosophy): https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3361714_1/component/file_3361715/content https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3361714_1/component/file... Now I can't say I know how the distribution of grad student supervisors looks like on the good/bad scale, but let's just be careful not to extrapolate from a single data point. PS: I applaud the author's approach to try to help using the methods he knew - a beautiful example of making use of transferrable skills (computing is full of them).
baxtr 5y ago
Here is what I always recommend people: Try to use the 1:1s with your boss productively, ideally engage her/him in a problem solving session for one of your work topics. I used to managed a large group of people. I always made clear that this is the time of the report. She/he could use the time with me at their will. I have found the best use of our time was when a report would walk in (back in the day, you know...) and shared what they were struggling with. We would then jointly problem solve. This way, I could get an insight into their daily struggle, get updates on status and help them. The least effective ones were over after 5 minutes or so, when the report didn't want to share anything. I am aware that this is a trust issue. But you can't build up trust without time to interact.
- redisman 5y ago
  Personally I just don’t want to do all the heavy lifting which is what “let’s talk about whatever you want!” means. Meh what I want is one less meeting on my calendar - now how’s your freaking dog doing sir?
  - titanomachy 5y ago
    Then say that... "I think I'd like to reduce the cadence of this meeting to bi-weekly, we haven't had anything substantial to discuss in the last few weeks." Your manager probably wants calendar time back at least as much as you do.
    - redisman 5y ago
      It’s already bi-weekly. I dont think I’d be rewarded for asking to do it every 6 months
      - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        I mean there are time ranges between bi-weekly and every 6 months.
  - baxtr 5y ago
stakkur 5y ago
I rarely have found 1-1s 'effective', and I've experienced them in four different companies. In stints as a manager, I never have them. First: like all management, their usefulness depends utterly on how effective the manager is. In my experience, most managers just use them to 'chat'. Which is invariably a waste of both our times. Second: Most things I want to talk to a manager about, I can talk about anytime. We just talk as the need arises. In my experience, most managers schedule them 'just so we have available time', which really means "I don't have time unless you're on my calendar". To be an effective manager, I need them to be available, to communicate well, to listen, and to give me feedback and guidance based on what they hear. And that has nothing to do with a regular '1-1' meeting.
- AlwaysRock 5y ago
  But are most managers available? That is the last word I think of when I think of managers in general. Maybe available in an emergency but what about when I want to ask questions that are relevant to my career/the company/technology but not directly relevant to my/our current task or goal? I wouldnt really expect my manager to drop everything Monday morning to talk to me about that unless I know I had a weekly scheduled time to do so.
  - _y5hn 5y ago
    If managers are not available to manage the business, what are they really doing??
    - AlwaysRock 5y ago
      I guess the word manage could mean a lot of things but I don't expect my manager to be able to drop everything else to answer any question I have. I don't honestly believe many people think that is what a manager should do. So when should I ask my questions? If urgent, now. If not, during our 1 on 1.
retrac98 5y ago
Shameless plug, but I made a little app for generating one-on-one questions: https://one-on-ones.app/ https://one-on-ones.app/
- ibejoeb 5y ago
  Why are you calling a meeting if you don't have an agenda with a well defined intention?
amelius 5y ago
The unreasonable effectiveness of hyperbolic headlines.
cmrdporcupine 5y ago
My last 1:1 was followed by me giving three weeks notice, so I suppose that's effective.
mooreds 5y ago
I'm a big fan of one to ones, but only if both parties are into it. If it is a status report, it should be an email. It should be a place for you to discuss topics that are stymieing you and/or build rapport and trust. I've had direct reports tell me they wanted to have a 1:1 less often, so I know my style of 1:1 doesn't work for everyone. It's a big world. I wrote more about 1:1s here, esp managing them from the perspective of a new developer/employee: https://letterstoanewdeveloper.com/2020/03/16/how-to-manage-one-to-ones/ https://letterstoanewdeveloper.com/2020/03/16/how-to-manage-...
llbeansandrice 5y ago
I think in any endeavor it's important to try out different methods and situations. This post resonated with my hobby as a swing dancer. Lots of folks like to take group lessons where the format is teachers have a lesson plan and more or less spoon-feed it to students. This can involve some or no homework. It can be exercises to work on technique, just a new move to try, etc. I've seen a lot of people overvalue this format of lessons as a way to "get better" at their craft rather than weekly practice sessions with a group or private lessons. This is usually because there's a lot more friction and effort to set up practices and private lessons usually mean _you_ have to come up with what you want to learn. As others have mentioned though, the most important factor is to go into it being earnest and genuine. Group lessons can be done poorly just as 1:1s can be done poorly.
Upgrayyed_U 5y ago
I think 1-on-1s can be "unreasonably effective." In one group I managed, I implemented 1-on-1s and watched year-over-year attrition drop by ~80%. I thought they were so effective that I implemented them in my marriage and saw great (albeit, not directly measurable) increases in marriage satisfaction. If nothing else, my wife enjoyed them enough that she is now the one who insists that we have a "weekly connect." With that said, I think that almost all of their effectiveness comes down to who's leading it. When I first become a manager, I assumed that I would probably suck at it, so I read everything I could on how to be a better manager. That was especially true when it came to leading 1-on-1s. But, when I've worked with managers who just didn't care for them, or didn't care to learn enough about how to do them properly, they were invariably a waste of time. So, despite my own experience, I don't begrudge anyone who thinks 1-on-1s are a waste of time. In many (most?) cases, they are.
- NationOfJoe 5y ago
  out of curiosity what format do the "weekly connect" take, with your partner?
  - Upgrayyed_U 5y ago
    Believe it or not, we use the same PPP format common in agile dev shops. However, instead of "Progress, Plans, and Problems," we use "Victories, Goals, and Help Needed" to give it a slightly more optimistic and personal feel. We also set aside time to discuss big picture items (such as challenges at work, medium and long-term relationship management, housing repairs, etc.). We don't have kids, but if we did, we would definitely use this time to sync up about that. Make sure we both know what activities they have coming up and/or shared understanding of how to love, praise and discipline them.
zestyping 5y ago
Hm, I have mixed feelings about this article. One-on-ones can be highly effective, no doubt. The kinds of practices that the author describes are often helpful. However, I'm not sure the claim applies to all companies and pairings. I've had a wide range of experiences with one-on-ones. I've worked for the company that the author is talking about (full disclosure: I worked with him there, had an excellent and productive time, and then was fired). That company places an extremely heavy emphasis on imposing a specific culture from the top down — not just a culture of how work is done, but pervasive to the extent of personal habits and lifestyle advice. Alternative suggestions about culture are generally not entertained because there is a primary tenet that everyone has to align 100% with the culture for it to work, and it is more efficient for everyone to simply align with exactly what the CEO believes than to make culture decisions as a group. Maybe that's the best way to run a startup when your overriding priority is to execute as fast as possible, but it does have other negative side-effects, which were unfortunate for some of my teammates. Consequently, I am reluctant to generalize from experiences of working there. It is a unique company, and not all working environments and team relationships are going to be like that.
mkl95 5y ago
One-on-ones can be scary due to their potential implications. If one-on-ones are frequent, it's usually a symptom of an immature culture where people are too lazy to write things down, or they don't want to do it to dodge accountability. Personally, I'd rather send people a chunky paragraph with what I want from them and let them go about their day.
jeppester 5y ago
While I was a team manager I really liked the one-on-ones. It was a great way to handle issues while they were still small and manageable. Someone unhappy on a project? I'd do my best to talk to the project mangers and voice the criticism in an impactful way, or possibly reassign the person. Problems at home? I would have never picked that up during our normal interactions. Those meetings gave me the opportunity to help my coworkers with lots of stuff they would otherwise not have mentioned. It was a true pleasure when I was able to help them out, and even when I wasn't, I think it helped a lot that they just had that chance to vent and then get on with stuff. While some one-on-ones might have been a waste of time, I believe that overall they had a very positive impact. Reading the rest of the comments here, I think I might have been in a very favorable position. I started as a developer, and then got promoted at a time where I was the obvious choice. So I always felt like "one of us" during those conversations, and I could very much relate to every work-related challenge.
- odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
  Why would anyone talk about their problemas at home with their bosses? Is this a US culture thing where work and non-work is blended so much that you mix and match conversations? Both as a worker and a manager, I hardly know about other co-workers lives. Gay or not gay, married with kids, or eternal bachelor, I don't really have (or want) a clue about their private life, much less have a report tell me about his. Just say 'I am dealing with something, need some time off' and there, you got it, but I don't need to know your mother has cancer or you are going through a divorce. You are an adult, take the time and use it as you need.
  - thegrasshopper2 5y ago
    I assume the "problems at home" are the ones affecting work performance. It's very difficult to keep productivity up, especially in a creative / complex field like programming, if one's mind is filled with other thoughts. This works especially well if the person doesn't want to take vacation, or cannot, for one reason or another, and can also be in the form you state (I have to deal with stuff, I need a bit of slack at work). Not everybody is comfortable saying even that in a "team" setting.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
codeflo 5y ago
At the risk of sounding cliche, I think the pattern of frequent 1:1s is a technique for managing people instead of leading them. I've experienced this in both roles, and honestly, engineers, no matter how junior, should be able to get by a few weeks without constant management intervention. Maybe weekly 1:1 are so common because there's a glut of nontechnical managers who don't know what else to do with their time? That's not the situation Ben Kuhn describes, but I don't know.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  Well yes, it’s a management technique, not a leadership technique. It’s about making sure that someone’s happy with how things are going, talking about the things that don’t get talked about day to day, but should be dealt with more frequently than every 6 months at a performance review. We don’t do them weekly, but they’re definitely valuable.
- mindwok 5y ago
  I’ll offer my own anecdote, which was 1 on 1s with a manager who was really just soliciting feedback about the team, how I was going, what I thought we could do better. Now I don’t have them due to a new job, I miss them dearly.
- ianbicking 5y ago
  "Should be able to" is doing a lot of work there. Are people able to do this? What supporting structures make that possible? Are you sure all those structures are in place and applicable to a certain person's work? A 1:1 would be a good time to find out if not... Also while any particular 1:1 might be unnecessary, the 1:1s that catch things that might be going bad are IMHO much more important than the ones that aren't strictly necessary. A slow cadence can let problems fester for weeks.
- Msw242 5y ago
  Weekly 1:1s help me catch personnel issues that, left unattended, would lead to disaffection and attrition. 1:1 is about helping direct reports reach their professional goals when times are good (it's a great time to literally ask what they want), and provide an emotional outlet when things are bad. It helps me find assholes in my organization who need to be fired to maintain the company's health.
zeruch 5y ago
As someone who has led (mostly) remote teams for years, 1:1s are essential, but can't be made cookie cutter. I use a fairly spartan template for the structure of them to start, and let them evolve as different people have different needs. I of course want to make sure that I'm getting what I need out of them (e.g. clarity about what is being done, what has run into an obstacle, the general state of mind of the report, et al) but I also want them to feel engaged in whatever way that builds rapport and makes them feel comfortable discussing sometimes uncomfortable things (I do lean towards 'exception based' meetings rather than rote repetitive agendas). What this means is that my last team got very good at asserting what worked best: one senior person used up almost all of his default allotted hour a week, because they dealt with a lot of escalation/thorny stuff and wanted to soundboard/problem solve in tandem, which I was more than ok with, one was completely "fire and forget" and for weeks at a time 1:1s would rarely last longer than 10-15 minutes as they hammered through various client tasks in volume and I didn't need to bird-dog any of it. It improved comms overall, and I never felt like I was in the dark on major concerns, and they feel/felt heard. Too often 1:1s become time sinks of reflexive behaviors and telegraphed responses, and you should avoid that.
imgabe 5y ago
> One is that grad schools are really dysfunctional. If I, a person whose sole qualification is caring a lot, could help Eve speed up her dissertation by ~25%, then her philosophy department is leaving a lot of productivity on the table. They are dysfunctional from the perspective of grad students. For the advisors (professors) their priorities are: 1. publish 2. get grants Basically nothing else matters in terms of what they're evaluated on. "My grad student finished 25% faster" does pretty much nothing for the advisor's career compared to "My team performed 25% better" for a manager's career.
YEwSdObPQT 5y ago
I honestly think that people on these blog embellish things far too much. Maybe they work better for these people but "unreasonably effective" ... really? I find the ones I've had with most managers is typically split into these things. 1) Small talk about some nonsense for about 1/3 of the duration. 2) Talk about work for a 1/3 of the duration. 3) Moan about something at work. 4) Hope that I haven't screwed something up. Then awkwardly ending the meeting. I dunno they've never worked for me.
r00fus 5y ago
I want to put this out there - for those who think manager 1:1s are not useful, do you have a good mentoring system in your organization? I've found some of the author's points could also apply to a moderately structured mentoring relationship.
Sniffnoy 5y ago
(2019)
ineedasername 5y ago
Why should it be unreasonable? Not everything that is effective is "unreasonable" in that effectiveness. If you find these headlines compelling then I also have one weird trick for making you unreasonably effective at making headlines.
JohnBooty 5y ago
Anecdotal (but then again so is the whole discussion) ...I recently started a job with a company that does regular 1:1's and wow. Been in this industry for 20+ years and I never knew how badly I needed this. Theoretically, obviously, managers can have "open door" policies where you can talk to them any time about any thing. Theoretically, this would suffice. In reality, I have always generally felt awful about bothering managers and taking up their time. Having dedicated 1:1 time is an absolute gamechanger.
scrubs 5y ago
One-on-ones? Let me tell you: just like couples there are a few in which the relationship is unreasonably effective and, of half those cases, they couldn't half-explain why two times in a row. The rest? The std. deviation is shocking. It's all over the place. So there we are: it is and can be awesome. But in too many corporations games -- especially lack of openness -- prevents things from going anywhere. And that, friends, is a darn shame. As I mention time to time on HN the best, short, spot on reads that take this to its core avoiding simplistic conclusions while arriving at doable, realistic things are two: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Productivity-Self-Esteem-Management/dp/1555426123/ref=sr_1_3?crid=ZO664UYB933F&keywords=human+element+book+schutz&qid=1643688438&s=books&sprefix=human+element+book+schutz%2Cstripbooks%2C68&sr=1-3 https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Productivity-Self-Estee... https://www.amazon.com/What-Total-Quality-Control-Japanese/dp/0139524339/ref=sr_1_2?crid=IMR0RCY8NUKE&keywords=total+quality+management+the+japanese+way&qid=1643688458&s=books&sprefix=total+quality+management+the+japanese+way%2Cstripbooks%2C85&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/What-Total-Quality-Control-Japanese/d... In different, self reinforcing ways, there's a confluence: those with self awareness will figure it out nicely summarized by Schutz's Jung quote: "All the greatest and most important problems in life are fundamentally insoluble ... they can never be solved but only outgrown. This 'outgrowing' proves upon further investigation to require a new level of consciousness." This dovetails with one of the central insight's in Human Element: the biggest impediment to teamwork are rigid individuals. The how, why, and what next? Gotta hit the books. Good grief: used copies of the book can come to your front door for less than a Padron cigar or 15 year Laphroaig single. That's value. Off subject but a particularly funny example of can't-change is the Angelica Huston part in Buffalo-66, an absolutely outstanding film.
candyman 5y ago
It's hard to comment on something this general. 1-1 meetings come in so many different contexts. One thing that I think is universal is what questions you ask and how good you are at listening. I offer one idea which is if you want to amplify whatever 1-1 meeting you have take it out of the room/building. Go for a walk, pretend you need to run out to the pharmacy and bring them along, get a coffee or drink. Be creative. I've had 1-1 meetings that were useless (Zoom is generally bad) and some that were transformative. It does take two to tango but you can at least bring your dancing shoes!
ndneighbor 5y ago
I have been pretty unlucky in my career where my prior 1:1s were with managers who viewed the responsibility as a chore rather than a way to provide constructive feedback. As a result, my prior 1:1s were usually always cancelled or were a status update. Now my 1:1s are a little bit like what the OP has here. Really interesting to see the mixed sentiment kinda reflect my attitude as well.
theshrike79 5y ago
1:1's don't always need to have an agenda, they don't need to be interrogations and they don't need to be Very Official. When I had a team, our 1:1s were 99% just a lunch with the two of us. Neither party had a set agenda and there was no expectation on achieving anything than a full stomach and a free lunch for both. (Company paid for 1:1 lunches) It was also considered as work time. Sometimes people opened up, sometimes they didn't. Still I managed to keep track of my team just fine that way.
ulnarkressty 5y ago
From what articles I read, the idea of discussing project work in 1-on-1s is considered more of an anti-pattern. You are supposed to talk more about personal concerns, how they are fitting in, if they need anything etc. What these articles don't really prepare you for is when your report refuses to play ball and they just say they have nothing to talk about, everything is fine and ask for an early lunch. Much like the cynical commenters on this thread. Then you've got managers trying to 'reach these kids' and lots of friction.
ochronus 5y ago
Well, 1:1s are just a tool, not the goal. As any tool they can be totally ineffective or a game-changer. I've written about the potential purpose of 1:1s, as well as things to avoid: https://leadership.garden/the-basics-of-one-on-ones/ https://leadership.garden/the-basics-of-one-on-ones/
- ahaferburg 5y ago
  Oh hey, I just wanted to post this. I really enjoyed your article, and also the one that lead me to it: https://leadership.garden/the-5-common-mistakes-of-new-engineering-managers/ https://leadership.garden/the-5-common-mistakes-of-new-engin...
  - ochronus 5y ago
    awww thanks :) I'm really happy you liked my articles!
- goguy 5y ago
  Nice article, spotted a small typo. If you don’t, you risk being seen as ~reliable~ and people might feel you’re not there when they need you.
  - ochronus 5y ago
    Oof, thanks! Nice catch, fixed
gspr 5y ago
Where this goes wrong is assuming that research (i.e. the thing one does in grad school) is something that is anywhere near as amenable to "time management" as product development or engineering is. The whole point of research is to push into the unknown. It's, in some sense, something that consists nearly only of unknowns and things you cannot really plan for. Sure, there's some general tricks like knowing when to take a step back, knowing when to abandon an endeavour that seems doomed, knowing when you've gone far enough, etc., but it's still nothing like where the author seems to be coming from.
bamboozled 5y ago
I get absolutely nothing out of them, I'd say I hate them...
- bamboozled 5y ago
  ...crazily I had a pretty good one the other day ha
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
It seems this is really an abuse of the whole unreasonable effectiveness meme, there is no way that 1 on 1s are as unreasonably effective as math is, in fact I think in our arguing about it we are hard pressed to agree that they are even reasonably effective! To be unreasonably effective I suppose something should handle problems most of the time and only fail on a few edge cases, in which case if we want to accept one on ones as unreasonably effective I think the next step is to write an article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Falsehoods Programmers commonly believe about Names, or addresses or any of the other suppositions that we are commonly wrong about, because I think our misconceptions about these things are as a general more likely to succeed than not, which is as unreasonably effective as one on ones are.

227 points by sebg 5y ago

I had never seen the word "report" used in such way (to refer to a person) and suddenly it is everywhere in this thread.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fastball 5y ago
It's the word used in the article, so makes sense it is what people will use in the thread.

PaulHoule 5y ago

For some managers they are a weapon they use to gaslight their reports. That is, they tell one person one thing and tell another person another thing. At least in a team meeting you never are thinking that this is going on. It might not be the usual situation but it happened to me once and because of that the 1-1 is going to have a bad smell that's going to require a huge amount of trust in the manager to overcome.

oceanplexian 5y ago
I read a book a while back called Tribal Leadership that calls out exactly the problems you are referring to. One is that the manager has to say the same thing to multiple reports, which simply isn’t scalable. Second the person at the other end of the 1:1 feels commoditized, and third, people start to spot inconsistencies (intentional or not) between what the manager is telling different reports, which damages their credibility. Their solution is to form triads (three person meetings).
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  You're right also that people can compare notes and find small inconsistencies from somebody honest and blow that up into believing somebody is totally dishonest.
  - worldvoyageur 5y ago
    "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” ― Cardinal Richelieu
- jldugger 5y ago
  I'm just gonna put this out there: none of this sounds like a problem if you don't lie to your reports.
  - PaulHoule 5y ago
    "Lie" is an accusation that I try pretty hard not to use. (Some people are quick to say "you lied to me" as soon as they discover a mismatch between what was said and what the reality is, I try to save that for when it's really clear that deliberate deception is going on.) Frequently people tell untruths because they really don't know the truth or are confused. Also people who hear bits and pieces of a story might come to the conclusion that deception is going on when actually their imagination is getting the better of them. Also information changes over time. You might tell reports A and B that X is the case, then you talk to C who educates you that X is not the case and really Y is the case, then you talk to D and E and tell them that Y is the case. A and B might never get updated or get updated after some time delay in which they might compare notes with D or E and think there is a problem. Even if you don't lie you are going to pay for the sins of other people who lie who hear stories that don't add up and think you are lying.
    - routerl 5y ago
      Let's clear this up: a lie is intentional. "Saying something false" doesn't count as a lie, only if you believed the falsehood. Given this clarification, the original point is fair.
      - PaulHoule 5y ago
        I agree with that. It's a good clarification.
swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
I find it's often helpful to send messages to relevant people who did not attend summarizing the findings of a 1-on-1. At that point you start a paper trail and can track down where inconsistencies or straight up dishonesty are originating.
par 5y ago
It's not good to gaslight people and lie to them. But sometimes you need to have a more direct conversation with someone in a 1x1 than is appropriate to have in a larger group. And sometimes you need to motivate someone in a specific way (performance issue, etc) that may not be right to demonstrate broadly. For instance, in a 1x1 "Jon, I really need you to get the signup flow working as you haven't been meeting your estimates or deadlines at all" ... and then to the team "let's get the new signup flow working, we think it will increase user engagement!"
- PaulHoule 5y ago
  It's a reason to have a 1-1 meeting. It's not a reason to have regularly scheduled 1-1 meetings.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    As a manager, you never have an immediate need for regularly scheduled 1-1 meetings. You can always just ask your directs for their time and expect to get it -- rare is the employee who says no to a request from their manager to talk. Regularly scheduled 1-1s are for the direct, to have a dedicated, planned 30 minutes a week to talk, with a person who controls your access to food, water shelter and all material needs, but whose calendar is often booked solid. Even when there's no immediate need for clarification, approval or discussion, theres still discussion about promotions and career development that need to happen more frequently than once a year or quarter.
    - PaulHoule 5y ago
      I have rarely been unable to talk to a manager when I had a good reason. As for promotions, career development, etc. that's not something that everyone is going to get through the organization that they work in for various reasons. (e.g. "This is a library and if you want to be promoted you have to be a librarian to get ahead") Organizations like that don't deserve to not be able to hire computer programmers and a programmer can be perfectly satisfied working there. That programmer might be somebody who isn't ambitious or if they are ambitious they might pursue their ambitions outside of work in the form of side projects, relationships, etc.
iamdbtoo 5y ago
Pretty sure this is exactly what happened to me and it's soured me on 1:1s. I thought he was listening empathetically, but really he was using the information I was giving him, in what was supposed to be a private setting, and used it to paint a very negative picture of me to the rest of the bosses.
- _y5hn 5y ago
  I've had a manager use exactly what I warned about when later being promoted to executive position. Also having the person bragging confidently about power over their employees.
XorNot 5y ago
1:1's are basically a mix of every anti-pattern for CYA in business - they're verbal, they're isolated, they're strongly implied to be considered private, and there's a massive power imbalance in the communication.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

lifeplusplus 5y ago

one-on-ones are kinda anti-pattern, if you have something to say, there should be an easier way to say it. if you have nothing to say it becomes dumb status report about things any competent manager would already be aware of.

sethhochberg 5y ago
I've found that many people are really, really averse to the perception that they're "bothering" their manager, no matter how often it is emphasized that ad-hoc conversations about things that are important to the teams' members are part of the manager's job and despite however much effort the manager puts in to genuinely welcoming these ad-hoc conversations when they happen. Regularly scheduled 1:1s are a great backstop for this kind of thing, and let people feel confident and prepared for conversations with their management. If neither party has anything to say, its true the meeting can become a dumb status update - but if neither party has something to say, that implies the time since the last 1:1 saw no growth, no challenges, nothing of note at all to bring up... and this is probably a red flag on its own. I'm perfectly willing to reduce frequency of 1:1s with very senior and self-sufficient members of my teams, but even once a month is valuable.
- bell-cot 5y ago
  This +10 (if I could). Very regular, very short (if there's not much to discuss) 1:1s can be quite valuable. Especially managing folks who are reluctant to speak up. Doesn't much matter the reason for their reluctance - introverted, self-conscious about not being very articulate, burned by previous shitty management, overbearing co-workers, ...
- lifeplusplus 5y ago
  once a month seems more useful, but i doubt i'd hold in something for a month. i think it's better to create a culture where managers are approachable human beings then to have dedicated meetings that are so far away, and if they are weekly then you have got a problem having nothing to say on both sides.
tomcat27 5y ago

brink 5y ago

Can we change the click-bait title? There's nothing unreasonable about one-on-ones being effective.

djur 5y ago
I think the reason it's used here is because the one-on-one was surprisingly effective even when applied outside a typical work environment, just like the original usage was that math was surprisingly useful in understanding natural phenomena: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...
- mekoka 5y ago
  Note that in the original usage of the formula, "unreasonable" meant that there's no valid and explanable reason to why math is so effective in the prediction of physical phenomena. It did not simply mean ill-understood, or explanations to come later. The relationship between math and nature was stated to be akin to a mystery. Most titles borrowing the phrasing nowadays simply mean to say that something is considered very effective and the author finds it surprising.

par 5y ago

Gonna have to strongly disagree on this. Just because the author has specific anecdotes for their 1x1s, there's no way this applies broadly and generically. I've had a thousand+ 1x1s with countless people (both as a manager and as a report), and the majority of them are just time sucking status updates, casual meet and greets, or some performance/process related discussion. Literally never have I walked out of a 1x1 and thought "wow that was unreasonably effective".

travisjungroth 5y ago
There’s a common factor to all of your 1:1s, so that may be worth looking into. Like the author, I have had some ongoing 1:1s be incredibly productive. Like really changing my life. Unlike the author, I wouldn’t broadly recommend them. They’re so easy to do in a way that isn’t productive. I think that’s the default, really. So if I was going to tell people to do them I’d be very explicit that you need to do something different than you probably think. Here are exacts steps and characteristics, if you don’t follow these then it won’t work and don’t come to me about it. The overall general trend of why they’re not effective is they’re too surface level. You say some updates to your boss in a way that doesn’t get you fired, maybe complain about some stuff. You kinda just talk about things. It needs to be a time when there is some work really happening. It’s metawork, but it’s still work. Like “what were the things that distracted you last week?” and you write them down, there in the meeting. Not “anything distracting you lately?” “nope I’m fine”. It’s a much more vulnerable, interactive process. This is probably why a 1:1 with your boss isn’t the most effective person. Too much image to maintain. I think the sports model is better. In baseball, the Manager (coach or head coach in other sports) makes decisions about who is playing. Coaches (aka assistant coaches or trainers) are skill experts who help you get better. You can be more vulnerable with them. I think some industries, especially software, would do well to have more of a manager/coach model.
- nostromo 5y ago
  > There’s a common factor to all of your 1:1s, so that may be worth looking into. This was rude and uncalled for.

Hokusai 5y ago

One on ones are a very good tool. In someone with good training and in a good job environment are incredible to gather feedback, make sure that the company environment is good, and it's an opportunity to help individuals with the kind of problems that is hard to talk in public. Finally, even in functional companies, employees may feel unsure about their performance. Regular meetings help to dissipate any doubts. That the article also applies it to personal life makes sense. It's not just a company tool. If you have been in a company where ones on ones were bad or counterproductive be open to think that it may be a problem on how it was used not inherently a problem with the tool.

brimble 5y ago

In this thread, we explore more ways in which almost any practice or system works great when someone competent and well-meaning does it, and almost none do when someone incompetent or malicious is involved, which is most of the time. See also: all project management methodology discussions.

lkrubner 5y ago
Are people capable of learning? If not, then why read Hacker News at all? Here is a technique that clearly is powerful when done well, so why not read the anecdotes and try to internalize the lessons? If you are in a leadership position, how about you push yourself to learn what that means, and then push yourself to get better and better? Stories like this are one of many ways to learn a new leadership technique.
- brimble 5y ago
  That justifies the article, but I can guarantee this discussion is going to be 99% "nuh uh" and "yeah huh" and both will be right, mostly because of the effect in my post. I'm either a mystic who can predict the future, or these discussions all look exactly the same.
  - baxtr 5y ago
    Welcome to HackerNews!
    - brimble 5y ago
      Fair.
  - taneq 5y ago
    yeah huh
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  The parent poster is saying the technique is less important than being well-meaning and trying sincerely. Having said that, perhaps the lesson we can learn here is that reading is a powerful technique to learn to employ.

robertlagrant 5y ago

> her philosophy department is leaving a lot of productivity on the table The mind boggles as to what could be done with that increased productivity.

jldugger 5y ago
Grant more PhDs per year, while reducing the cost of education to the student. Grad student stipends are often meager, assuming you even get funding.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  That's not more productivity, that's more effort.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    Well, it's the same amount of "effort" -- you supervise the same number of students, they just graduate faster. And most department metrics Ive seen measure PhDs granted as an output.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      Ah yes, in terms of number of PhDs you can chuck out, fair enough.

jll29 5y ago

This isn't so much an article about 1:1s in general, I would say, but more of a rant about bad Ph.D. student supervision in one particular case, which the author generalises from N=1 observations. Of course there are many stories of poor grad school experience and the notable Prof. Smith from the legendary Ph.D. comic; but just to point out that there are also "rock star" supervisors: for instance, I was blessed to be able to email drafts of conference papers to mine at 11 p.m. and get corrections back by 5 a.m. For example, here are some interesting supervision anecdotes from CMU (computer science, not philosophy): https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3361714_1/component/file_3361715/content https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3361714_1/component/file... Now I can't say I know how the distribution of grad student supervisors looks like on the good/bad scale, but let's just be careful not to extrapolate from a single data point. PS: I applaud the author's approach to try to help using the methods he knew - a beautiful example of making use of transferrable skills (computing is full of them).

baxtr 5y ago

Here is what I always recommend people: Try to use the 1:1s with your boss productively, ideally engage her/him in a problem solving session for one of your work topics. I used to managed a large group of people. I always made clear that this is the time of the report. She/he could use the time with me at their will. I have found the best use of our time was when a report would walk in (back in the day, you know...) and shared what they were struggling with. We would then jointly problem solve. This way, I could get an insight into their daily struggle, get updates on status and help them. The least effective ones were over after 5 minutes or so, when the report didn't want to share anything. I am aware that this is a trust issue. But you can't build up trust without time to interact.

redisman 5y ago
Personally I just don’t want to do all the heavy lifting which is what “let’s talk about whatever you want!” means. Meh what I want is one less meeting on my calendar - now how’s your freaking dog doing sir?
- titanomachy 5y ago
  Then say that... "I think I'd like to reduce the cadence of this meeting to bi-weekly, we haven't had anything substantial to discuss in the last few weeks." Your manager probably wants calendar time back at least as much as you do.
  - redisman 5y ago
    It’s already bi-weekly. I dont think I’d be rewarded for asking to do it every 6 months
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      I mean there are time ranges between bi-weekly and every 6 months.
- baxtr 5y ago

stakkur 5y ago

I rarely have found 1-1s 'effective', and I've experienced them in four different companies. In stints as a manager, I never have them. First: like all management, their usefulness depends utterly on how effective the manager is. In my experience, most managers just use them to 'chat'. Which is invariably a waste of both our times. Second: Most things I want to talk to a manager about, I can talk about anytime. We just talk as the need arises. In my experience, most managers schedule them 'just so we have available time', which really means "I don't have time unless you're on my calendar". To be an effective manager, I need them to be available, to communicate well, to listen, and to give me feedback and guidance based on what they hear. And that has nothing to do with a regular '1-1' meeting.

AlwaysRock 5y ago
But are most managers available? That is the last word I think of when I think of managers in general. Maybe available in an emergency but what about when I want to ask questions that are relevant to my career/the company/technology but not directly relevant to my/our current task or goal? I wouldnt really expect my manager to drop everything Monday morning to talk to me about that unless I know I had a weekly scheduled time to do so.
- _y5hn 5y ago
  If managers are not available to manage the business, what are they really doing??
  - AlwaysRock 5y ago
    I guess the word manage could mean a lot of things but I don't expect my manager to be able to drop everything else to answer any question I have. I don't honestly believe many people think that is what a manager should do. So when should I ask my questions? If urgent, now. If not, during our 1 on 1.

retrac98 5y ago

Shameless plug, but I made a little app for generating one-on-one questions: https://one-on-ones.app/ https://one-on-ones.app/

ibejoeb 5y ago
Why are you calling a meeting if you don't have an agenda with a well defined intention?

amelius 5y ago

The unreasonable effectiveness of hyperbolic headlines.

cmrdporcupine 5y ago

My last 1:1 was followed by me giving three weeks notice, so I suppose that's effective.

mooreds 5y ago

I'm a big fan of one to ones, but only if both parties are into it. If it is a status report, it should be an email. It should be a place for you to discuss topics that are stymieing you and/or build rapport and trust. I've had direct reports tell me they wanted to have a 1:1 less often, so I know my style of 1:1 doesn't work for everyone. It's a big world. I wrote more about 1:1s here, esp managing them from the perspective of a new developer/employee: https://letterstoanewdeveloper.com/2020/03/16/how-to-manage-one-to-ones/ https://letterstoanewdeveloper.com/2020/03/16/how-to-manage-...

llbeansandrice 5y ago

I think in any endeavor it's important to try out different methods and situations. This post resonated with my hobby as a swing dancer. Lots of folks like to take group lessons where the format is teachers have a lesson plan and more or less spoon-feed it to students. This can involve some or no homework. It can be exercises to work on technique, just a new move to try, etc. I've seen a lot of people overvalue this format of lessons as a way to "get better" at their craft rather than weekly practice sessions with a group or private lessons. This is usually because there's a lot more friction and effort to set up practices and private lessons usually mean _you_ have to come up with what you want to learn. As others have mentioned though, the most important factor is to go into it being earnest and genuine. Group lessons can be done poorly just as 1:1s can be done poorly.

Upgrayyed_U 5y ago

I think 1-on-1s can be "unreasonably effective." In one group I managed, I implemented 1-on-1s and watched year-over-year attrition drop by ~80%. I thought they were so effective that I implemented them in my marriage and saw great (albeit, not directly measurable) increases in marriage satisfaction. If nothing else, my wife enjoyed them enough that she is now the one who insists that we have a "weekly connect." With that said, I think that almost all of their effectiveness comes down to who's leading it. When I first become a manager, I assumed that I would probably suck at it, so I read everything I could on how to be a better manager. That was especially true when it came to leading 1-on-1s. But, when I've worked with managers who just didn't care for them, or didn't care to learn enough about how to do them properly, they were invariably a waste of time. So, despite my own experience, I don't begrudge anyone who thinks 1-on-1s are a waste of time. In many (most?) cases, they are.

NationOfJoe 5y ago
out of curiosity what format do the "weekly connect" take, with your partner?
- Upgrayyed_U 5y ago
  Believe it or not, we use the same PPP format common in agile dev shops. However, instead of "Progress, Plans, and Problems," we use "Victories, Goals, and Help Needed" to give it a slightly more optimistic and personal feel. We also set aside time to discuss big picture items (such as challenges at work, medium and long-term relationship management, housing repairs, etc.). We don't have kids, but if we did, we would definitely use this time to sync up about that. Make sure we both know what activities they have coming up and/or shared understanding of how to love, praise and discipline them.

zestyping 5y ago

Hm, I have mixed feelings about this article. One-on-ones can be highly effective, no doubt. The kinds of practices that the author describes are often helpful. However, I'm not sure the claim applies to all companies and pairings. I've had a wide range of experiences with one-on-ones. I've worked for the company that the author is talking about (full disclosure: I worked with him there, had an excellent and productive time, and then was fired). That company places an extremely heavy emphasis on imposing a specific culture from the top down — not just a culture of how work is done, but pervasive to the extent of personal habits and lifestyle advice. Alternative suggestions about culture are generally not entertained because there is a primary tenet that everyone has to align 100% with the culture for it to work, and it is more efficient for everyone to simply align with exactly what the CEO believes than to make culture decisions as a group. Maybe that's the best way to run a startup when your overriding priority is to execute as fast as possible, but it does have other negative side-effects, which were unfortunate for some of my teammates. Consequently, I am reluctant to generalize from experiences of working there. It is a unique company, and not all working environments and team relationships are going to be like that.

mkl95 5y ago

One-on-ones can be scary due to their potential implications. If one-on-ones are frequent, it's usually a symptom of an immature culture where people are too lazy to write things down, or they don't want to do it to dodge accountability. Personally, I'd rather send people a chunky paragraph with what I want from them and let them go about their day.

jeppester 5y ago

While I was a team manager I really liked the one-on-ones. It was a great way to handle issues while they were still small and manageable. Someone unhappy on a project? I'd do my best to talk to the project mangers and voice the criticism in an impactful way, or possibly reassign the person. Problems at home? I would have never picked that up during our normal interactions. Those meetings gave me the opportunity to help my coworkers with lots of stuff they would otherwise not have mentioned. It was a true pleasure when I was able to help them out, and even when I wasn't, I think it helped a lot that they just had that chance to vent and then get on with stuff. While some one-on-ones might have been a waste of time, I believe that overall they had a very positive impact. Reading the rest of the comments here, I think I might have been in a very favorable position. I started as a developer, and then got promoted at a time where I was the obvious choice. So I always felt like "one of us" during those conversations, and I could very much relate to every work-related challenge.

odshoifsdhfs 5y ago
Why would anyone talk about their problemas at home with their bosses? Is this a US culture thing where work and non-work is blended so much that you mix and match conversations? Both as a worker and a manager, I hardly know about other co-workers lives. Gay or not gay, married with kids, or eternal bachelor, I don't really have (or want) a clue about their private life, much less have a report tell me about his. Just say 'I am dealing with something, need some time off' and there, you got it, but I don't need to know your mother has cancer or you are going through a divorce. You are an adult, take the time and use it as you need.
- thegrasshopper2 5y ago
  I assume the "problems at home" are the ones affecting work performance. It's very difficult to keep productivity up, especially in a creative / complex field like programming, if one's mind is filled with other thoughts. This works especially well if the person doesn't want to take vacation, or cannot, for one reason or another, and can also be in the form you state (I have to deal with stuff, I need a bit of slack at work). Not everybody is comfortable saying even that in a "team" setting.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

codeflo 5y ago

At the risk of sounding cliche, I think the pattern of frequent 1:1s is a technique for managing people instead of leading them. I've experienced this in both roles, and honestly, engineers, no matter how junior, should be able to get by a few weeks without constant management intervention. Maybe weekly 1:1 are so common because there's a glut of nontechnical managers who don't know what else to do with their time? That's not the situation Ben Kuhn describes, but I don't know.

nicoburns 5y ago
Well yes, it’s a management technique, not a leadership technique. It’s about making sure that someone’s happy with how things are going, talking about the things that don’t get talked about day to day, but should be dealt with more frequently than every 6 months at a performance review. We don’t do them weekly, but they’re definitely valuable.
mindwok 5y ago
I’ll offer my own anecdote, which was 1 on 1s with a manager who was really just soliciting feedback about the team, how I was going, what I thought we could do better. Now I don’t have them due to a new job, I miss them dearly.
ianbicking 5y ago
"Should be able to" is doing a lot of work there. Are people able to do this? What supporting structures make that possible? Are you sure all those structures are in place and applicable to a certain person's work? A 1:1 would be a good time to find out if not... Also while any particular 1:1 might be unnecessary, the 1:1s that catch things that might be going bad are IMHO much more important than the ones that aren't strictly necessary. A slow cadence can let problems fester for weeks.
Msw242 5y ago
Weekly 1:1s help me catch personnel issues that, left unattended, would lead to disaffection and attrition. 1:1 is about helping direct reports reach their professional goals when times are good (it's a great time to literally ask what they want), and provide an emotional outlet when things are bad. It helps me find assholes in my organization who need to be fired to maintain the company's health.

zeruch 5y ago

As someone who has led (mostly) remote teams for years, 1:1s are essential, but can't be made cookie cutter. I use a fairly spartan template for the structure of them to start, and let them evolve as different people have different needs. I of course want to make sure that I'm getting what I need out of them (e.g. clarity about what is being done, what has run into an obstacle, the general state of mind of the report, et al) but I also want them to feel engaged in whatever way that builds rapport and makes them feel comfortable discussing sometimes uncomfortable things (I do lean towards 'exception based' meetings rather than rote repetitive agendas). What this means is that my last team got very good at asserting what worked best: one senior person used up almost all of his default allotted hour a week, because they dealt with a lot of escalation/thorny stuff and wanted to soundboard/problem solve in tandem, which I was more than ok with, one was completely "fire and forget" and for weeks at a time 1:1s would rarely last longer than 10-15 minutes as they hammered through various client tasks in volume and I didn't need to bird-dog any of it. It improved comms overall, and I never felt like I was in the dark on major concerns, and they feel/felt heard. Too often 1:1s become time sinks of reflexive behaviors and telegraphed responses, and you should avoid that.

imgabe 5y ago

> One is that grad schools are really dysfunctional. If I, a person whose sole qualification is caring a lot, could help Eve speed up her dissertation by ~25%, then her philosophy department is leaving a lot of productivity on the table. They are dysfunctional from the perspective of grad students. For the advisors (professors) their priorities are: 1. publish 2. get grants Basically nothing else matters in terms of what they're evaluated on. "My grad student finished 25% faster" does pretty much nothing for the advisor's career compared to "My team performed 25% better" for a manager's career.

YEwSdObPQT 5y ago

I honestly think that people on these blog embellish things far too much. Maybe they work better for these people but "unreasonably effective" ... really? I find the ones I've had with most managers is typically split into these things. 1) Small talk about some nonsense for about 1/3 of the duration. 2) Talk about work for a 1/3 of the duration. 3) Moan about something at work. 4) Hope that I haven't screwed something up. Then awkwardly ending the meeting. I dunno they've never worked for me.

r00fus 5y ago

I want to put this out there - for those who think manager 1:1s are not useful, do you have a good mentoring system in your organization? I've found some of the author's points could also apply to a moderately structured mentoring relationship.

Sniffnoy 5y ago

(2019)

ineedasername 5y ago

Why should it be unreasonable? Not everything that is effective is "unreasonable" in that effectiveness. If you find these headlines compelling then I also have one weird trick for making you unreasonably effective at making headlines.

JohnBooty 5y ago

Anecdotal (but then again so is the whole discussion) ...I recently started a job with a company that does regular 1:1's and wow. Been in this industry for 20+ years and I never knew how badly I needed this. Theoretically, obviously, managers can have "open door" policies where you can talk to them any time about any thing. Theoretically, this would suffice. In reality, I have always generally felt awful about bothering managers and taking up their time. Having dedicated 1:1 time is an absolute gamechanger.

scrubs 5y ago

One-on-ones? Let me tell you: just like couples there are a few in which the relationship is unreasonably effective and, of half those cases, they couldn't half-explain why two times in a row. The rest? The std. deviation is shocking. It's all over the place. So there we are: it is and can be awesome. But in too many corporations games -- especially lack of openness -- prevents things from going anywhere. And that, friends, is a darn shame. As I mention time to time on HN the best, short, spot on reads that take this to its core avoiding simplistic conclusions while arriving at doable, realistic things are two: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Productivity-Self-Esteem-Management/dp/1555426123/ref=sr_1_3?crid=ZO664UYB933F&keywords=human+element+book+schutz&qid=1643688438&s=books&sprefix=human+element+book+schutz%2Cstripbooks%2C68&sr=1-3 https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Productivity-Self-Estee... https://www.amazon.com/What-Total-Quality-Control-Japanese/dp/0139524339/ref=sr_1_2?crid=IMR0RCY8NUKE&keywords=total+quality+management+the+japanese+way&qid=1643688458&s=books&sprefix=total+quality+management+the+japanese+way%2Cstripbooks%2C85&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/What-Total-Quality-Control-Japanese/d... In different, self reinforcing ways, there's a confluence: those with self awareness will figure it out nicely summarized by Schutz's Jung quote: "All the greatest and most important problems in life are fundamentally insoluble ... they can never be solved but only outgrown. This 'outgrowing' proves upon further investigation to require a new level of consciousness." This dovetails with one of the central insight's in Human Element: the biggest impediment to teamwork are rigid individuals. The how, why, and what next? Gotta hit the books. Good grief: used copies of the book can come to your front door for less than a Padron cigar or 15 year Laphroaig single. That's value. Off subject but a particularly funny example of can't-change is the Angelica Huston part in Buffalo-66, an absolutely outstanding film.

candyman 5y ago

It's hard to comment on something this general. 1-1 meetings come in so many different contexts. One thing that I think is universal is what questions you ask and how good you are at listening. I offer one idea which is if you want to amplify whatever 1-1 meeting you have take it out of the room/building. Go for a walk, pretend you need to run out to the pharmacy and bring them along, get a coffee or drink. Be creative. I've had 1-1 meetings that were useless (Zoom is generally bad) and some that were transformative. It does take two to tango but you can at least bring your dancing shoes!

ndneighbor 5y ago

I have been pretty unlucky in my career where my prior 1:1s were with managers who viewed the responsibility as a chore rather than a way to provide constructive feedback. As a result, my prior 1:1s were usually always cancelled or were a status update. Now my 1:1s are a little bit like what the OP has here. Really interesting to see the mixed sentiment kinda reflect my attitude as well.

theshrike79 5y ago

1:1's don't always need to have an agenda, they don't need to be interrogations and they don't need to be Very Official. When I had a team, our 1:1s were 99% just a lunch with the two of us. Neither party had a set agenda and there was no expectation on achieving anything than a full stomach and a free lunch for both. (Company paid for 1:1 lunches) It was also considered as work time. Sometimes people opened up, sometimes they didn't. Still I managed to keep track of my team just fine that way.

ulnarkressty 5y ago

From what articles I read, the idea of discussing project work in 1-on-1s is considered more of an anti-pattern. You are supposed to talk more about personal concerns, how they are fitting in, if they need anything etc. What these articles don't really prepare you for is when your report refuses to play ball and they just say they have nothing to talk about, everything is fine and ask for an early lunch. Much like the cynical commenters on this thread. Then you've got managers trying to 'reach these kids' and lots of friction.

ochronus 5y ago

Well, 1:1s are just a tool, not the goal. As any tool they can be totally ineffective or a game-changer. I've written about the potential purpose of 1:1s, as well as things to avoid: https://leadership.garden/the-basics-of-one-on-ones/ https://leadership.garden/the-basics-of-one-on-ones/

ahaferburg 5y ago
Oh hey, I just wanted to post this. I really enjoyed your article, and also the one that lead me to it: https://leadership.garden/the-5-common-mistakes-of-new-engineering-managers/ https://leadership.garden/the-5-common-mistakes-of-new-engin...
- ochronus 5y ago
  awww thanks :) I'm really happy you liked my articles!
goguy 5y ago
Nice article, spotted a small typo. If you don’t, you risk being seen as ~reliable~ and people might feel you’re not there when they need you.
- ochronus 5y ago
  Oof, thanks! Nice catch, fixed

gspr 5y ago

Where this goes wrong is assuming that research (i.e. the thing one does in grad school) is something that is anywhere near as amenable to "time management" as product development or engineering is. The whole point of research is to push into the unknown. It's, in some sense, something that consists nearly only of unknowns and things you cannot really plan for. Sure, there's some general tricks like knowing when to take a step back, knowing when to abandon an endeavour that seems doomed, knowing when you've gone far enough, etc., but it's still nothing like where the author seems to be coming from.

bamboozled 5y ago

I get absolutely nothing out of them, I'd say I hate them...

bamboozled 5y ago
...crazily I had a pretty good one the other day ha

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

It seems this is really an abuse of the whole unreasonable effectiveness meme, there is no way that 1 on 1s are as unreasonably effective as math is, in fact I think in our arguing about it we are hard pressed to agree that they are even reasonably effective! To be unreasonably effective I suppose something should handle problems most of the time and only fail on a few edge cases, in which case if we want to accept one on ones as unreasonably effective I think the next step is to write an article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Falsehoods Programmers commonly believe about Names, or addresses or any of the other suppositions that we are commonly wrong about, because I think our misconceptions about these things are as a general more likely to succeed than not, which is as unreasonably effective as one on ones are.