4 ms·

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 rep

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
There are some conversations I think are better exchanged more thoughtfully and that takes time. Schedule of people with many direct reports is just overwhelming and it's too easy to naturally avoid certain discussions unless they are deliberately scheduled. IMO 1-1 is "at least" meeting than "at most" meeting.
- lifeplusplus 5y ago
  then just schedule a meeting, in one year i had like 3 times i had something to say that was employment related and other 50 1-1s were waste of my time
  - tomcat27 5y ago
    then you are not meeting the company's baseline number of thoughtful conversations.
    - lifeplusplus 5y ago
      exactly, places hard on these kinds of things are just red flags indicating that here we value obedience over creativity, being process driven to cover myself than being pragmatic and do what is sensible.
      - tomcat27 5y ago
        I see your point and I get you, but power structure in orgs where the more process is at discretion, the org is systemically skewed against the weaker person. Ex: Professor-PhD student dynamics at Universities. 50% of university students are estimated to be having mental-health problems, PhD graduates consistently report their PhD years were the worst of their lives and I think its hard to disagree skewed power structures have something to do with it at least to some people.

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

There are some conversations I think are better exchanged more thoughtfully and that takes time. Schedule of people with many direct reports is just overwhelming and it's too easy to naturally avoid certain discussions unless they are deliberately scheduled. IMO 1-1 is "at least" meeting than "at most" meeting.

lifeplusplus 5y ago
then just schedule a meeting, in one year i had like 3 times i had something to say that was employment related and other 50 1-1s were waste of my time
- tomcat27 5y ago
  then you are not meeting the company's baseline number of thoughtful conversations.
  - lifeplusplus 5y ago
    exactly, places hard on these kinds of things are just red flags indicating that here we value obedience over creativity, being process driven to cover myself than being pragmatic and do what is sensible.
    - tomcat27 5y ago
      I see your point and I get you, but power structure in orgs where the more process is at discretion, the org is systemically skewed against the weaker person. Ex: Professor-PhD student dynamics at Universities. 50% of university students are estimated to be having mental-health problems, PhD graduates consistently report their PhD years were the worst of their lives and I think its hard to disagree skewed power structures have something to do with it at least to some people.