3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThis +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 agoonce 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.