9 ms·

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'v

by 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.
  - marnett 5y ago
    While it was matter of fact, I do not find it rude or uncalled for. But a call to action that in a one on one it is very much in one’s power to try to steer the format to more productive pastures, and perhaps worth considering if the majority of 1:1s are falling into the unproductive, time-sunk bucket.
    - par 5y ago
      I listed three qualities of 1x1s in my post. Quality #2 and #3 I did not deride as time sunk, those are just things that need to be done. Regarding status updates, whether people want to believe it or not, most ICs feel like giving a status update in a 1x1 is time sunk. Managers don't feel that way. However at no point did I say that are unproductive. I just said they aren't "unreasonably effective".
      - KerrAvon 5y ago
        > whether people want to believe it or not, most ICs feel like giving a status update in a 1x1 is time sunk I can see people believing this for Agile-style standups (I can argue both sides of that one), but something like a scheduled weekly 1:1 should always be valuable sync time for an IC and manager. It also should not be a prison: if you want to skip a week, slack your manager and say "I've nothing, you have anything this week?" or something like that. edited to add: that said, I too have never had the "unreasonably effective" experience, which is your broader point.
  - reidjs 5y ago
    They might mean that it's on both parties to make the 1:1 effective.
    - _y5hn 5y ago
      There's just no way that can happen while there are no overlapping common goals and incentives. Think about that!
- par 5y ago
  What do you suggest i'd look into? I said i've never walked out of a 1x1 and thought it was "unreasonably effective". And when I discussed features of my 1x1s I discussed the majority. Sure there have been occasional nuggets of gold but I'd hardly consider it the primary outcome of majority of 1x1s. Feel like you're attempting to evaluate my 1x1s based on a couple of sentences I wrote in response to a hyperbolic clickbaitey title.
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    Just to state the obvious, the common factor in all your 1x1's have been you. I have no idea about you, so in very general terms to have them be unreasonably effective there needs to be preparation and input from both sides. Even if nothing else happens in the 1x1, it is where you can build personal relations as well. That will happen regardless of how prepared anyone is, but it is not always a positive one.
  - travisjungroth 5y ago
    I don’t mean to evaluate your 1x1s. I was taking you at your own evaluation. I read an article saying how great 1x1s are and how they worked surprisingly well in a new situation. Then I saw your comment that said you disagree and had some descriptions that I would take it to mean you don’t like 1x1s. You also described the broadness of your experience (thousands, countless people, both sides). So, I tried to indirectly (sort of as a joke) point out that in one way your experience is not broad. I’ll say it more explicitly: You are in all of your 1x1s. If you’ve had many 1x1s with many people, we can pretty certainly say it’s something about you that’s the common factor. And no judgement with that! Maybe the common factor is “I don’t like talking through work with one other person at a scheduled cadence”. Totally fine. I have no specific criticisms about you in your 1x1s. Then I kinda launched into my own opinions on 1x1s thinking it might help you or someone else. Also just to clarify my thinking by writing, let’s be real. And based on another comment you left, seems like I was wrong about you disliking them? Then, yeah, don’t worry about it. Keep doing what you’re doing.
- tootie 5y ago
  I prefer to build trust through actions rather than meetings. My 1:1s are mostly chit chat or occasionally sensitive topics because I am already keenly aware of what people are working on and what their bottlenecks are.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    > I am already keenly aware of what people are working on and what their bottlenecks are. How? You would need to be on a team that's basically completely nailed safety in order to have an accurate view into that just from group conversations.
    - tootie 5y ago
      Not sure I follow. I am talking about human bottlenecks, not like API throughput.
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        I know, and normally the understanding is that it's hard to gather that information unless you speak directly to the people experiencing these bottlenecks in a... 1 on 1 conversation.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > There’s a common factor to all of your 1:1s, That they are a timesink used to justify a positions existence, rather than boost productivity? That's correct.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bentcorner 5y ago
  > I think some industries, especially software, would do well to have more of a manager/coach model. I agree. I don't really like admitting failure to my manager. While they're very understanding and easy to work with they're also the person writing my reviews, so there's some tension there. I think I'd be able to open up more with someone not in my management chain. Maybe even someone who is not in the same business unit as me.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Sometimes, often even, there just isn't anything that needs to be said. I feel the same way about standups and 1:1s. Meetings should be treated like investments: by spending the time of the participants, are you going to reap the rewards of time saved in the future? Sometimes there is information that does need to change hands, often there just isn't, and meetings take away considerably more time than they take by breaking people out of work that isn't always easy to pick right back up. Meetings are often just babysitting for managers, keeping them entertained and engaged when they don't have anything better to do (or preventing them from doing the things they need to be doing necessitating hiring more managers who make more meetings and result in less time available per person) So many standups and 1:1s I've been in have just been an exercise in all parties thinking of something to say because it is presumed stuff needs to be said.
  - alisonatwork 5y ago
    It's poor management if you have nothing to say and the 1on1 goes on for the full block anyway. With my reports in the past I'd hold the block open for a long conversation if they needed it, but if they showed up and really didn't have much, then that was it, end of meeting. This is pretty much how all meetings should work, imo. To be fair, I do still think it's worth showing up to the meeting even if you think there's nothing to be said beforehand, since sometimes breaking out of the routine gives you the opening you need to get something off your chest. Sometimes it's possible to get overly caught up in the flow, which can be useful for solving the immediate problem, but might hide other stuff that hasn't been given room to breathe. Meetings like 1on1s and retrospectives are opportunities to take that break.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      A 1 minute meeting can be as bad as an hour meeting if you're interrupting deep work. I don't need to "get something off my chest" every week, most people don't. There is of course value to communication, but managers without better things to do are trying to have it far too frequently. It is also much easier to schedule meetings as needed and keep the frequency of the regularly scheduled ones on as long a period as possible.
- 01100011 5y ago
  If I knew my boss was going to push me for details, it would just eat up more of my time during the week coming up with some believable horseshit to get me through the meeting. 1:1 meetings work when there is a point to them, like when you're in an environment where you need assistance from your manager to get help or resources from your org.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  Agreed. There are a few reasons why this falls over: 1. This process requires trust from both parties. Often this doesn't exist, and manufacturing trust is basically impossible. This requires a happy and healthy workplace, and unfortunately, many people do not work in these. 2. This is an excellent opportunity to extract information from an employee which otherwise wouldn't see the light. I.e. are there issues which should be discussed? Things making them unhappy and unproductive? Is someone bullying them? Are their teammates dropping the ball? Are there problems in their teams I could help with? Are there problems at home? Do they need some time off so they're refreshed and ready to go afterwards? All of these things require, as above, trust. They can be used to great success. Sadly some workplaces formalise these and instead use 1:1s as a way to grade employees. This means the employee is extremely unlikely to expose any kind of weakness or vulnerability. 3. Shooting the shit isn't usually productive (but can build rapport). Likewise, status updates are not necessarily productive when a status email will do. The purpose is to dig deeper. Inasmuch, I have a OneNote dedicated for my 1:1 where I record thoughts and ideas throughout the week. I select a few of these during the 1:1 to dig into. Sometimes nothing eventuates. Sometimes they become larger discussions.
nojito 5y ago
Is discussing performance not a worthwhile endeavor?
- par 5y ago
  Of course it is. Is it "unreasonably effective" or is it just another part of our jobs though?
jklinger410 5y ago
I've always felt like 1:1s, even when not "productive", are good breaks between work and great at building culture and connections. Not every aspect of productivity in a company is about completing a specific task.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
If I’m meeting with someone and it’s all status updates and pleasantries, I try to change it, and, if I can’t, to leave. If you find every meeting you’re in to be useless, consider the common factor. When done properly, 1:1s are powerful. But they require at least one side to be willing to be vulnerable. To talk about problems and weaknesses and needs. That doesn’t come naturally to most of us, and requires practice and intent to become habit.
- heymijo 5y ago
  They require the person with more power to respond positively to any gambit that shows vulnerability. A direct report may try a couple of times to go deeper or be vulnerable but if the manager isn’t receptive that 1:1 just became perfunctory into perpetuity.
  - NAHWheatCracker 5y ago
    This is exactly the issue I've come across. I'm a very candid person and I have no issues saying exactly what's on my mind when I'm comfortable. I've hardly ever seen my managers speak anything but the party line. I can't get comfortable talking about issues with someone who doesn't believe there are problems.
bloodyplonker22 5y ago
If you walk away from a 1:1 and think "wow, that was unreasonably effective", there's probably something wrong with all the time spent when you're not doing a 1:1.
AlwaysRock 5y ago
I've had a lot of great one on ones and a lot of bad ones. They changed towards being great when I started gathering a list of things I wanted to cover or talk about. One on ones where we make small talk about the weekend are useless to me. One on ones where we can talk through a technical topic I don't understand and I know I have at least a half hour of time to do so with someone who knows the topic well? Very helpful. Most of the time its only tangentially related to anything I've been working on.
codingdave 5y ago
I've had both good and bad 1:1s, yet I still find them to be quite effective. Because even when they feel like a waste, they serve a purpose - to maintain the habit of talking to your boss. That way, when something does come up worth talking about, you just do. I have little to say to my current boss most weeks. I just keep my platform running independently, so he gets to trust me to do so and ignore it. It is a good working relationship. Our weekly calls are 5 minutes long, just a quick check in and move on. Until they are not - and then we raise concerns, talk them through, fix them, and go back to the regularly scheduled program. Each individual 1:1 is fairly worthless. But the habit makes all the difference in the long run.
- ozim 5y ago
  I think that is what a lot of people miss also on other things. Daily stand-ups are mostly also not really that useful - but getting team together so they are used to at least 15-20 mins talking to each other I believe has benefits anyway. The same with writing unit tests, I see my team is writing too many useless unit tests. But then if we have habit of writing tests - important tests will get written as well. If we would skip tests and say that we write only "important ones" then I saw that no tests were written in period where we had such an approach.
  - jraph 5y ago
    > Daily stand-ups are mostly also not really that useful This is my feeling. Wouldn't a weekly meeting where we don't need to stand up be sufficient for this? I guess it depends on the people and how they function. And how the team communicates throughout the day or the week.
    - Wiseacre 5y ago
      My team's daily stand up is incredibly useful. If we didn't find them useful we would have no problem moving them to 2 or 3 times a week. YMMV but as a team lead I hate taking up more of people's time than necessary.
    - ozim 5y ago
jollybean 5y ago
"Literally never have I walked out of a 1x1 and thought "wow that was unreasonably effective"." ? Nobody would ever suggest that you should feel that way, or that an individual 1x1 would be singularly effective. When you go Heli-skiing, you ski with a partner, and you're constantly shouting out to your partner to let the know where you are. Primarily, you do this because of the various kinds of danger, especially avalanches. That those things are unlikely does not abnegate the need for communication. One thing never made obvious in films or popular culture is the amount of communication in the military. 1/2 of the game is communicating. It's information, which is the basis of coordination, which is the basis of management of force. A 'radio' is as important as one's 'rifle'. A rifle can defend you against one person; a radio connects you with the totality of the power of the system you are in. The point is it's a form of systematic communication which I would overwhelmingly support. Especially the bit about 'open ended' - my gosh there are so many details lost in the normal operative aspects it's almost scary. 'Status Updates' are generally not meaningless, it's one of the means that people use to coordinate, though they can be cumbersome. Wasted time in meetings is definitely endemic, at the same time, a lot of complaint is sometimes rooted in the lack of understanding of the nature of one unit within the larger system. As developers, we feel that our 'code' is our productivity, but it's like the 'rifle' - it's just the obvious thing. The 'radio' is the other key thing. Also - the 'performance' bits are probably overdone. It's extremely hard to change habits. You can definitely get people to do things like adjust to a coding style, but it gets hard past that. I'm more of the view of just trying to leverage what people are already good at because most people are good at 'something'. But merely as 'coordination', these things are important. Especially with direct managers, there needs to be fairly consistent communication, which is different FYI from large team meetings of which there are probably too many.
- par 5y ago
  ok but that was literally the title of the blog post so someone did suggest it?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    Running is an effective way of getting in shape. No single 5K is going to get you in shape. 1-on-1's are very effective. No single 1-on-1 is going to feel particularly effective.
nostrademons 5y ago
The point of 1:1s is largely about building trust. It's very rare that anything seriously consequential gets discussed in a 1:1; arguably, if it gets to that point, you're doing something wrong. Rather, 1:1s are about thousands of little course corrections, pointing out something small that should happen, watching it happen, and then building trust that further communication will be well-received. It's so you don't get blindsided out of nowhere with "I'm leaving for Facebook now" or "Sorry, your project is canceled" or "We're not happy with how things are going, so you're now on a PIP." It's the same reason to say "Good morning" and "I love you" to your spouse every day and buy them flowers - by itself, it's inconsequential, but if you don't you'll likely hear "I'm leaving you for your best friend" in a decade or two. Same reason, for that matter, that people are looking at America now and going "What the hell happened?" Trust and emotions are real things too.
lacker 5y ago
A 1x1 is really what you make of it. When you are the manager, you have a lot of latitude for how a 1x1 operates. If you find that your 1x1s are rarely useful, change how you run them. In particular, you mention "time-sucking status updates". In my experience, often someone thinks you want a status report, but from your point of view you are sufficiently aware of the project status already. As the manager, you can just politely suggest that you are already happy with the project status, and move on to other topics. Some of the most effective 1x1s are either when the manager has a tough problem to solve, or the report has a tough problem to solve, and the 1x1 can be some focused time to detect these problems and resolve them. This can be anywhere from a technical issue that this report has some expertise in, or a social issue like "I feel like it's been taking a while to reach an agreement among the team on topic X, how do you think we can speed that up?" Or perhaps you notice that a report seems frustrated on a project, but you aren't quite sure why, and you can use the 1:1 to draw that out. I find it helpful to take notes ahead of time, with some ideas for myself for what I might be able to accomplish with a 1:1. Otherwise you run the risk of not really knowing what to say, your report doesn't really have anything urgent in mind either, and you fill up the 1:1 time with chit chat. I really like this blog post on how to run effective 1:1s: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-the-disaster/ https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t... Running an effective 1:1 is an important managerial skill, it's something you can practice and improve at over time, and it's worth working at it since there is so much you can accomplish through 1:1s and you're likely spending a lot of time as a manager in them.
asdff 5y ago
If its just you reporting then its going to feel like a waste of time and suck. The best 1x1s though are problem solving related where you both are sitting there and coming up with a gameplan. That sort of meeting doesn't go well over email because there's often a lot of things you come up with and address that would take 40 emails or slack messages to do the same.
UnpossibleJim 5y ago
Yes and no. I've had one on ones tied to OKR's that were completely pointless and a waste of time. Corp speak nonsense that kept me and the people I worked with away from our work and was really just shuffling papers in middle management. I've also had one on ones with small team leaders, who knew their people and knew their jobs and understood their motivations that were SUPER helpful. Even if it meant preparing those people to leave the company. That's the difference between a good manager and a bad manager. That's also why I like working in small teams. We gel faster, work closer together and get to know our manager (even though that manager is me, right now). I've tried to learn from my former managers and bring that to my team of a few people and try to shield them from as much corporate BS that I can. That isn't their job. They look at code (as do I, when I can), and I go to meetings and deal with that. And when members of my team seem interested in other things (and mention it in one on ones), I try to help them with that. That's what they're supposed to be for. Not just poor performance... hopefully. Maybe I've just gotten lucky.
balaji1 5y ago
I don't have much I want to bring up to my manager in 1:1s but I still prefer to have them as a manager myself. So 1:1s definitely never felt unreasonably effective. Never thought to optimize it tho. Anything of value or importance has to be written down, it is a short objective statement, usually a few lines. And then pursuing those over time (1 to several weeks or months) and having accountability check-ins. This would make 1:1s very formal and 1:1s usually seem better as casual conversations.
xtracto 5y ago
> , 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". You should really listen to the Manager Toolbox podcast on 1:1s (there's 3 segments, all of them very worth the time): https://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/the-single-most-effective-management-tool-part-1 https://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/the-single-most-effect... Basically, that "time sucking" activity with trivial conversation is actually what helps people build a [professional] relationship with their bosses/reportees. From my experience, it is an error to use the 1:1 to check every week how work is going. There's a lot of other channels for that (including the dreaded daily standup). As I mentioned to my reportees: "One on Ones are to talk about anything you want, particularly, company/office stuff that is not part of your day to day job. If you want to tell me about someone that smells bad, this is the place, or about the water dispenser that never works, etc". Of course if someone wants to tell talk to you about work, it is also great. Specially on remote-work scenarios, having weekly "how are you" calls is important to pull the members of a team closer to the team.
- blablabla123 5y ago
  As an engineer I think I can confirm this. The best work relationships were where it was like that. When it was like that, formally scheduled 1:1s were hardly needed anyway. On the flip-side if you really only talk about the stuff that bothers you - and there's even a push towards that - that's the recipe to make such meetings as unenjoyable and intense as possible. Considering that happens with all team members the effect on the team as a whole cannot be too good. Sometimes also people tend to underestimate the time and effort to successfully solve a certain class of difficult problems. Most people are happy when one major problem gets solved eventually instead of a lot but in a quickfix kind of way.
  - xtracto 5y ago
    > if you really only talk about the stuff that bothers you - and there's even a push towards that - that's the recipe to make such meetings as unenjoyable and intense as possible. Good point, although as a manager I take that (listening to what is bothering my employees) as my job. That's literally what the company is paying me to do. So I will be happy to listen to their problems and see how I can help them solve them.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
legerdemain 5y ago
Concur that one-on-ones with my lead are very rarely any use to me. And I actively enjoy getting to know my teammates and leads! You could ask for suggestions how to do your job. But your job is your job, not your lead's. The best they can do is offer some heuristics. Ultimately, there should be some planning or engineering review process where you work, and a one-on-one with your lead is a crappy substitute. You could ask your lead to share confidential information about upcoming changes at the company, such as a senior departure or a team reorg. This only happens because senior leadership has asked your lead to share this info one on one, not because you have an intimate relationship of trust. A one-on-one is sometimes useful to me when I'm the lead, because my direct reports might tell me something they aren't comfortable bringing up in stand-up: a deadline is slipping, they're unhappy with a teammate, etc. It's very useful for me to know this stuff. But the action I take as a result very rarely benefits that employee directly. It's just me collecting intel.
antman 5y ago
Perhaps you should reconsider the way you do them? Even by randomness I consider it virtually impossible not to have one meaningful discission after thousands of discissions. For me 1x1 are a very important part of running operations and mitigating churn but took me years to optimize them.
thorwawayrus53 5y ago
1:1's are mostly a way constantly remind who has power. It favors managers not IC's.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by par 5y ago

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.
- marnett 5y ago
  While it was matter of fact, I do not find it rude or uncalled for. But a call to action that in a one on one it is very much in one’s power to try to steer the format to more productive pastures, and perhaps worth considering if the majority of 1:1s are falling into the unproductive, time-sunk bucket.
  - par 5y ago
    I listed three qualities of 1x1s in my post. Quality #2 and #3 I did not deride as time sunk, those are just things that need to be done. Regarding status updates, whether people want to believe it or not, most ICs feel like giving a status update in a 1x1 is time sunk. Managers don't feel that way. However at no point did I say that are unproductive. I just said they aren't "unreasonably effective".
    - KerrAvon 5y ago
      > whether people want to believe it or not, most ICs feel like giving a status update in a 1x1 is time sunk I can see people believing this for Agile-style standups (I can argue both sides of that one), but something like a scheduled weekly 1:1 should always be valuable sync time for an IC and manager. It also should not be a prison: if you want to skip a week, slack your manager and say "I've nothing, you have anything this week?" or something like that. edited to add: that said, I too have never had the "unreasonably effective" experience, which is your broader point.
- reidjs 5y ago
  They might mean that it's on both parties to make the 1:1 effective.
  - _y5hn 5y ago
    There's just no way that can happen while there are no overlapping common goals and incentives. Think about that!
par 5y ago
What do you suggest i'd look into? I said i've never walked out of a 1x1 and thought it was "unreasonably effective". And when I discussed features of my 1x1s I discussed the majority. Sure there have been occasional nuggets of gold but I'd hardly consider it the primary outcome of majority of 1x1s. Feel like you're attempting to evaluate my 1x1s based on a couple of sentences I wrote in response to a hyperbolic clickbaitey title.
- kmonsen 5y ago
  Just to state the obvious, the common factor in all your 1x1's have been you. I have no idea about you, so in very general terms to have them be unreasonably effective there needs to be preparation and input from both sides. Even if nothing else happens in the 1x1, it is where you can build personal relations as well. That will happen regardless of how prepared anyone is, but it is not always a positive one.
- travisjungroth 5y ago
  I don’t mean to evaluate your 1x1s. I was taking you at your own evaluation. I read an article saying how great 1x1s are and how they worked surprisingly well in a new situation. Then I saw your comment that said you disagree and had some descriptions that I would take it to mean you don’t like 1x1s. You also described the broadness of your experience (thousands, countless people, both sides). So, I tried to indirectly (sort of as a joke) point out that in one way your experience is not broad. I’ll say it more explicitly: You are in all of your 1x1s. If you’ve had many 1x1s with many people, we can pretty certainly say it’s something about you that’s the common factor. And no judgement with that! Maybe the common factor is “I don’t like talking through work with one other person at a scheduled cadence”. Totally fine. I have no specific criticisms about you in your 1x1s. Then I kinda launched into my own opinions on 1x1s thinking it might help you or someone else. Also just to clarify my thinking by writing, let’s be real. And based on another comment you left, seems like I was wrong about you disliking them? Then, yeah, don’t worry about it. Keep doing what you’re doing.
tootie 5y ago
I prefer to build trust through actions rather than meetings. My 1:1s are mostly chit chat or occasionally sensitive topics because I am already keenly aware of what people are working on and what their bottlenecks are.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  > I am already keenly aware of what people are working on and what their bottlenecks are. How? You would need to be on a team that's basically completely nailed safety in order to have an accurate view into that just from group conversations.
  - tootie 5y ago
    Not sure I follow. I am talking about human bottlenecks, not like API throughput.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      I know, and normally the understanding is that it's hard to gather that information unless you speak directly to the people experiencing these bottlenecks in a... 1 on 1 conversation.
Supermancho 5y ago
> There’s a common factor to all of your 1:1s, That they are a timesink used to justify a positions existence, rather than boost productivity? That's correct.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bentcorner 5y ago
> I think some industries, especially software, would do well to have more of a manager/coach model. I agree. I don't really like admitting failure to my manager. While they're very understanding and easy to work with they're also the person writing my reviews, so there's some tension there. I think I'd be able to open up more with someone not in my management chain. Maybe even someone who is not in the same business unit as me.
colechristensen 5y ago
Sometimes, often even, there just isn't anything that needs to be said. I feel the same way about standups and 1:1s. Meetings should be treated like investments: by spending the time of the participants, are you going to reap the rewards of time saved in the future? Sometimes there is information that does need to change hands, often there just isn't, and meetings take away considerably more time than they take by breaking people out of work that isn't always easy to pick right back up. Meetings are often just babysitting for managers, keeping them entertained and engaged when they don't have anything better to do (or preventing them from doing the things they need to be doing necessitating hiring more managers who make more meetings and result in less time available per person) So many standups and 1:1s I've been in have just been an exercise in all parties thinking of something to say because it is presumed stuff needs to be said.
- alisonatwork 5y ago
  It's poor management if you have nothing to say and the 1on1 goes on for the full block anyway. With my reports in the past I'd hold the block open for a long conversation if they needed it, but if they showed up and really didn't have much, then that was it, end of meeting. This is pretty much how all meetings should work, imo. To be fair, I do still think it's worth showing up to the meeting even if you think there's nothing to be said beforehand, since sometimes breaking out of the routine gives you the opening you need to get something off your chest. Sometimes it's possible to get overly caught up in the flow, which can be useful for solving the immediate problem, but might hide other stuff that hasn't been given room to breathe. Meetings like 1on1s and retrospectives are opportunities to take that break.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    A 1 minute meeting can be as bad as an hour meeting if you're interrupting deep work. I don't need to "get something off my chest" every week, most people don't. There is of course value to communication, but managers without better things to do are trying to have it far too frequently. It is also much easier to schedule meetings as needed and keep the frequency of the regularly scheduled ones on as long a period as possible.
01100011 5y ago
If I knew my boss was going to push me for details, it would just eat up more of my time during the week coming up with some believable horseshit to get me through the meeting. 1:1 meetings work when there is a point to them, like when you're in an environment where you need assistance from your manager to get help or resources from your org.
Gareth321 5y ago
Agreed. There are a few reasons why this falls over: 1. This process requires trust from both parties. Often this doesn't exist, and manufacturing trust is basically impossible. This requires a happy and healthy workplace, and unfortunately, many people do not work in these. 2. This is an excellent opportunity to extract information from an employee which otherwise wouldn't see the light. I.e. are there issues which should be discussed? Things making them unhappy and unproductive? Is someone bullying them? Are their teammates dropping the ball? Are there problems in their teams I could help with? Are there problems at home? Do they need some time off so they're refreshed and ready to go afterwards? All of these things require, as above, trust. They can be used to great success. Sadly some workplaces formalise these and instead use 1:1s as a way to grade employees. This means the employee is extremely unlikely to expose any kind of weakness or vulnerability. 3. Shooting the shit isn't usually productive (but can build rapport). Likewise, status updates are not necessarily productive when a status email will do. The purpose is to dig deeper. Inasmuch, I have a OneNote dedicated for my 1:1 where I record thoughts and ideas throughout the week. I select a few of these during the 1:1 to dig into. Sometimes nothing eventuates. Sometimes they become larger discussions.

nojito 5y ago

Is discussing performance not a worthwhile endeavor?

par 5y ago
Of course it is. Is it "unreasonably effective" or is it just another part of our jobs though?

jklinger410 5y ago

I've always felt like 1:1s, even when not "productive", are good breaks between work and great at building culture and connections. Not every aspect of productivity in a company is about completing a specific task.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

If I’m meeting with someone and it’s all status updates and pleasantries, I try to change it, and, if I can’t, to leave. If you find every meeting you’re in to be useless, consider the common factor. When done properly, 1:1s are powerful. But they require at least one side to be willing to be vulnerable. To talk about problems and weaknesses and needs. That doesn’t come naturally to most of us, and requires practice and intent to become habit.

heymijo 5y ago
They require the person with more power to respond positively to any gambit that shows vulnerability. A direct report may try a couple of times to go deeper or be vulnerable but if the manager isn’t receptive that 1:1 just became perfunctory into perpetuity.
- NAHWheatCracker 5y ago
  This is exactly the issue I've come across. I'm a very candid person and I have no issues saying exactly what's on my mind when I'm comfortable. I've hardly ever seen my managers speak anything but the party line. I can't get comfortable talking about issues with someone who doesn't believe there are problems.

bloodyplonker22 5y ago

If you walk away from a 1:1 and think "wow, that was unreasonably effective", there's probably something wrong with all the time spent when you're not doing a 1:1.

AlwaysRock 5y ago

I've had a lot of great one on ones and a lot of bad ones. They changed towards being great when I started gathering a list of things I wanted to cover or talk about. One on ones where we make small talk about the weekend are useless to me. One on ones where we can talk through a technical topic I don't understand and I know I have at least a half hour of time to do so with someone who knows the topic well? Very helpful. Most of the time its only tangentially related to anything I've been working on.

codingdave 5y ago

I've had both good and bad 1:1s, yet I still find them to be quite effective. Because even when they feel like a waste, they serve a purpose - to maintain the habit of talking to your boss. That way, when something does come up worth talking about, you just do. I have little to say to my current boss most weeks. I just keep my platform running independently, so he gets to trust me to do so and ignore it. It is a good working relationship. Our weekly calls are 5 minutes long, just a quick check in and move on. Until they are not - and then we raise concerns, talk them through, fix them, and go back to the regularly scheduled program. Each individual 1:1 is fairly worthless. But the habit makes all the difference in the long run.

ozim 5y ago
I think that is what a lot of people miss also on other things. Daily stand-ups are mostly also not really that useful - but getting team together so they are used to at least 15-20 mins talking to each other I believe has benefits anyway. The same with writing unit tests, I see my team is writing too many useless unit tests. But then if we have habit of writing tests - important tests will get written as well. If we would skip tests and say that we write only "important ones" then I saw that no tests were written in period where we had such an approach.
- jraph 5y ago
  > Daily stand-ups are mostly also not really that useful This is my feeling. Wouldn't a weekly meeting where we don't need to stand up be sufficient for this? I guess it depends on the people and how they function. And how the team communicates throughout the day or the week.
  - Wiseacre 5y ago
    My team's daily stand up is incredibly useful. If we didn't find them useful we would have no problem moving them to 2 or 3 times a week. YMMV but as a team lead I hate taking up more of people's time than necessary.
  - ozim 5y ago

jollybean 5y ago

"Literally never have I walked out of a 1x1 and thought "wow that was unreasonably effective"." ? Nobody would ever suggest that you should feel that way, or that an individual 1x1 would be singularly effective. When you go Heli-skiing, you ski with a partner, and you're constantly shouting out to your partner to let the know where you are. Primarily, you do this because of the various kinds of danger, especially avalanches. That those things are unlikely does not abnegate the need for communication. One thing never made obvious in films or popular culture is the amount of communication in the military. 1/2 of the game is communicating. It's information, which is the basis of coordination, which is the basis of management of force. A 'radio' is as important as one's 'rifle'. A rifle can defend you against one person; a radio connects you with the totality of the power of the system you are in. The point is it's a form of systematic communication which I would overwhelmingly support. Especially the bit about 'open ended' - my gosh there are so many details lost in the normal operative aspects it's almost scary. 'Status Updates' are generally not meaningless, it's one of the means that people use to coordinate, though they can be cumbersome. Wasted time in meetings is definitely endemic, at the same time, a lot of complaint is sometimes rooted in the lack of understanding of the nature of one unit within the larger system. As developers, we feel that our 'code' is our productivity, but it's like the 'rifle' - it's just the obvious thing. The 'radio' is the other key thing. Also - the 'performance' bits are probably overdone. It's extremely hard to change habits. You can definitely get people to do things like adjust to a coding style, but it gets hard past that. I'm more of the view of just trying to leverage what people are already good at because most people are good at 'something'. But merely as 'coordination', these things are important. Especially with direct managers, there needs to be fairly consistent communication, which is different FYI from large team meetings of which there are probably too many.

par 5y ago
ok but that was literally the title of the blog post so someone did suggest it?
- jollybean 5y ago
  Running is an effective way of getting in shape. No single 5K is going to get you in shape. 1-on-1's are very effective. No single 1-on-1 is going to feel particularly effective.

nostrademons 5y ago

The point of 1:1s is largely about building trust. It's very rare that anything seriously consequential gets discussed in a 1:1; arguably, if it gets to that point, you're doing something wrong. Rather, 1:1s are about thousands of little course corrections, pointing out something small that should happen, watching it happen, and then building trust that further communication will be well-received. It's so you don't get blindsided out of nowhere with "I'm leaving for Facebook now" or "Sorry, your project is canceled" or "We're not happy with how things are going, so you're now on a PIP." It's the same reason to say "Good morning" and "I love you" to your spouse every day and buy them flowers - by itself, it's inconsequential, but if you don't you'll likely hear "I'm leaving you for your best friend" in a decade or two. Same reason, for that matter, that people are looking at America now and going "What the hell happened?" Trust and emotions are real things too.

lacker 5y ago

A 1x1 is really what you make of it. When you are the manager, you have a lot of latitude for how a 1x1 operates. If you find that your 1x1s are rarely useful, change how you run them. In particular, you mention "time-sucking status updates". In my experience, often someone thinks you want a status report, but from your point of view you are sufficiently aware of the project status already. As the manager, you can just politely suggest that you are already happy with the project status, and move on to other topics. Some of the most effective 1x1s are either when the manager has a tough problem to solve, or the report has a tough problem to solve, and the 1x1 can be some focused time to detect these problems and resolve them. This can be anywhere from a technical issue that this report has some expertise in, or a social issue like "I feel like it's been taking a while to reach an agreement among the team on topic X, how do you think we can speed that up?" Or perhaps you notice that a report seems frustrated on a project, but you aren't quite sure why, and you can use the 1:1 to draw that out. I find it helpful to take notes ahead of time, with some ideas for myself for what I might be able to accomplish with a 1:1. Otherwise you run the risk of not really knowing what to say, your report doesn't really have anything urgent in mind either, and you fill up the 1:1 time with chit chat. I really like this blog post on how to run effective 1:1s: https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-the-disaster/ https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t... Running an effective 1:1 is an important managerial skill, it's something you can practice and improve at over time, and it's worth working at it since there is so much you can accomplish through 1:1s and you're likely spending a lot of time as a manager in them.

asdff 5y ago

If its just you reporting then its going to feel like a waste of time and suck. The best 1x1s though are problem solving related where you both are sitting there and coming up with a gameplan. That sort of meeting doesn't go well over email because there's often a lot of things you come up with and address that would take 40 emails or slack messages to do the same.

UnpossibleJim 5y ago

Yes and no. I've had one on ones tied to OKR's that were completely pointless and a waste of time. Corp speak nonsense that kept me and the people I worked with away from our work and was really just shuffling papers in middle management. I've also had one on ones with small team leaders, who knew their people and knew their jobs and understood their motivations that were SUPER helpful. Even if it meant preparing those people to leave the company. That's the difference between a good manager and a bad manager. That's also why I like working in small teams. We gel faster, work closer together and get to know our manager (even though that manager is me, right now). I've tried to learn from my former managers and bring that to my team of a few people and try to shield them from as much corporate BS that I can. That isn't their job. They look at code (as do I, when I can), and I go to meetings and deal with that. And when members of my team seem interested in other things (and mention it in one on ones), I try to help them with that. That's what they're supposed to be for. Not just poor performance... hopefully. Maybe I've just gotten lucky.

balaji1 5y ago

I don't have much I want to bring up to my manager in 1:1s but I still prefer to have them as a manager myself. So 1:1s definitely never felt unreasonably effective. Never thought to optimize it tho. Anything of value or importance has to be written down, it is a short objective statement, usually a few lines. And then pursuing those over time (1 to several weeks or months) and having accountability check-ins. This would make 1:1s very formal and 1:1s usually seem better as casual conversations.

xtracto 5y ago

> , 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". You should really listen to the Manager Toolbox podcast on 1:1s (there's 3 segments, all of them very worth the time): https://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/the-single-most-effective-management-tool-part-1 https://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/the-single-most-effect... Basically, that "time sucking" activity with trivial conversation is actually what helps people build a [professional] relationship with their bosses/reportees. From my experience, it is an error to use the 1:1 to check every week how work is going. There's a lot of other channels for that (including the dreaded daily standup). As I mentioned to my reportees: "One on Ones are to talk about anything you want, particularly, company/office stuff that is not part of your day to day job. If you want to tell me about someone that smells bad, this is the place, or about the water dispenser that never works, etc". Of course if someone wants to tell talk to you about work, it is also great. Specially on remote-work scenarios, having weekly "how are you" calls is important to pull the members of a team closer to the team.

blablabla123 5y ago
As an engineer I think I can confirm this. The best work relationships were where it was like that. When it was like that, formally scheduled 1:1s were hardly needed anyway. On the flip-side if you really only talk about the stuff that bothers you - and there's even a push towards that - that's the recipe to make such meetings as unenjoyable and intense as possible. Considering that happens with all team members the effect on the team as a whole cannot be too good. Sometimes also people tend to underestimate the time and effort to successfully solve a certain class of difficult problems. Most people are happy when one major problem gets solved eventually instead of a lot but in a quickfix kind of way.
- xtracto 5y ago
  > if you really only talk about the stuff that bothers you - and there's even a push towards that - that's the recipe to make such meetings as unenjoyable and intense as possible. Good point, although as a manager I take that (listening to what is bothering my employees) as my job. That's literally what the company is paying me to do. So I will be happy to listen to their problems and see how I can help them solve them.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

legerdemain 5y ago

Concur that one-on-ones with my lead are very rarely any use to me. And I actively enjoy getting to know my teammates and leads! You could ask for suggestions how to do your job. But your job is your job, not your lead's. The best they can do is offer some heuristics. Ultimately, there should be some planning or engineering review process where you work, and a one-on-one with your lead is a crappy substitute. You could ask your lead to share confidential information about upcoming changes at the company, such as a senior departure or a team reorg. This only happens because senior leadership has asked your lead to share this info one on one, not because you have an intimate relationship of trust. A one-on-one is sometimes useful to me when I'm the lead, because my direct reports might tell me something they aren't comfortable bringing up in stand-up: a deadline is slipping, they're unhappy with a teammate, etc. It's very useful for me to know this stuff. But the action I take as a result very rarely benefits that employee directly. It's just me collecting intel.

antman 5y ago

Perhaps you should reconsider the way you do them? Even by randomness I consider it virtually impossible not to have one meaningful discission after thousands of discissions. For me 1x1 are a very important part of running operations and mitigating churn but took me years to optimize them.

thorwawayrus53 5y ago

1:1's are mostly a way constantly remind who has power. It favors managers not IC's.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]