8 ms·

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 re

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!
    - mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
      Does a situation like this actually exist? Managers succeed when their teams perform well, which is more easily accomplished when the people reporting to them who compose those teams perform well.
      - aerostable_slug 5y ago
        Many people who (until recently) perused Reddit's /r/antiwork will tell you that all managers are out to get you and all business hate all of their employees. They will do this with a straight face and accuse you of every kind of evil under the sun if you cite counterexamples. It is irrelevant to them that there are managers and even Corporations (ew! boo hiss!) that do not, in fact, act that way. They really hate it when anyone points out that treating employees well can result in greater profits, not fewer.
      - _y5hn 5y ago
        Is that how it's like out there? Managers having responsibility and not just the workers? Maybe I just never experienced that..
        catlifeonmars 5y ago
        I’ve experienced both types of organizations. In my current workplace, managerial performance evaluation is very much tied to team deliverables. I highly encourage you to keep looking, if this is something you care about.
- jcrash 5y ago
  I disagree. The original commenter obviously does not enjoy 1:1s, and has said they believe the majority of them, even the ones where they have been the manager (!), have been useless. I think that is unusual. It may very well be that the original commenter should look into changing how they handle and respond to 1:1s. It might help them.
  - par 5y ago
    You're quite wrong jcrash. I actually love 1x1s, love getting to know my team, and spend a ton of time developing trust, solving problems, etc in 1x1. At no point have I thought "WOW this is unreasonably effective! Instead I think, "hey here's me doing my job that i love, in a reasonably effective way."
    - maxbond 5y ago
      If this is how you feel, then the way you phrased your comment is pretty confusing. You said you strongly disagreed with the author's premise, described the majority of them as "time sucking", and finish off by saying you've never walked away thinking they were unreasonably effective - which, given the tone of the previous statements, reads like an invitation to infer that you often feel the opposite way. I don't have any sort of dog in this race, but I read and reread your comment, and each time took the impression that you think little of 1x1s. Having read your other comments in the thread, I think I see better that you were disagreeing with the _broadness_ of the author's claim, not the claim itself, but I can understand other commenter's reactions.
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      Are you sure you have your real stance on them not the reactionary one? The first thing you had to say to describe them originally was they were time sucking status updates and ended with out of 1000s you literally never walked out of a single one thinking it was unreasonably effective. The warmest words were that reviewing process and performance was common. When I look back and think of my most time sucking god awful unproductive meeting series there was a "stand up" (wasn't really) meeting for a couple years at one company and even then I remember walking away from a handful thinking "that was a really super crazy productive meeting". I mean if it's your well established thoughts then it's definitely your well established thoughts, regardless what anyone else thinks you thought, but I don't think jcash was the only one caught of guard with how/what you were countering the author on.
- zepolen 5y ago
  It's not rude and uncalled for to point out a very valid point. Your comment on the other hand is completely rude and uncalled for as it gives zero value and the only thing we learn is that 'it hurt your feelings', probably because you too dislike 1:1s
- par 5y ago
  lol, agree. It was rude!
  - matt89 5y ago
    I don't really think it was rude. However reading this and your other comments I can see that the way you are communicating (at least in this HN thread) is quite confusing. Your main comment could be read in a way that you almost hate 1on1's and find them completely unnecessary. But in another comment you said that it's not true - you actually love them. Now in here you say "lol" and that it was rude, so which is it? are you laughing at this comment or feeling offended? I don't think it's necessarily rude to point out something that is obvious, without judging. You are the common factor of the 1-on-1's you took part in. They could suck because of the whole organization, or because of the people that talked with you, but it's also possible it's something related to your character or skillset. I think it's worth looking into this and a reasonable feedback, not a "rude" one.
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.

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!
  - mandelbrotwurst 5y ago
    Does a situation like this actually exist? Managers succeed when their teams perform well, which is more easily accomplished when the people reporting to them who compose those teams perform well.
    - aerostable_slug 5y ago
      Many people who (until recently) perused Reddit's /r/antiwork will tell you that all managers are out to get you and all business hate all of their employees. They will do this with a straight face and accuse you of every kind of evil under the sun if you cite counterexamples. It is irrelevant to them that there are managers and even Corporations (ew! boo hiss!) that do not, in fact, act that way. They really hate it when anyone points out that treating employees well can result in greater profits, not fewer.
    - _y5hn 5y ago
      Is that how it's like out there? Managers having responsibility and not just the workers? Maybe I just never experienced that..
      - catlifeonmars 5y ago
        I’ve experienced both types of organizations. In my current workplace, managerial performance evaluation is very much tied to team deliverables. I highly encourage you to keep looking, if this is something you care about.
jcrash 5y ago
I disagree. The original commenter obviously does not enjoy 1:1s, and has said they believe the majority of them, even the ones where they have been the manager (!), have been useless. I think that is unusual. It may very well be that the original commenter should look into changing how they handle and respond to 1:1s. It might help them.
- par 5y ago
  You're quite wrong jcrash. I actually love 1x1s, love getting to know my team, and spend a ton of time developing trust, solving problems, etc in 1x1. At no point have I thought "WOW this is unreasonably effective! Instead I think, "hey here's me doing my job that i love, in a reasonably effective way."
  - maxbond 5y ago
    If this is how you feel, then the way you phrased your comment is pretty confusing. You said you strongly disagreed with the author's premise, described the majority of them as "time sucking", and finish off by saying you've never walked away thinking they were unreasonably effective - which, given the tone of the previous statements, reads like an invitation to infer that you often feel the opposite way. I don't have any sort of dog in this race, but I read and reread your comment, and each time took the impression that you think little of 1x1s. Having read your other comments in the thread, I think I see better that you were disagreeing with the _broadness_ of the author's claim, not the claim itself, but I can understand other commenter's reactions.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    Are you sure you have your real stance on them not the reactionary one? The first thing you had to say to describe them originally was they were time sucking status updates and ended with out of 1000s you literally never walked out of a single one thinking it was unreasonably effective. The warmest words were that reviewing process and performance was common. When I look back and think of my most time sucking god awful unproductive meeting series there was a "stand up" (wasn't really) meeting for a couple years at one company and even then I remember walking away from a handful thinking "that was a really super crazy productive meeting". I mean if it's your well established thoughts then it's definitely your well established thoughts, regardless what anyone else thinks you thought, but I don't think jcash was the only one caught of guard with how/what you were countering the author on.
zepolen 5y ago
It's not rude and uncalled for to point out a very valid point. Your comment on the other hand is completely rude and uncalled for as it gives zero value and the only thing we learn is that 'it hurt your feelings', probably because you too dislike 1:1s
par 5y ago
lol, agree. It was rude!
- matt89 5y ago
  I don't really think it was rude. However reading this and your other comments I can see that the way you are communicating (at least in this HN thread) is quite confusing. Your main comment could be read in a way that you almost hate 1on1's and find them completely unnecessary. But in another comment you said that it's not true - you actually love them. Now in here you say "lol" and that it was rude, so which is it? are you laughing at this comment or feeling offended? I don't think it's necessarily rude to point out something that is obvious, without judging. You are the common factor of the 1-on-1's you took part in. They could suck because of the whole organization, or because of the people that talked with you, but it's also possible it's something related to your character or skillset. I think it's worth looking into this and a reasonable feedback, not a "rude" one.

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.