20 ms·

> , and the majority of them are just time sucking status updates, casual meet and greets, or some performance/process related discussion. Literally never have

> , 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.

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.