5 ms·

> They only serve to make a manager feel like they know what everyone is doing, all the time. As a manager, I DESPISED doing 1v1s at my old company. We don't d

> They only serve to make a manager feel like they know what everyone is doing, all the time. As a manager, I DESPISED doing 1v1s at my old company. We don't do them at my new company. It's an incredible waste of time. Create a culture that allows employees to come to you when THEY need to. If this isn't within the realm of possibility, at least make 1v1s optional for employees that just don't have anything to discuss every 1-2 weeks. Some people just like to do their jobs and get paid. As a manager, you should be able to see what your people are working on. If you have questions about it, ask them. But for the love of god, don't schedule a recurring meeting just so they can tell you things that are easily gleaned by reading a git commit.

canadaduane 4y ago
I laughed a bit when you wrote "1v1" because it made me think of a video game where you're matched with a suitably leveled enemy player. (I don't know how others pronounce "1:1" but I pronounce it "1 on 1").
- OJFord 4y ago
  I read it as 'one to one', like a ratio. Also one person talking to one other. Interesting though, and now you say it I realise the submitter also wrote '1-on-1s'.
8note 4y ago
The employee not thinking there's something to talk about doesn't mean there's nothing to talk about. A good people-person manager can get the employee to bring up things they otherwise wouldn't think of.
- ryanSrich 4y ago
  What does this have to do with my comment? I never said don’t talk to your employees ever. A recurring 1v1 where you have to poke and prod information out of a subordinate is not constructive. If you have concerns, bring them up when they happen. No need to pull teeth every few weeks just to make yourself feel better as a manager.
  - Shatnerz 4y ago
    The issue is that not everyone is comfortable bringing up issues as they happen. Some people may not recognize issues. Others may avoid mention until a problem grows larger. Regular 1-1s make this much easier to catch and give direct reports a great opportunity to share. Some people will say that this isn't required with a good company culture, but when people are involved nothing is perfect. Maintaining positive culture requires work. Recurring 1-1s are the bread and butter of management and in my experience the work pays off by staying ahead of things and preventing minor issues from turning into major issues.
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    If you need to "poke and prod" your "subordinate", I don't know if you're someone I'd like to work with. The whole feel of your text gives me the vibe of an 80's cop show interrogation and you're the cop who's about to retire and doesn't care. When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration. The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting. Yes, the dream team is one that can just raise their hand and bring up any issue at any time, either in private or in public. But those teams need to be grown and the trust needs to be there. Nobody wants to be ridiculed for saying bringing something up in public.
    - ryanSrich 4y ago
      > If you need to "poke and prod" your "subordinate" This was my interpretation of the comment I was replying to. Here's what they wrote "A good people-person manager can get the employee to bring up things they otherwise wouldn't think of.". To me, that's a nice way of saying poke and prod. I'm not advocating for that. > When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration. That sounds fine to me, but why schedule a recurring meeting to do this? I'm not against meeting up with people and shooting the shit. I'm not against bringing up and discussing issues. I'm not against helping someone grow and flourish in their career. What I'm saying is that 1v1s are a horrible way to do any of those things. Recurring meetings in general are a horrible way to get anything constructive done. My suggestion is to be more proactive in how you manage. Don't wait for a 1v1 to discuss things. It's the same for all-hands. I despise all-hands meetings with a passion. It's a horribly inefficient way of setting company-wide expectations, doing an announcement, or whatever it is executive teams use all-hands for now. > The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting. This is incredibly easily solved by having open office hours. It achieves the same goal without the stress inducing event sitting on the employee's calendar for them to worry about hours before and after the meeting.
letitbeirie 4y ago
> Create a culture that allows employees to come to you when THEY need to. This is great advice in general but regular 1v1s give you a forum to proactively ask employees how things are going, which can help you detect problems quieter employees are having that they might not be willing to raise themselves. Some people are conditioned not to complain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're happy.

canadaduane 4y ago

I laughed a bit when you wrote "1v1" because it made me think of a video game where you're matched with a suitably leveled enemy player. (I don't know how others pronounce "1:1" but I pronounce it "1 on 1").

OJFord 4y ago
I read it as 'one to one', like a ratio. Also one person talking to one other. Interesting though, and now you say it I realise the submitter also wrote '1-on-1s'.

8note 4y ago

The employee not thinking there's something to talk about doesn't mean there's nothing to talk about. A good people-person manager can get the employee to bring up things they otherwise wouldn't think of.

ryanSrich 4y ago
What does this have to do with my comment? I never said don’t talk to your employees ever. A recurring 1v1 where you have to poke and prod information out of a subordinate is not constructive. If you have concerns, bring them up when they happen. No need to pull teeth every few weeks just to make yourself feel better as a manager.
- Shatnerz 4y ago
  The issue is that not everyone is comfortable bringing up issues as they happen. Some people may not recognize issues. Others may avoid mention until a problem grows larger. Regular 1-1s make this much easier to catch and give direct reports a great opportunity to share. Some people will say that this isn't required with a good company culture, but when people are involved nothing is perfect. Maintaining positive culture requires work. Recurring 1-1s are the bread and butter of management and in my experience the work pays off by staying ahead of things and preventing minor issues from turning into major issues.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  If you need to "poke and prod" your "subordinate", I don't know if you're someone I'd like to work with. The whole feel of your text gives me the vibe of an 80's cop show interrogation and you're the cop who's about to retire and doesn't care. When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration. The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting. Yes, the dream team is one that can just raise their hand and bring up any issue at any time, either in private or in public. But those teams need to be grown and the trust needs to be there. Nobody wants to be ridiculed for saying bringing something up in public.
  - ryanSrich 4y ago
    > If you need to "poke and prod" your "subordinate" This was my interpretation of the comment I was replying to. Here's what they wrote "A good people-person manager can get the employee to bring up things they otherwise wouldn't think of.". To me, that's a nice way of saying poke and prod. I'm not advocating for that. > When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration. That sounds fine to me, but why schedule a recurring meeting to do this? I'm not against meeting up with people and shooting the shit. I'm not against bringing up and discussing issues. I'm not against helping someone grow and flourish in their career. What I'm saying is that 1v1s are a horrible way to do any of those things. Recurring meetings in general are a horrible way to get anything constructive done. My suggestion is to be more proactive in how you manage. Don't wait for a 1v1 to discuss things. It's the same for all-hands. I despise all-hands meetings with a passion. It's a horribly inefficient way of setting company-wide expectations, doing an announcement, or whatever it is executive teams use all-hands for now. > The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting. This is incredibly easily solved by having open office hours. It achieves the same goal without the stress inducing event sitting on the employee's calendar for them to worry about hours before and after the meeting.

letitbeirie 4y ago

> Create a culture that allows employees to come to you when THEY need to. This is great advice in general but regular 1v1s give you a forum to proactively ask employees how things are going, which can help you detect problems quieter employees are having that they might not be willing to raise themselves. Some people are conditioned not to complain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're happy.