>the value of 1-on-1s isn't clear to the author Maybe if you read the rest of the article, you'd realize the author does understand the value of the 1-on-1, an

>the value of 1-on-1s isn't clear to the author Maybe if you read the rest of the article, you'd realize the author does understand the value of the 1-on-1, and is presenting an introduction based on his reader's [likely] misapprehension of their value (and the [anecdotally observed] fact that most people do feel they are pointless and/or drudgery)