4 ms·

1:1s are a peculiarly American thing (in my experience) - perhaps something to do with the individualistic yet somewhat still old fashioned and hierarchical bus

1:1s are a peculiarly American thing (in my experience) - perhaps something to do with the individualistic yet somewhat still old fashioned and hierarchical business culture? 1:1s are problematic because they discourage/displace lateral communication between team members and encourage siloing. Everyone has to guess what 'the boss' said to the others, and to figure out which piece of the puzzle they've been entrusted with - classic oppressive divde and conquer strategy. Of course for people who may not be comfortable in social settings, 1:1s may be the only thing they can grapple with properly.

JTbane 3y ago
I absolutely despise 1-on-1s. It's either me complaining about corporate policies that I have no power to change (looking at you, WFH) or some feature is a complete dumpster fire and I get lectured about it.
tstrimple 3y ago
That's odd. 1:1s shouldn't be used for normal every day work and project activities. It definitely shouldn't be just a status update to your manager. For me they are a way of checking in on longer career and growth goals that can be neglected when caught up in the "real work". They are also where I check in on promotion readiness and ensuring expectations are aligned. Things which you typically don't want the rest of the team in on. Anything directly project related should be either a team meeting or shared via more open communication channels.
- somewhereoutth 3y ago
  Right! So every quarter or maybe once a month max then.
  - msm_ 3y ago
    Yeah, whatever works for you. When I was at a place that did regular 1:1s, my manager always stressed that they're for me, not for the company, and if I want to change the frequency of time I should just let them know. Not sure about your company culture, but if you're already experienced, I can't imagine your boss would be unhappy if you said "you know, I don't need so much guidance, let's have less 1:1 meetings". Assuming most of the communication happens in regular team meetings, which seems healthy.
    - tstrimple 3y ago
      This is exactly what I do. For the first month or so I recommend weekly 1:1s, just to make sure they are adapting well and getting the things they need. There are a lot of internal systems to navigate, tons of folks they should get to know, etc. But once they are a bit "settled" the frequency is really up to them with a minimum of once a quarter. I've been in companies before where managers only met with their employees for things like this once a year at review time! This often led to resentment and morale problems when performance reviews didn't align with employee expectations and by the time they find out it's too late to course correct. You must keep folks appraised of how well they are meeting expectations both good and bad. The "annual review" should contain no surprises for anyone.
christofosho 3y ago
I appreciate your opinion and although I disagree, I'm curious about how you handle talking to reports about their careers, the work they've been doing, progress on their goals, problems they are encountering, etc.?
- version_five 3y ago
  All of that sounds like something that could happen annually.
  - Niksko 3y ago
    Annually? You think the right cadence to see if one of your direct reports is progressing toward their goals or having difficulties is once per calendar year?
    - version_five 3y ago
      That's how most companies work, if that frequently, with difficulties handled by exception. Only in big tech is that the focus of the "work" and do you have managers who spend their time on it, leading to the "professional meeting attenders" mentioned elsewhere.
      - nradov 3y ago
        It's not just the tech industry. For better or worse, frequent 1:1 meetings with direct reports are a common management practice in most large US companies.
      - JohnBooty 3y ago
        My experience with 1:1s is that they uncover things that wouldn't be uncovered... well, without 1:1s. Most of us are "trained" not to "bother" our managers so allocating some dedicated time is valuable in my experience. I'm honestly baffled at the pushback against 1:1s I'm reading. Assuming you have a relatively normal number of direct reports for software engineering (5-10) that adds up to not a lot of hours. At companies without regular 1:1s, I often had no idea if my manager thought I was doing a good job or not. You can say that this is bad management or bad communication, and you're right but management and communication tend to be rather poor in our industry! 1:1s are more often than not a part of the solution.
anthomtb 3y ago
If you leave your 1:1's with no thought beyond "what did the boss say to everyone else" you either have a terrible boss or an even more terrible Machiavellian corporate culture.
- naruhodo 3y ago
  > you either have a terrible boss or an even more terrible Machiavellian corporate culture Both of which abound, in my experience. If your "boss" is paying you as an "employee", that's still a competitive situation between two businesses: the business of you selling your labour, and your boss, a.k.a. your only customer, who may try to use information warfare to get the best deal.
game_the0ry 3y ago
You will probably disagree, but I see 1:1s with my manager as an opportunity to schmooze and re-iterate my accomplishments (I tend to be good at my job). I also tend to be an introvert, but I can turn on the charm as well as the bullshit if it is worth the effort. Basically, I try to engineer 1:1s in my favor if I can - usually only upside opportunity in my case. If I can't, I would probably avoid them.
didibus 3y ago
This is an interesting take.. But you know what, thinking about it, I might prefer having n:1s where it's the whole team together. A kind of team level all-hands, but much more personal as well. Discuss what everyone has done, their career goals, opportunities, etc. I think if that kind of transparency at the team was put in place and people got used to it, I think you're right, it kind of aligns the whole team on everyone's goals, and everyone knows where everybody is and who's where in their career with regards to promotion and what not. And who the manager think should be given what opportunity and responsibility next, etc.
- nradov 3y ago
  The extroverts and the highly confident tend to dominate that type of discussion.
  - didibus 3y ago
    Even if say the manager round robinned through the team?
marcinzm 3y ago
>Of course for people who may not be comfortable in social settings, 1:1s may be the only thing they can grapple with properly. In my experience, group discussions favor a very small subset of people, and it has less to do with comfort in social settings and a lot more with domineering personalities.
unmole 3y ago
> 1:1s are a peculiarly American thing I had regular 1:1s when I worked for Huawei.
glumreaper 3y ago
So many people missing the point of 1:1s. They help to build a trust relationship between two people so that when there is something difficult to discuss, that conversation can happen. It is perfectly ok for most 1:1s to be fairly empty, if only so that once a quarter/year/whenever, you can have the promotion discussion/hopes-and-dreams chat/you're not meeting expectations wake-up call. This isn't an "American" thing, that's a very inaccurate generalisation. Maybe more correct to say that 1:1s are useful in cultures where trust needs to be built before saying difficult things. Sure, people from some cultures can just bluntly say difficult things. That's fine. Many people cannot.
dagw 3y ago
1:1s are a peculiarly American thing (in my experience) At literally every company I've worked in Sweden the managers have sat down with everybody directly under them for a 1:1 twice a year. Where you work are salary, promotion and general career development discussions done in open meetings with the whole team?
- somewhereoutth 3y ago
  To clarify - I mean weekly 1:1s. Of course I would expect annual/quarterly 1:1s for career stuff
fennecfoxy 3y ago
In the UK I've experienced 121s and I feel like it's more about having a higher point of contact for an employee, where you can discuss anything you want in longform, including personal development, but also day to day issues, what's been annoying, who's been annoying, what could be improved, other suggestions etc. Things that higher management do not have time for (to dedicate 30-60 minutes to sit down with each employee). Then those longform discussions are summarised and points raised higher up the chain as needed.

JTbane 3y ago

I absolutely despise 1-on-1s. It's either me complaining about corporate policies that I have no power to change (looking at you, WFH) or some feature is a complete dumpster fire and I get lectured about it.

tstrimple 3y ago

That's odd. 1:1s shouldn't be used for normal every day work and project activities. It definitely shouldn't be just a status update to your manager. For me they are a way of checking in on longer career and growth goals that can be neglected when caught up in the "real work". They are also where I check in on promotion readiness and ensuring expectations are aligned. Things which you typically don't want the rest of the team in on. Anything directly project related should be either a team meeting or shared via more open communication channels.

somewhereoutth 3y ago
Right! So every quarter or maybe once a month max then.
- msm_ 3y ago
  Yeah, whatever works for you. When I was at a place that did regular 1:1s, my manager always stressed that they're for me, not for the company, and if I want to change the frequency of time I should just let them know. Not sure about your company culture, but if you're already experienced, I can't imagine your boss would be unhappy if you said "you know, I don't need so much guidance, let's have less 1:1 meetings". Assuming most of the communication happens in regular team meetings, which seems healthy.
  - tstrimple 3y ago
    This is exactly what I do. For the first month or so I recommend weekly 1:1s, just to make sure they are adapting well and getting the things they need. There are a lot of internal systems to navigate, tons of folks they should get to know, etc. But once they are a bit "settled" the frequency is really up to them with a minimum of once a quarter. I've been in companies before where managers only met with their employees for things like this once a year at review time! This often led to resentment and morale problems when performance reviews didn't align with employee expectations and by the time they find out it's too late to course correct. You must keep folks appraised of how well they are meeting expectations both good and bad. The "annual review" should contain no surprises for anyone.

christofosho 3y ago

I appreciate your opinion and although I disagree, I'm curious about how you handle talking to reports about their careers, the work they've been doing, progress on their goals, problems they are encountering, etc.?

version_five 3y ago
All of that sounds like something that could happen annually.
- Niksko 3y ago
  Annually? You think the right cadence to see if one of your direct reports is progressing toward their goals or having difficulties is once per calendar year?
  - version_five 3y ago
    That's how most companies work, if that frequently, with difficulties handled by exception. Only in big tech is that the focus of the "work" and do you have managers who spend their time on it, leading to the "professional meeting attenders" mentioned elsewhere.
    - nradov 3y ago
      It's not just the tech industry. For better or worse, frequent 1:1 meetings with direct reports are a common management practice in most large US companies.
    - JohnBooty 3y ago
      My experience with 1:1s is that they uncover things that wouldn't be uncovered... well, without 1:1s. Most of us are "trained" not to "bother" our managers so allocating some dedicated time is valuable in my experience. I'm honestly baffled at the pushback against 1:1s I'm reading. Assuming you have a relatively normal number of direct reports for software engineering (5-10) that adds up to not a lot of hours. At companies without regular 1:1s, I often had no idea if my manager thought I was doing a good job or not. You can say that this is bad management or bad communication, and you're right but management and communication tend to be rather poor in our industry! 1:1s are more often than not a part of the solution.

anthomtb 3y ago

If you leave your 1:1's with no thought beyond "what did the boss say to everyone else" you either have a terrible boss or an even more terrible Machiavellian corporate culture.

naruhodo 3y ago
> you either have a terrible boss or an even more terrible Machiavellian corporate culture Both of which abound, in my experience. If your "boss" is paying you as an "employee", that's still a competitive situation between two businesses: the business of you selling your labour, and your boss, a.k.a. your only customer, who may try to use information warfare to get the best deal.

game_the0ry 3y ago

You will probably disagree, but I see 1:1s with my manager as an opportunity to schmooze and re-iterate my accomplishments (I tend to be good at my job). I also tend to be an introvert, but I can turn on the charm as well as the bullshit if it is worth the effort. Basically, I try to engineer 1:1s in my favor if I can - usually only upside opportunity in my case. If I can't, I would probably avoid them.

didibus 3y ago

This is an interesting take.. But you know what, thinking about it, I might prefer having n:1s where it's the whole team together. A kind of team level all-hands, but much more personal as well. Discuss what everyone has done, their career goals, opportunities, etc. I think if that kind of transparency at the team was put in place and people got used to it, I think you're right, it kind of aligns the whole team on everyone's goals, and everyone knows where everybody is and who's where in their career with regards to promotion and what not. And who the manager think should be given what opportunity and responsibility next, etc.

nradov 3y ago
The extroverts and the highly confident tend to dominate that type of discussion.
- didibus 3y ago
  Even if say the manager round robinned through the team?

marcinzm 3y ago

>Of course for people who may not be comfortable in social settings, 1:1s may be the only thing they can grapple with properly. In my experience, group discussions favor a very small subset of people, and it has less to do with comfort in social settings and a lot more with domineering personalities.

unmole 3y ago

> 1:1s are a peculiarly American thing I had regular 1:1s when I worked for Huawei.

glumreaper 3y ago

So many people missing the point of 1:1s. They help to build a trust relationship between two people so that when there is something difficult to discuss, that conversation can happen. It is perfectly ok for most 1:1s to be fairly empty, if only so that once a quarter/year/whenever, you can have the promotion discussion/hopes-and-dreams chat/you're not meeting expectations wake-up call. This isn't an "American" thing, that's a very inaccurate generalisation. Maybe more correct to say that 1:1s are useful in cultures where trust needs to be built before saying difficult things. Sure, people from some cultures can just bluntly say difficult things. That's fine. Many people cannot.

dagw 3y ago

1:1s are a peculiarly American thing (in my experience) At literally every company I've worked in Sweden the managers have sat down with everybody directly under them for a 1:1 twice a year. Where you work are salary, promotion and general career development discussions done in open meetings with the whole team?

somewhereoutth 3y ago
To clarify - I mean weekly 1:1s. Of course I would expect annual/quarterly 1:1s for career stuff

fennecfoxy 3y ago

In the UK I've experienced 121s and I feel like it's more about having a higher point of contact for an employee, where you can discuss anything you want in longform, including personal development, but also day to day issues, what's been annoying, who's been annoying, what could be improved, other suggestions etc. Things that higher management do not have time for (to dedicate 30-60 minutes to sit down with each employee). Then those longform discussions are summarised and points raised higher up the chain as needed.