4 ms·

One on One

41 points by eande 14y ago

dude_abides 14y ago
If you make a one-on-one into a periodic meeting like ben is suggesting, it will invariably end up as yet another pointless formality. Ideally, in a well-run company, an employee should be able to easily walk to the CEO and talk about any problem/grievance/suggestion/new idea. But it is much more efficient to keep such meetings adhoc/need-based and not periodic, since, more often than not, the employee will either have nothing to talk about or will have a lot of pressing things to talk about and not like to wait till the next one-on-one.
- matsiyatzy 14y ago
  For introverted or shy employees, the issue is not that it isn't easy to talk to the CEO/manager, it's just that they're unlikely to voice their opinions unless they're specifically asked about it. Which is what this meeting is about. But yeah, for some employees it will be extremely useful, for others, not so much.
  - edderly 14y ago
    I completely agree, I don't even think it is limited to a stereotypical introvert. In an environment where the management is very hands off I have worked with unhappy people who are paranoid enough to worry that if they ask or challenge the boss they think it would be a kind of insubordination. I used to think that it was a sign of weakness that people need management, and in a way you could claim that to be the case. However, I have become convinced that there are many people who real do need 'good' regular managerial assistance to help them with their job. Ideally it's up to you to establish whether you need this support.
- makhanko 14y ago
  Dead on point about scheduled one-on-one turning into a useless formality.
- gav 14y ago
  My preference has been to have them periodically but spaced out, say every 3-4 months. It's also something I like to make less formal and outside the office, say over lunch. This turns it from a chore to a perk, and even if you have nothing work related to discuss, you get to know them better.
- pmarca 14y ago
  "If you make a one-on-one into a periodic meeting like ben is suggesting, it will invariably end up as yet another pointless formality." --> No, that's not true when the manager is competent. "Ideally, in a well-run company, an employee should be able to easily walk to the CEO and talk about any problem/grievance/suggestion/new idea." --> Ideally, maybe, but what every new manager learns very quickly is that most employees simply will not proactively volunteer most of the things that you are going to need to know about what they (the employees) are thinking and feeling. Therefore, the one on one. One of the really entertaining things that happens in startups is that a half dozen people are quite capable of sitting in the same room together for a year and never actually saying most of the things that need to be said for the company to work. I've seen many situations like that where the manager finally starts 1:1's and is stunned at the number of important things that were being left unsaid.
- muhuk 14y ago
  I would go for scheduled but cancellable by the employee meetings. If it's completely ad-hoc, how will the manager deal with the person who grabs him to complain about random stuff all the time? How will anyone know how often is too often?
therealarmen 14y ago
I've been involved in one-on-one's in the past (as an employee) that were simply another way for my manager to shove directions down my throat. Needless to say, I loathed them and tried to make up any excuse I could to cancel or reschedule. Now, as a manager, I've tried to learn from my experiences and make the one-on-one more about the employee. Some of the best one-on-ones I've done have nothing to do with work -- they are more about the employee's personal concerns and making sure the company is doing whatever it can to mitigate them.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  I don't understand, isn't an employee supposed to take direction from a manager? (So they can fulfill expectations rather than being surprised when the company is not happy with whatever they've done?) You won't see me shying away from saying things that are skeptical about managerial privilege, I just don't understand what you meant here.
  - prostoalex 14y ago
    Confirming expectations is useful for larger, more established organizations with established operations. This text is written by an investor in startups, who typically rely on hiring motivated and autonomous individuals with the expectation that employee will be self-directed, so the purpose of those meetings is to broadcast and remove the obstacles for such employee.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      I don't know what it looks like to investors, but I am familiar with startups. And I am afraid that even in that context, it is still usually necessary for employees to understand what their managers want. Is the problem that a one on one feels like an insulting way of communicating?
      - nikatwork 14y ago
        There is a line between communicating strategic and tactical goals to an employee, and micromanagement nitpicking of irrelevant trivia. Sure, the boss is always the most important client - but nitpicking shows a lack of trust and respect to the employee and is very harmful to morale and productivity (IME). As with all things, it's about finding the right balance.
makhanko 14y ago
Other than the idea of framing the one-on-one meeting to be 90% controlled by the employee the post is thin on suggestions. "How do you get help when you love your job, but your personal life is melting down?" - Really?
- pmarca 14y ago
  Yes, really. I've seen that many, many times.
philwelch 14y ago
Rands did it better: http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2010/09/22/the_update_the_vent_and_the_disaster.html http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2010/09/22/the_update_...
- ajacksified 14y ago
  He did a great job, and I definitely recommend the book: http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-Engineering/dp/1430243147/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346370558&sr=8-1&keywords=managing+humans http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-Engi...
simba-hiiipower 14y ago
[ok, slightly (very?) off-topic] ..not hating, but quoting a Rick Ross verse on a track that features Three Stacks?? that's like hip-hop blasphemy! i expect better Mr. Horowitz
- simba-hiiipower 14y ago
  ..though, in the context of the post, that verse makes total sense as a lead-in
- dharbin 14y ago
  LIKE A BOSS
  - simba-hiiipower 14y ago
    well, i can't argue with that.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
l0tics 14y ago
I would really like to have another 1:1 with my boss, but I am an introverted contractor with little-to-no experience communicating in a corporate environment. I'm stuck for fear of how much control they have over my life at the moment. How can I be honest with someone like that?
- inerte 14y ago
  One second, you lost me. You're the introverted contractor, or your boss? What is your boss like that is preventing honesty? And sometimes, the best thing you can do is get to the next paycheck. Don't be sad to admit there are things you can not change. Good luck on your job hunting and I hope you find a better place (and boss) soon!
  - l0tics 14y ago
    I've already got an offer by a startup and am currently weighing my options of staying vs leaving. The problem is that I'm not in California, so it's a bigger move than anything I've done before. But to answer your question, my boss is not preventing honesty. I don't have much experience with this but it appears to me that the corporate environment prevents it unless you are too valuable to lose or are respected there. The first time I made a mistake that annoyed our project manager we had a team meeting specifically to complain about my work, yet everyone was there and the statements were generalized. I was shocked that this is how it was handled instead of simply asking me why that had happened. I don't understand how to communicate without honesty because I've never attempted to do it before. I can't bring up issues like this without doing a private 1:1 and made the mistake of attempting that at the wrong time with depressing results.
    - bricestacey 14y ago
      You're too late to effectively communicate in a 1-on-1. You've got to begin the relationship with trust and respect the time to share grievances, successes, etc. Consider it a lesson learned for your next employment.
- pnathan 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
goggles99 14y ago
Regardless - You are still an (place derogatory terms here) for threatening your employees like they are little children.
- pmarca 14y ago
  And you are still being naive for thinking that companies can be run purely by happy-talk.
  - askimto 14y ago
    The case for one-on-ones in the follow-up is better. I would have found your colleague's first post on the subject satirical if I didn't know any better. The overall topic was about what it takes to make a company a good place to work and includes a conversation that makes Ben sound like an asshole (does he think he sounds like a badass?) and ends this way: “In summary, you and Tim are preventing me from achieving my one and only goal. You have become a barrier blocking me from achieving my most important goal. As a result, if Tim doesn’t meet with each one of his employees in the next 24 hours, I will have no choice but to fire him and to fire you. Are we clear?” Now really, just imagine the conversation with Tim and his boss later that day... Then the quality of all the one-on-ones with Tim and his reports... Maybe you should get someone to review some of these posts because Ben just embarrassed himself with that previous one.
  - goggles99 14y ago
    There is a right way and a wrong way to chastise someone (or keep them on task). The previous blog post: http://bhorowitz.com/2012/08/18/a-good-place-to-work/ http://bhorowitz.com/2012/08/18/a-good-place-to-work/ demonstrates the absolute wrong way. I started to realize in about 5th grade (by watching a threatening, playground bully that everyone hated and a popular friendly kid that everyone liked) that there are ways to get people to do things you want them to do without pissing them off (Those you can't you just cast off and replace). Perhaps the author was the bully, or he missed the lesson. Threatened, disgruntled employees will leave or worse (cause dissension, loss of productivity, they will take their frustration out on their peers and underlings, They will conspire against the threatening, abusive boss, poor morale will spread). I have witnessed this more than once already thus far in my 10 year career. If warning them in a human adult-to-adult civilized manner does not work, and they continually demonstrates incompetence or insubordination, then replace them... no need to threaten them in such a harsh manner and blog about it like you just won a fistfight against a little kid (smacked em down good). You are not doing anyone any favors - trust me. Your Abusive Ego may feel good, but your company will certainly suffer. Funny that your very claims for doing what you did are to make your company the best place to work - but in reality you just made it worse with your approach and choice of words. This approach may sound new-age, feminine, soft, or touchy feely to you - but (in some ways) unfortunately it is the reality of today's tech worker's generation and how they expect to be treated (with some respect and consideration). Those who do not understand this, will repeatedly fail. I say in some ways unfortunate - because it is taken way too far in way too many cases by today's young generation and they are simply lazy, unmotivated and have an entitlement attitude. Their expectation of respect and consideration is taken way too far (they expect to be coddled and never reprimanded). I am not changing my earlier viewpoints, I am simply establishing a foundation by which my statements should be based on.
columbo 14y ago
I hate to see 1-on-1's get abused because they really are a valuable tool. A 1-on-1 is a designated time for an employee to direct an entire conversation with their manager. They can choose to talk about interests, grievances, concerns, ideas, hobbies, problems, successes or NOTHING AT ALL. This is for a manager to sit back and absorb, to give answers when asked. That's it. A good manager will take 1-on-1s as a way to make sure their employees are happy, healthy and not at risk of leaving the company. This isn't a bi-weekly-performance-review.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
kamaal 14y ago
I am having one-on-one's currently and this is how I do it. 1. Talk to your manager about your career aspirations. That include promotion, raise and other learning opportunities. 2. Discuss what will get you there- Write on the white board clearly defined tasks you need to do to get there. 3. Put down a plan to execute and track them. And record it- I generally take a picture of the whiteboard. 4. Ask him for feed back on how you did from last one-on-one to this one. 5. Give him feed back about project, technology, company and things in general. 6. Have him sign off and agree that you are doing well which he agrees and acknowledges it. 7. Repeat 1-6 in every one-on-one scheduled to happen every 2 two weeks. A good appraisal, evaluation at the end of year is something that doesn't have any surprises between you and your manager. [EDIT: Even if your company doesn't have 1:1 - Ensure you take personal initiative to have discussion of this kind with your manager it helps a lot in the longer run]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

41 points by eande 14y ago

If you make a one-on-one into a periodic meeting like ben is suggesting, it will invariably end up as yet another pointless formality. Ideally, in a well-run company, an employee should be able to easily walk to the CEO and talk about any problem/grievance/suggestion/new idea. But it is much more efficient to keep such meetings adhoc/need-based and not periodic, since, more often than not, the employee will either have nothing to talk about or will have a lot of pressing things to talk about and not like to wait till the next one-on-one.

matsiyatzy 14y ago
For introverted or shy employees, the issue is not that it isn't easy to talk to the CEO/manager, it's just that they're unlikely to voice their opinions unless they're specifically asked about it. Which is what this meeting is about. But yeah, for some employees it will be extremely useful, for others, not so much.
- edderly 14y ago
  I completely agree, I don't even think it is limited to a stereotypical introvert. In an environment where the management is very hands off I have worked with unhappy people who are paranoid enough to worry that if they ask or challenge the boss they think it would be a kind of insubordination. I used to think that it was a sign of weakness that people need management, and in a way you could claim that to be the case. However, I have become convinced that there are many people who real do need 'good' regular managerial assistance to help them with their job. Ideally it's up to you to establish whether you need this support.
makhanko 14y ago
Dead on point about scheduled one-on-one turning into a useless formality.
gav 14y ago
My preference has been to have them periodically but spaced out, say every 3-4 months. It's also something I like to make less formal and outside the office, say over lunch. This turns it from a chore to a perk, and even if you have nothing work related to discuss, you get to know them better.
pmarca 14y ago
"If you make a one-on-one into a periodic meeting like ben is suggesting, it will invariably end up as yet another pointless formality." --> No, that's not true when the manager is competent. "Ideally, in a well-run company, an employee should be able to easily walk to the CEO and talk about any problem/grievance/suggestion/new idea." --> Ideally, maybe, but what every new manager learns very quickly is that most employees simply will not proactively volunteer most of the things that you are going to need to know about what they (the employees) are thinking and feeling. Therefore, the one on one. One of the really entertaining things that happens in startups is that a half dozen people are quite capable of sitting in the same room together for a year and never actually saying most of the things that need to be said for the company to work. I've seen many situations like that where the manager finally starts 1:1's and is stunned at the number of important things that were being left unsaid.
muhuk 14y ago
I would go for scheduled but cancellable by the employee meetings. If it's completely ad-hoc, how will the manager deal with the person who grabs him to complain about random stuff all the time? How will anyone know how often is too often?

therealarmen 14y ago

I've been involved in one-on-one's in the past (as an employee) that were simply another way for my manager to shove directions down my throat. Needless to say, I loathed them and tried to make up any excuse I could to cancel or reschedule. Now, as a manager, I've tried to learn from my experiences and make the one-on-one more about the employee. Some of the best one-on-ones I've done have nothing to do with work -- they are more about the employee's personal concerns and making sure the company is doing whatever it can to mitigate them.

slurgfest 14y ago
I don't understand, isn't an employee supposed to take direction from a manager? (So they can fulfill expectations rather than being surprised when the company is not happy with whatever they've done?) You won't see me shying away from saying things that are skeptical about managerial privilege, I just don't understand what you meant here.
- prostoalex 14y ago
  Confirming expectations is useful for larger, more established organizations with established operations. This text is written by an investor in startups, who typically rely on hiring motivated and autonomous individuals with the expectation that employee will be self-directed, so the purpose of those meetings is to broadcast and remove the obstacles for such employee.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    I don't know what it looks like to investors, but I am familiar with startups. And I am afraid that even in that context, it is still usually necessary for employees to understand what their managers want. Is the problem that a one on one feels like an insulting way of communicating?
    - nikatwork 14y ago
      There is a line between communicating strategic and tactical goals to an employee, and micromanagement nitpicking of irrelevant trivia. Sure, the boss is always the most important client - but nitpicking shows a lack of trust and respect to the employee and is very harmful to morale and productivity (IME). As with all things, it's about finding the right balance.

makhanko 14y ago

Other than the idea of framing the one-on-one meeting to be 90% controlled by the employee the post is thin on suggestions. "How do you get help when you love your job, but your personal life is melting down?" - Really?

pmarca 14y ago
Yes, really. I've seen that many, many times.

philwelch 14y ago

Rands did it better: http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2010/09/22/the_update_the_vent_and_the_disaster.html http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2010/09/22/the_update_...

ajacksified 14y ago
He did a great job, and I definitely recommend the book: http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-Engineering/dp/1430243147/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346370558&sr=8-1&keywords=managing+humans http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-Engi...

simba-hiiipower 14y ago

[ok, slightly (very?) off-topic] ..not hating, but quoting a Rick Ross verse on a track that features Three Stacks?? that's like hip-hop blasphemy! i expect better Mr. Horowitz

simba-hiiipower 14y ago
..though, in the context of the post, that verse makes total sense as a lead-in
dharbin 14y ago
LIKE A BOSS
- simba-hiiipower 14y ago
  well, i can't argue with that.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

l0tics 14y ago

I would really like to have another 1:1 with my boss, but I am an introverted contractor with little-to-no experience communicating in a corporate environment. I'm stuck for fear of how much control they have over my life at the moment. How can I be honest with someone like that?

inerte 14y ago
One second, you lost me. You're the introverted contractor, or your boss? What is your boss like that is preventing honesty? And sometimes, the best thing you can do is get to the next paycheck. Don't be sad to admit there are things you can not change. Good luck on your job hunting and I hope you find a better place (and boss) soon!
- l0tics 14y ago
  I've already got an offer by a startup and am currently weighing my options of staying vs leaving. The problem is that I'm not in California, so it's a bigger move than anything I've done before. But to answer your question, my boss is not preventing honesty. I don't have much experience with this but it appears to me that the corporate environment prevents it unless you are too valuable to lose or are respected there. The first time I made a mistake that annoyed our project manager we had a team meeting specifically to complain about my work, yet everyone was there and the statements were generalized. I was shocked that this is how it was handled instead of simply asking me why that had happened. I don't understand how to communicate without honesty because I've never attempted to do it before. I can't bring up issues like this without doing a private 1:1 and made the mistake of attempting that at the wrong time with depressing results.
  - bricestacey 14y ago
    You're too late to effectively communicate in a 1-on-1. You've got to begin the relationship with trust and respect the time to share grievances, successes, etc. Consider it a lesson learned for your next employment.
pnathan 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

goggles99 14y ago

Regardless - You are still an (place derogatory terms here) for threatening your employees like they are little children.

pmarca 14y ago
And you are still being naive for thinking that companies can be run purely by happy-talk.
- askimto 14y ago
  The case for one-on-ones in the follow-up is better. I would have found your colleague's first post on the subject satirical if I didn't know any better. The overall topic was about what it takes to make a company a good place to work and includes a conversation that makes Ben sound like an asshole (does he think he sounds like a badass?) and ends this way: “In summary, you and Tim are preventing me from achieving my one and only goal. You have become a barrier blocking me from achieving my most important goal. As a result, if Tim doesn’t meet with each one of his employees in the next 24 hours, I will have no choice but to fire him and to fire you. Are we clear?” Now really, just imagine the conversation with Tim and his boss later that day... Then the quality of all the one-on-ones with Tim and his reports... Maybe you should get someone to review some of these posts because Ben just embarrassed himself with that previous one.
- goggles99 14y ago
  There is a right way and a wrong way to chastise someone (or keep them on task). The previous blog post: http://bhorowitz.com/2012/08/18/a-good-place-to-work/ http://bhorowitz.com/2012/08/18/a-good-place-to-work/ demonstrates the absolute wrong way. I started to realize in about 5th grade (by watching a threatening, playground bully that everyone hated and a popular friendly kid that everyone liked) that there are ways to get people to do things you want them to do without pissing them off (Those you can't you just cast off and replace). Perhaps the author was the bully, or he missed the lesson. Threatened, disgruntled employees will leave or worse (cause dissension, loss of productivity, they will take their frustration out on their peers and underlings, They will conspire against the threatening, abusive boss, poor morale will spread). I have witnessed this more than once already thus far in my 10 year career. If warning them in a human adult-to-adult civilized manner does not work, and they continually demonstrates incompetence or insubordination, then replace them... no need to threaten them in such a harsh manner and blog about it like you just won a fistfight against a little kid (smacked em down good). You are not doing anyone any favors - trust me. Your Abusive Ego may feel good, but your company will certainly suffer. Funny that your very claims for doing what you did are to make your company the best place to work - but in reality you just made it worse with your approach and choice of words. This approach may sound new-age, feminine, soft, or touchy feely to you - but (in some ways) unfortunately it is the reality of today's tech worker's generation and how they expect to be treated (with some respect and consideration). Those who do not understand this, will repeatedly fail. I say in some ways unfortunate - because it is taken way too far in way too many cases by today's young generation and they are simply lazy, unmotivated and have an entitlement attitude. Their expectation of respect and consideration is taken way too far (they expect to be coddled and never reprimanded). I am not changing my earlier viewpoints, I am simply establishing a foundation by which my statements should be based on.

columbo 14y ago

I hate to see 1-on-1's get abused because they really are a valuable tool. A 1-on-1 is a designated time for an employee to direct an entire conversation with their manager. They can choose to talk about interests, grievances, concerns, ideas, hobbies, problems, successes or NOTHING AT ALL. This is for a manager to sit back and absorb, to give answers when asked. That's it. A good manager will take 1-on-1s as a way to make sure their employees are happy, healthy and not at risk of leaving the company. This isn't a bi-weekly-performance-review.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

kamaal 14y ago

I am having one-on-one's currently and this is how I do it. 1. Talk to your manager about your career aspirations. That include promotion, raise and other learning opportunities. 2. Discuss what will get you there- Write on the white board clearly defined tasks you need to do to get there. 3. Put down a plan to execute and track them. And record it- I generally take a picture of the whiteboard. 4. Ask him for feed back on how you did from last one-on-one to this one. 5. Give him feed back about project, technology, company and things in general. 6. Have him sign off and agree that you are doing well which he agrees and acknowledges it. 7. Repeat 1-6 in every one-on-one scheduled to happen every 2 two weeks. A good appraisal, evaluation at the end of year is something that doesn't have any surprises between you and your manager. [EDIT: Even if your company doesn't have 1:1 - Ensure you take personal initiative to have discussion of this kind with your manager it helps a lot in the longer run]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]