3 ms·

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 c

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?

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?