5 ms·

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'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.
- arctangent 14y ago
  > isn't an employee supposed to take direction from a manager? Well, yes. But the relationship should also benefit the employee. I'm not a great fan of managers in general, but I do recognise that they can play an important role in shielding you from a lot of the political nonsense that can float around in a large organisations. On top of this they also have a role to play in providing HR guidance, pastoral support, and also as someone to bounce ideas off - I sometimes use my manager as my rubber duck [1] However, if your relationship with your manager is all one way then there's almost certainly something wrong there. The best managers (IMHO) clear the path to allow their staff to achieve what needs to be done, rather that micromanaging and cracking the whip. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging
- diego 14y ago
  That is not the point of the one-on-one. The one-on-one is a time for the employee to speak his/her mind, express concerns, etc. Read the link to Rands' post somewhere else on this thread. The entire book is great, and I think every manager should read it.
- kamaal 14y ago
  >isn't an employee supposed to take direction from a manager? No, The manager manages the direction[reviews, tracks, corrects course], but doesn't necessarily set it. Its not like the manager is a father and the employee is a day care kid. Who needs to do his homework, eat vegetables and drink milk at the fathers command. Essentially the manager acts like a intelligent information router which can improvise decision making based on information he/she is routing. The job of a manager is to make himself redundant to build great teams that can manage themselves. So that he can himself grow up to the next level and manage the managers and so on..
- CCs 14y ago
  There's a podcast for that: http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/the-single-most-effective-management-tool-part-1 http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/the-single-most-effecti... One on one is not a working session and it is not an all-hands.

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.
arctangent 14y ago
> isn't an employee supposed to take direction from a manager? Well, yes. But the relationship should also benefit the employee. I'm not a great fan of managers in general, but I do recognise that they can play an important role in shielding you from a lot of the political nonsense that can float around in a large organisations. On top of this they also have a role to play in providing HR guidance, pastoral support, and also as someone to bounce ideas off - I sometimes use my manager as my rubber duck [1] However, if your relationship with your manager is all one way then there's almost certainly something wrong there. The best managers (IMHO) clear the path to allow their staff to achieve what needs to be done, rather that micromanaging and cracking the whip. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging
diego 14y ago
That is not the point of the one-on-one. The one-on-one is a time for the employee to speak his/her mind, express concerns, etc. Read the link to Rands' post somewhere else on this thread. The entire book is great, and I think every manager should read it.
kamaal 14y ago
>isn't an employee supposed to take direction from a manager? No, The manager manages the direction[reviews, tracks, corrects course], but doesn't necessarily set it. Its not like the manager is a father and the employee is a day care kid. Who needs to do his homework, eat vegetables and drink milk at the fathers command. Essentially the manager acts like a intelligent information router which can improvise decision making based on information he/she is routing. The job of a manager is to make himself redundant to build great teams that can manage themselves. So that he can himself grow up to the next level and manage the managers and so on..
CCs 14y ago
There's a podcast for that: http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/the-single-most-effective-management-tool-part-1 http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/the-single-most-effecti... One on one is not a working session and it is not an all-hands.