5 ms·

Never had these before and now that I do, I do not like it. There is nothing to say, I do my job, you do yours: leave me alone. We get team meetings twice a w

Never had these before and now that I do, I do not like it. There is nothing to say, I do my job, you do yours: leave me alone. We get team meetings twice a week where we discuss workload and trivia, what can a 1 on 1 possibly add? I see these as something that looks 'nice' in a manager's agenda ("Man, you are fully booked out, you work hard!") but add nothing to the efficiency. Go and produce something, solve a problem, that's how you earn my respect. If I need you, or you need me: contact me based on demand.

drcongo 5y ago
I'm a line manager and I 100% agree with this. I call this kind of behaviour Business LARPing - doing those things that you _think_ managers or business owners or whatever are supposed to do regardless of whether it's helping you or anyone else.
- sammorrowdrums 5y ago
  It depends on the manager. It can be a good opportunity for feedback to go up the chain / get additional context / nuance, discuss strategy, is it time to ask for a pay rise, are there any minor issues like not writing thoughtful descriptions for PRs... Of course you can have these chats ad hoc, but frankly often that can distract and derail other conversations and meetings. I like my boss, and I value our 1:1s and frequently (for example while I moved country) just making sure I was OK, my partner was OK and we were settling in etc. those kinds of issues can build up over time too. If it's just an exercise, kill it - but if it's creating value for both parties, then keep it up. I've had a weekly all hands where basically the CEO just wanted to waist everyone's time being brought up to speed and hashing out everything with everyone there. In the same company I had a sort of HR contractor who basically ended up providing emotional support and an avenue for honest feedback of management as a sort of 1:1, and the all hands was an absolute waste of everyone's time (because it was only really for the CEO), whereas those one to ones actually helped bring about positive change in the company, and clarity on what wasn't working. I'd have started from the same position as two parent comments, but I have actually benefited from gold one to ones. My current boss and I decided to reduce frequency, as we didn't need it, and then upped it again during pandemic just as an excuse for a walk and talk outside with another human. Be flexible, and get value or cut it out. But writing off 1:1 entirely only works well if you're having the right conversations elsewhere. Finally, I have mostly worked at smaller companies where it's not an opportunity for senior management to aggressively monitor performance, constantly try to push you and find excuses for who to fire / promote / move to other team. I guess in a larger business with middle management and politics, 1:1s can be more toxic and less productive...
zerof1l 5y ago
I have mixed feelings about 1:1. I find it not that useful. However, some people need a nudge. That original post is a good example of what happens when there's no scheduled 1:1 and both parties assume that the other one will initiate the conversation. Having bi-weekly 1:1 is too much. Once a month is better. Regarding team meetings, 1:1 is not the same. In 1:1 you have an opportunity to speak privately with the manager and discuss things you might be uncomfortable talking about in front of the team.
CarelessExpert 5y ago
> We get team meetings twice a week where we discuss workload and trivia, what can a 1 on 1 possibly add? Speaking as a manager, if your 1:1's are purely focused on day-to-day work activities, they're missing the point. Sounds to me like you've never had a manager who actually attempts to coach and mentor their staff to support them, train them, help define career goals, and create steps to achieving those goals. My 1:1s? When they're done well, they're typically a mix of issues of the day--I don't typically poke my nose into what my staff are doing, so the 1:1s are an opportunity for staff to raise issues and concerns in a safe space--combined with developmental activities and bigger picture strategic items. And in the background of all that is building a strong interpersonal relationship. It's a chance to ask about how the person is doing (I'm always on the lookout for signs of stress or burnout), how their family is doing, how the dog is doing. That forms the bedrock that ensures we have an open line of communication so we can deal with issues when they come up. > I see these as something that looks 'nice' in a manager's agenda ("Man, you are fully booked out, you work hard!") but add nothing to the efficiency. Bluntly, if your managers find these meetings easy or have them on the agenda because they "look nice", the manager isn't taking them seriously. Every one of my 1:1s requires a) preparation, b) deep focus and attention, and c) significant mental and emotional investment. When done well they can be exhausting. Hell, a while back I asked my staff if we could move to bi-weekly one-on-ones. I won't lie, this was a selfish request on my part as I find them pretty taxing. To a person they asked to retain a weekly cadence. Go figure. Of course, if you have an incompetent micromanager, yeah, they're gonna be a waste of everyone's time, in which case I feel bad for you, because that really sucks.
- gtf21 5y ago
  Absolutely agree with this. I find 1x1s with my directs a useful time to focus on communicating intent and mentoring, as well as hearing about the frustrations / other bits and pieces one might not casually hear about. Sure, some of them can be a bit dull, not every week is exciting, but my experience is the same -- they can be tiring if done well, but very rewarding.
- doggodaddo78 5y ago
  Yeap. No 1:1s or in-person performance reviews, there's no bizword cliché ships sailing together, climbing of career mountains, 360 feedback, or anything else cohesive or supportive. The point isn't to instill dread, shame, or lectures but to help... managers aren't there to be bullies, slave-drivers, or hubristic self-ego-expanders.

drcongo 5y ago

I'm a line manager and I 100% agree with this. I call this kind of behaviour Business LARPing - doing those things that you _think_ managers or business owners or whatever are supposed to do regardless of whether it's helping you or anyone else.

sammorrowdrums 5y ago
It depends on the manager. It can be a good opportunity for feedback to go up the chain / get additional context / nuance, discuss strategy, is it time to ask for a pay rise, are there any minor issues like not writing thoughtful descriptions for PRs... Of course you can have these chats ad hoc, but frankly often that can distract and derail other conversations and meetings. I like my boss, and I value our 1:1s and frequently (for example while I moved country) just making sure I was OK, my partner was OK and we were settling in etc. those kinds of issues can build up over time too. If it's just an exercise, kill it - but if it's creating value for both parties, then keep it up. I've had a weekly all hands where basically the CEO just wanted to waist everyone's time being brought up to speed and hashing out everything with everyone there. In the same company I had a sort of HR contractor who basically ended up providing emotional support and an avenue for honest feedback of management as a sort of 1:1, and the all hands was an absolute waste of everyone's time (because it was only really for the CEO), whereas those one to ones actually helped bring about positive change in the company, and clarity on what wasn't working. I'd have started from the same position as two parent comments, but I have actually benefited from gold one to ones. My current boss and I decided to reduce frequency, as we didn't need it, and then upped it again during pandemic just as an excuse for a walk and talk outside with another human. Be flexible, and get value or cut it out. But writing off 1:1 entirely only works well if you're having the right conversations elsewhere. Finally, I have mostly worked at smaller companies where it's not an opportunity for senior management to aggressively monitor performance, constantly try to push you and find excuses for who to fire / promote / move to other team. I guess in a larger business with middle management and politics, 1:1s can be more toxic and less productive...

zerof1l 5y ago

I have mixed feelings about 1:1. I find it not that useful. However, some people need a nudge. That original post is a good example of what happens when there's no scheduled 1:1 and both parties assume that the other one will initiate the conversation. Having bi-weekly 1:1 is too much. Once a month is better. Regarding team meetings, 1:1 is not the same. In 1:1 you have an opportunity to speak privately with the manager and discuss things you might be uncomfortable talking about in front of the team.

CarelessExpert 5y ago

> We get team meetings twice a week where we discuss workload and trivia, what can a 1 on 1 possibly add? Speaking as a manager, if your 1:1's are purely focused on day-to-day work activities, they're missing the point. Sounds to me like you've never had a manager who actually attempts to coach and mentor their staff to support them, train them, help define career goals, and create steps to achieving those goals. My 1:1s? When they're done well, they're typically a mix of issues of the day--I don't typically poke my nose into what my staff are doing, so the 1:1s are an opportunity for staff to raise issues and concerns in a safe space--combined with developmental activities and bigger picture strategic items. And in the background of all that is building a strong interpersonal relationship. It's a chance to ask about how the person is doing (I'm always on the lookout for signs of stress or burnout), how their family is doing, how the dog is doing. That forms the bedrock that ensures we have an open line of communication so we can deal with issues when they come up. > I see these as something that looks 'nice' in a manager's agenda ("Man, you are fully booked out, you work hard!") but add nothing to the efficiency. Bluntly, if your managers find these meetings easy or have them on the agenda because they "look nice", the manager isn't taking them seriously. Every one of my 1:1s requires a) preparation, b) deep focus and attention, and c) significant mental and emotional investment. When done well they can be exhausting. Hell, a while back I asked my staff if we could move to bi-weekly one-on-ones. I won't lie, this was a selfish request on my part as I find them pretty taxing. To a person they asked to retain a weekly cadence. Go figure. Of course, if you have an incompetent micromanager, yeah, they're gonna be a waste of everyone's time, in which case I feel bad for you, because that really sucks.

gtf21 5y ago
Absolutely agree with this. I find 1x1s with my directs a useful time to focus on communicating intent and mentoring, as well as hearing about the frustrations / other bits and pieces one might not casually hear about. Sure, some of them can be a bit dull, not every week is exciting, but my experience is the same -- they can be tiring if done well, but very rewarding.
doggodaddo78 5y ago
Yeap. No 1:1s or in-person performance reviews, there's no bizword cliché ships sailing together, climbing of career mountains, 360 feedback, or anything else cohesive or supportive. The point isn't to instill dread, shame, or lectures but to help... managers aren't there to be bullies, slave-drivers, or hubristic self-ego-expanders.