In my experience (having been through about a half-dozen 1:1s from the lower-level employee side at large corparations) is any complaint I raised in one, however professionally, is/was treated as a "morale issue with scottLobster" rather than an actual potential issue worth investigating.
Which on one hand is fair given the nature of the meeting. Actually providing resources necessitates more scrutiny than a 1:1 could provide. On the other hand knowing that the root cause of my "morale issue" will likely not be addressed (given an established track record) makes me less likely to raise it and give a non-committal "yeah everything's going as good as can be expected, hit a few snags but we really pulled through and it felt really good to finally push through that issue [subtext: which never would have occurred in the first place if you'd listened to 80% of the senior engineers on the program 8 months ago, never mind what I think]...". At which point the exchange can be boiled down to "Are you going to quit without notice or shoot up the office? No? Great!"
Maybe I've just had bad experiences, but the 1:1s described in the article basically define a strong personal mentor/mentee relationship, and I've never gotten or witnessed that from any formal business process (in this case a periodic, corporate-prescribed 1:1 on a large program where each manager has lots of direct reports).