Some people will say that this isn't required with a good company culture, but when people are involved nothing is perfect. Maintaining positive culture requires work. Recurring 1-1s are the bread and butter of management and in my experience the work pays off by staying ahead of things and preventing minor issues from turning into major issues.
When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration.
The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting.
Yes, the dream team is one that can just raise their hand and bring up any issue at any time, either in private or in public. But those teams need to be grown and the trust needs to be there. Nobody wants to be ridiculed for saying bringing something up in public.
This was my interpretation of the comment I was replying to. Here's what they wrote "A good people-person manager can get the employee to bring up things they otherwise wouldn't think of.". To me, that's a nice way of saying poke and prod. I'm not advocating for that.
> When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration.
That sounds fine to me, but why schedule a recurring meeting to do this? I'm not against meeting up with people and shooting the shit. I'm not against bringing up and discussing issues. I'm not against helping someone grow and flourish in their career. What I'm saying is that 1v1s are a horrible way to do any of those things. Recurring meetings in general are a horrible way to get anything constructive done. My suggestion is to be more proactive in how you manage. Don't wait for a 1v1 to discuss things. It's the same for all-hands. I despise all-hands meetings with a passion. It's a horribly inefficient way of setting company-wide expectations, doing an announcement, or whatever it is executive teams use all-hands for now.
> The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting.
This is incredibly easily solved by having open office hours. It achieves the same goal without the stress inducing event sitting on the employee's calendar for them to worry about hours before and after the meeting.
It's like having regular meetings with a mentor, coach, or even a counsellor. I find these meetings to be very useful because the discussion inevitably leads to revelations that I would otherwise not have thought of. Could they have been discovered ad-hoc? Some of them, maybe. But it would be a coin toss with the hundreds of other distractions and responsibilities tugging us from every direction. Even with my spouse, I've found that having regular meetings where we sit down and really talk about things has been extremely helpful.
That being said, everyone runs 1:1s differently and I've been on some really bad 1:1s that had no value or always ended with a negative, bitter taste in my mouth. I use it as an opportunity to connect personally and to provide coaching and mentoring towards their goals, especially when they align with company goals. I then poke and prod in a way to really get at what the other person is thinking and feeling, what they are struggling with, and ultimately what the root cause of the problems are. The key in my mind is to surface issues that would otherwise not be discussed, and normalize it. I then work diligently with them to make sure we're addressing those issues, and if I have action items to report back to them on how I've been able to make progress. 1:1s are definitely not the only way of approaching this, but the one I've found the most effective.
Granted, some individuals are very vocal and constantly raise and discuss issues outside of the 1:1s to the point where we don't need them as frequently. For them I just push out the schedule more and have them less frequently, or we just use the extra time to again, build that relationship.
If you’re poking and prodding, you’re doing 1:1s wrong. You should talk to your manager or HR about how to run effective 1:1s. If these resources aren’t available, you need to reach out to others managers at the company or in the community.
Lastly, this doesn’t imply that it’s a sign of desperation, but reach out to your reports. Ask them if they think the meetings are effective, and raise your concerns. They’re an equal partner in this meeting, and should be for their benefit just as much, if not more than your benefit.
Honestly, given your comment, “But for the love of god, don't schedule a recurring meeting just so they can tell you things that are easily gleaned by reading a git commit.” tells me that you don’t actually understand what an effective 1:1, nor team meeting is. If you’re stuck a dramatic reading of the status reports, you failed to set the expectations of the meeting, and should learn how to run effective meeting. There are literal books written about this.
Reach out if you need help.
You're misrepresenting what I said, and are being disingenuous. See my comment here → https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34332925 - I was not advocating for poking or prodding.
> Lastly, this doesn’t imply that it’s a sign of desperation, but reach out to your reports. Ask them if they think the meetings are effective, and raise your concerns. They’re an equal partner in this meeting, and should be for their benefit just as much, if not more than your benefit.
Thanks for the incredibly obvious advice.
> Honestly, given your comment, “But for the love of god, don't schedule a recurring meeting just so they can tell you things that are easily gleaned by reading a git commit.” tells me that you don’t actually understand what an effective 1:1, nor team meeting is. If you’re stuck a dramatic reading of the status reports, you failed to set the expectations of the meeting, and should learn how to run effective meeting. There are literal books written about this.
I'm being absolutely serious. I do not believe effective meetings exist. At least not how meetings are typically defined in the modern workplace. They are solely for the purpose of creating the illusion of work. I've read many literal books on the topic, and believe them all to be mostly trash.
as manager you got to smell it out. 1-1s are great for that.