Hacker News Reader

Comment by paganel | Hacker News Reader

1:1s are mostly a fad, people refusing to go with the team and thinking that they're special and that they need personal counselling and growth-ing and all that bs.

It's simple, you're either part of the group or you're not, there's no "I" in group. I don't see past great leaders (military and not only) doing 1:1s with the members of their groups.

View on HN

I suspect that it was routine for "past great leaders" to have 1:1s, which only means to have opportunities to speak face to face in private with direct reports.

The modern 'open space' office makes it impossible because it is effectively a panopticon where everyone is in full view and hearing distance of others all the time so effort has to be made to schedule 1:1s and that may seem forced and contrived.

When one had to go to their manager's private office to report of discuss something it was easier to exchange in confidence without any specific planning.

My personal experience is that 1:1s are very useful not just as an opportunity to raise and discuss concerns but to create rapport and talk shop openly and informally.

There's probably truth in that. If I think back, I'd have 1:1 talks with managers all the time in prior lives but I'm not sure I ever had standing 1:1s. Even at my current company, we often theoretically had regular 1:1s but with travel and other schedules they could end up being every month or two.

The only way I've found to have effective 1:1s is to come armed with pointed questions about how things are going, and to actually be aware of what your reports are working on and who they're working with enough to know what questions to ask. They don't work if you're passive. You can surface a lot of vague feelings of unease or satisfaction with initial questions that you can turn into in-depth conversations, and those usually tell you what the person's preferences and areas of growth are.

I think no matter what structure you put in place as a manager you still have to get to know your reports well enough to know what you can and can't confidently ask them to do.

1:1 feel like an unhealthy commingling of management with mentorship. Better the two are distinct.

You have a relationship with your manager.

You have an optional relationship with a mentor.

There's no reason for both to be the same person. In all probability, your manager might not even have the skills to be a good mentor.

And they certainly don't have aligned incentives while also people-managing you.

You can have a regular 1:1 with your mentor, even if that person isn't your manager. I have a regular 1:1 with a developer who will eventually take over some of my responsibilities, but he doesn't formally report to me.

Completely disagree. Some folks are brilliant but aren’t going to function well in group settings all of the time. You still need to find a way to listen to what they have to say, and 1x1s accomplish that for many people. Otherwise, group dynamics can just bias toward the loudest or most outgoing.

Not to mention, you also get to just talk nonsense and get to know each other as humans a bit. Some folks enjoy that, me included.

They also find people who don't work out, since folks might be hesitant calling out under performers in a group setting (or frankly putting those thoughts in a discoverable chat app even in DMs)

Any evidence for them being a fad? I definitely remember my parents' generation having dedicated one-on-one meetings with their managers on a regular basis, regardless of what field they were working in (skilled labourers, but none of them in tech).

The first 15 years of my career, up until roughly 2010, I had no regular 1:1's in tech. Managers were generally more technical also (they would do non-critical path dev work.) Today there is more separation between "people management" and "technical management." Usually one or the other suffers.

Any team and organization does 1:1s in some ways regardless of how formal they are and regardless of those being scheduled on your outlook calendar.

Even a chat exchange of ideas or mails qualify as a 1:1.

I probably never had scheduled 1:1s with my manager prior to my current job (and it's been hit or miss when I was traveling a lot) aside from specific events like maybe performance reviews. But had lots of in-person conversations, many with open doors, some not.

>I don't see past great leaders (military and not only) doing 1:1s with the members of their groups.

You don't think Titus Labienus discussed anything one on one with Julius Caesar? That just sounds like insanity.

I want 1:1s, it's the best way that I can make my boss work for me. That stuff gets me raises and promotions.

I don’t see talking eye to eye to your second in command or to one of your trustful advisors as a 1:1. Of course that the first kind of discussion is quite old, today’s 1:1s are a different thing, at least when it comes to they’re seen in the corporate and tech world.

And back to your question, no, I don’t think that Zhukov or Napoleon had 1:1s with their second people in command, I don’t think they were laying down advancement opportunities nore were those people asked about how do they feel and what’s troubling them about the team (the army in this case).

How do you deal with people who don't or barely talk in group settings? Is this just a no-go and they're out?

I agree in principal, but in practice stroking people’s egos with personal attention works wonders!

I found 1:1s profoundly helpful as a manager. You get insight into the team and business that you don’t get in day to day meetings.

Notably, when you have trust, your reports will tell you what’s actually wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com