Hacker News Reader

> People never look forward to them.

I'm sorry, but...speak for yourself. I have nothing but respect for my manager and he respects me as well. It's there so if I have some persistent problem or concern with our project's direction, they can help. And, yes, it does provide the opportunity for you to market yourself and what you've done. Marketing is important.

I also look forward to 1 on 1s. In fact, I have to be the one to schedule and ask for them. It's a good way to build a communication channel that allows constructive feedback. Communication is always good.

If I had some persistent problem or concern I would just bring it up, I wouldn't wait for some scheduled meeting. I guess some managers might not be so easily available.

It's not just the managers. I've worked with great managers who were truly available, but due how busy I perceived everyone to be, I never felt comfortable interrupting things for what I deemed weren't critical issues.

Since we did have regular 1 on 1 meetings, I knew I had a dedicated block of time coming up to hash things out.

What if your manager is in the middle of something? Even if they allow for the interruption trying to help, their mind may still be on the other task, and they likely will try to find the quickest solution to get back to what they're doing instead of the best solution.

If you instead talked about it in your one on one, they can spend more time on it with you.

Or some employees don't feel comfortable bringing it up.

If your manager has no idea what your value is without your marketing, you work in a shitty environment.

You're making a lot of assumptions there, and none of them are really valid.

First, good managers are busy people. Sometimes they'll be juggling a lot at once. My manager is also a team leader of a team with over thirty people. He has a general idea of how well everyone is doing, but by necessity that's not a lot in the way of details.

Second, marketing is as necessary a thing in the workplace as it is in sales. While I do wish I lived in a utopia where value-providers (whatever that means) naturally rose to the top and technically better products managed to sell themselves to the consumers, that's not the world. In the real world, those things just don't happen. So you have to market your company's products, and you have to market your own value. If I did not, I'm sure I could just go on existing in my current role pretty much forever, but that's not really my style.

A 1:1 isn't a drag or a necessary evil even if I remove the non-marketing aspects from it that I discussed in my post above. It's an opportunity to market yourself, where you have a captive audience for however long it's scheduled for. Captive audiences where you can sell are a pretty rare occurrence, so make the most of the opportunity!

Some people like to feel appreciated, so they'd talk up how well they're doing during the 1:1 each week and glow happily as their manager praises them for their good job - while yawning himself to sleep inside. Then the employee goes off feeling 'wanted' and motivated and everyone is happy.

Obviously this wouldn't be useful for everyone, but it's useful for some people. They're usually pretty easy to spot, too.

As a manager, 1-1s should not just be considered status reports. They are a way for you to build trust and communication with your staff, and to give them a chance to talk about anything: problems, work on personal development, or feedback about you as their manager.

1-1s are probably your most valuable tool. Often, you will discover problems and info you would have otherwise not known - "our lead developer seems depressed and was talking about quitting", "did you hear about that other project that started? It's in direct conflict with our plans...", "there's a conference coming up, we should present at it", and so forth.

An effective manager should, in my opinion, spend 50% or more of his time with his team. Working on the same topics, talking to them, helping to plan, fixing problems, finding resources, and doing 1-1s. It's no surprise that teams with the most problems often have a manager who is just not around enough.

For new managers, I always suggest the following resources as a great starting point:

- "Team Geek": http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920018025.do - "Managing Humans": http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-Engi... - Manager Tools podcast: https://www.manager-tools.com

>1-1s should not just be considered status reports.

And scrum standups should only take 5 minutes. Theory is one thing. Reality is another. It's even worse when you have a team that does scrum, and also schedules regular 1:1s with the boss. I'm expected to give my status every day, and then summarize a week's worth of status at the 1:1 meeting. It's a colossal waste of time, and I don't know how to "take charge" of my 1:1 (or even if I'm supposed to take charge) in order to refocus it onto what I want it to be about.

When 1-1s become the weekly status report, your manager has failed you. Your manager should know what's up because he is around, uses the team's tools, and asks questions.

You should definitely take charge of 1-1s. Maybe try bringing a list of non-status related issues and hand them over. The problems you see, ideas you have, off-topic things. Make it clear to your boss that things aren't working.

that's just poor execution and as you point out, can suck the value out of anything

The regular 1-on-1 thing is mantra because people are notoriously bad at determining when they are actually needed, and because so many managers spend far less time actually listening to their reports than they think. They often spend lots of time with their reports, but usually talking to them or over them, or focusing entirely on tasks rather than giving attention to the person.

If 1-1s take one or two days of back to back meetings, to me that means the team is either too large for you to effectively manage without putting putting in place a team lead or more to delegate to. Or alternatively those meetings are really necessary, or you wouldn't have that much to talk about. If it leaves someones voice hoarse as a manager, it makes me think they're not listening enough.

> the team is either too large

Not really. It can be tough even at 8-10 reports, 30 minutes each (some may go over): 4-5 hours of meetings. It's hard to schedule them literally back-to-back because of everyone else's schedules, so it winds up taking up two afternoons or whatever (it won't literally take up two full days from morning to evening).

> If it leaves someones voice hoarse as a manager, it makes me think they're not listening enough.

Very cute. Maybe I don't have the stamina for non-stop talking as others do :-P

8-10 directs reports is already too large in my opinion, at least to me, exactly because of the amount of effort it takes to follow all of them up sufficiently. I've had teams with that many direct reports, and it sucks for me and it sucks for the people reporting to me if there's not then a team lead or similar exactly because it drains time. I don't see cutting the time I spend on people as viable at all.

The threshold might very well differ from person to person, but in my opinion, if you can't afford to schedule 30 minutes per person on a weekly basis (whether or not you actually end up using the full amount of time) without feeling it is too much, then you can't afford to manage that many people directly, no matter how many people we're talking. For some that might mean 10 or even more works, but in my experience as the team size grows the amount of time you need to invest per person grows as well as interpersonal issues and communications gets more complicated.

> Very cute.

Maybe, but it's not meant to be - I'm very serious on that point. When I do 1-on-1's with reports, if I'm the one doing the talking it's a sign we've spent more time than necessary and the meeting is at an end.

That might also be part of the reason why I have a different attitude to them: If a report doesn't have anything to bring up, the meeting is over in 5 minutes. But in my experience at least, there's a big difference in what comes out when you bring someone into a meeting room for 5 minutes (or on a private call), and specifically ask them in a one on one setting if there's anything they'd like to bring up, anything I could help with, what personal development they'd like doing etc..

I'm sure that for some people that's not necessary and they get people to open up without creating that setting all the time, but my experience with my own managers too is that managers in IT (probably applies elsewhere too, but I've only ever worked in tech companies) are notoriously bad at creating good environments for this. And I need to keep a very close eye on myself too, as it's not a part of the job that comes naturally to me.

That is where the ceremony comes it. It's not for the people who are great at getting everyone to talk. It's for everyone else - including a lot of people who think they're great at getting people to talk.

8-10 is a big team. That's when you should think abotu splitting up your team beyond you managing everyone because it is as you suggest hard to give everyone attention.

As for hoarseness: ask more questions and talk less. - These can help: http://jasonevanish.com/2014/05/29/101-questions-to-ask-in-1...

Clearly it's not a universal truth because at least from what you say, it sounds like you don't like them.

On the other hand, I'll have to say you're definitely wrong to say people don't look forward to them. I have yet to find a company where we have had too many 1:1s, and I usually have them weekly.

It's true that sometimes I don't have anything I really need to communicate, and what ends up happening is that the meeting takes 5 minutes and that's it. That might seem like a waste, but I like it because it makes me feel like my manager actually cares enough to hear the feedback from us underlings. If we didn't have scheduled 1:1s, I would have a really hard time bringing up anything because my manager is very often elsewhere.

I also feel like it should be beneficial from the manager's perspective because assuming people actually are comfortable talking about issues, there are usually problems which arise that the manager doesn't have to deal with and thus know about. Then, we can make sure these things get addressed.

Of course, all this is moot if you don't feel like you can trust your manager, which is unfortunately sometimes the case.

1-1s are an excellent tool to keep discussions opened that would be difficult otherwise. In other scenarios, if you need to talk about career, feedback, develop the relationship without being focused on last week's work stuff, etc... It's the opportunity to "invert" the power relationship and give the managed a clear voice (even if the manager drives it) In other cases, what's most likely to happen is that the urgent takes preference over the important. The 1-1 should be about the important. All those chats should be an ongoing discussion, not an exceptional topic to bring one day...

1-on-1's are the one dedicated block of alone-time you can get with your manager. This is the moment any questions or concerns or thoughts you have about your career, your goals, anything that might be getting in your way can come up. Also, these are moments you can celebrate with praise, etc.

Note the word "your" here. It's honestly your time with your manager, not her time with you. They're just organizing it for you as all good managers should.

I find the rhythm in 1-on-1s something to look forward to, and something I can be mentally prepared for each week.

If you're finding them useless, then do yourself and your manager a favor and make them useful. Plus never be afraid to ask hard questions, or get information about promotions or career advancement at these meetings. They're the perfect time for questions about that.

FWIW, my career took a turn for much better when I started working at a place that had regular 1 on 1's.

I think of regularly scheduled 1-on-1s as a shortcut to make employees feel like management is open to serious communication. It's a regularly-scheduled explicit opportunity to give feedback, so even if no specific feedback is usually necessary, when it is necessary the time slot is already booked.

Obviously, being open to communication is a good thing, so I'm not really critical of 1-on-1s. The fact that there isn't usually anything substance to talk about is a feature, not a bug. Sure, ideally the company culture and the individual relationships with managers would be such that everyone knows that serious discussions can be initiated any time they're necessary, but failing that, regularly-scheduled 1-on-1s are probably the next best thing.

They seem pretty useful to me. The hardest part of being a manager seems to be getting reliable information. (The higher up you are, the more disconnected you tend to be, and the more motivated people are to bullshit). So introducing a socially acceptable way for people low in the hierarchy to communicate information upwards with lower political friction seems like a good thing overall. I mean yes, you could just go directly to your management if you have a concern and not have scheduled 1:1's, but I think the action of directly approaching the manager implicitly amplifies things in ways you might not want. How pleasant and productive the meeting is depends on your manager, but I think the idea is sound.

Agreed, i dont do 1:1's with my team a) i have about 90 folks to deal with, so it would be near to impossible. b) all my folks know (and do) that they can grab 30 mins at any time with me if they have something on thier mind. I kinda keep track of who is not talking to me, and hit them up with a chat now and then. I also do something I call "walking the floor", where every few hours i get around everybody and just say hi and ask how everybody is doing, and what they are up to, ask if they have any problems. Show interest in what they are doing. I usualy time it when i know folks are takimg natural breaks etc so i know im not distracting them.

It seems like too much to have one person managing all 90ds. I guess this is where people either agree or disagree about the layers of middle management...for example have local leads reports to local manager, and local manager reports back to director/VP/SVP or whatever if you have people concentrated in various location.

I try to keep my org as flat as possible, but 90 people would be completely nutso.

To me it's a sign of an org that can't grow managers properly.

To put this in perspective: if he gave each of his folks just 26 minutes a week, that would be every minute of working time in a 40 hour work week :)

>I also do something I call "walking the floor"

Also known as drive-by management. Why not schedule some time instead?

Among "worst qualities of management I've ever experienced," drive-by is in the top 5. Even satirized in Office Space.

Come to think of it, "far too many direct reports" is on the same list...

90 direct reports?

What's your turnover rate with that flat an org?

Other orgs set up like that I've found have a lot of unspoken problems that lead to people leaving on a pretty regular basis.

Where do you work?

I look forward to 1-on-1s with my manager(s) and I've never used them for status reports.

Perfect time to ask questions about things not directly in my day to day domain.

Weekly seems a bit much for anyone but super-new-hires, though.

It's a venue to bring up problems that could be bottled up. Properly conducted 1-on-1's don't have to be dreadful and can end quickly if so desired.

Manager can probe with questions such as "What's the biggest obstacle you're facing right now?" and "Anything you need from me to help you out?", but there are some weeks where nothing will come up, which would end the session.

The help/harm of 1-on-1s depends on the manager's style. I've had managers whose 1:1s were helpful and motivating, and others where it felt like I was on trial each time, and I dreaded seeing that calendar notification pop up.

Some people like "reflective practice" and "supervision". (Here supervision is a jargon word that comes from healthcare or protective social services. A person has regular meetings with a more experienced team member to talk about difficult things they've had that week / month.)

The challenges that programmers face are very different to the challenges a mental health nurse faces, but they're still useful concepts. Weekly might be a bit much for programmers.

A lot of people get the wrong idea about 1 on 1s because they've only had poor ones. When a manager turns them into status updates, as you describe, they are a waste. And even if they do ask good questions in the meeting, if they don't keep their promises with what they're going to do based on the discussion, it becomes pointless as well.

That being said, in the right hands, 1 on 1s are amazing. They help managers and their team in a variety of ways:

1) Open channel of communication - Having a standard, private time to talk to your manager or report (depending on your role) is huge. Michael Wolfe has a great post on this http://www.michaelrwolfe.com/2013/10/19/do-i-really-need-to-...

2) Avoid interruptions - If people are constantly bugging you as a manager you can't get anything done nor give those problems attention. By meeting at a set time each week or two you can dive into the problem and give it your singular focus.

3) Talk about career growth - Most companies suck at this, but those that actually do talk about skill and career growth have a huge advantage. There is no other time to have this conversation besides 1 on 1s.

4) Catch problems when they're small - If you have to interrupt your boss to talk to them about something you're probably going to wait til it's a big enough deal to interrupt them, but by then it can be too late. Jason Lemkin writes well about this: http://www.saastr.com/by-the-time-you-give-them-a-raise-they...

5) Supporting the efficacy. - Is there a study out there? Well, not exactly, but Andy Grove CEO of Intel (High Output Management), and Ben Horowitz A16Z (the Hard Things about Hard Things) swear by them to the point they included them in their books, and recently Deloitte did research on them as a way to replace the hated performance review https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management

There's a reason Andy Grove said the "90 minutes of your time can improve the effectiveness of your team for 2 weeks or 80+ hours". One on ones done right are that powerful.

I found so many people need this help I decided to make an app to help. If you're interested, I'd be happy to get you early access at GetLighthouse.com, just mention this thread at signup.

> People never look forward to them

100% not true. Explain and apologize.