[HN Gopher] The unreasonable effectiveness of one-on-ones
___________________________________________________________________
The unreasonable effectiveness of one-on-ones
Author : sebg
Score : 94 points
Date : 2022-01-31 18:47 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.benkuhn.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.benkuhn.net)
| Upgrayyed_U wrote:
| I think 1-on-1s can be "unreasonably effective." In one group I
| managed, I implemented 1-on-1s and watched year-over-year
| attrition drop by ~80%. I thought they were so effective that I
| implemented them in my marriage and saw great (albeit, not
| directly measurable) increases in marriage satisfaction. If
| nothing else, my wife enjoyed them enough that she is now the one
| who insists that we have a "weekly connect."
|
| With that said, I think that almost all of their effectiveness
| comes down to who's leading it. When I first become a manager, I
| assumed that I would probably suck at it, so I read everything I
| could on how to be a better manager. That was especially true
| when it came to leading 1-on-1s. But, when I've worked with
| managers who just didn't care for them, or didn't care to learn
| enough about how to do them properly, they were invariably a
| waste of time. So, despite my own experience, I don't begrudge
| anyone who thinks 1-on-1s are a waste of time. In many (most?)
| cases, they are.
| mooreds wrote:
| I'm a big fan of one to ones, but only if both parties are into
| it.
|
| If it is a status report, it should be an email.
|
| It should be a place for you to discuss topics that are stymieing
| you and/or build rapport and trust.
|
| I've had direct reports tell me they wanted to have a 1:1 less
| often, so I know my style of 1:1 doesn't work for everyone. It's
| a big world.
|
| I wrote more about 1:1s here, esp managing them from the
| perspective of a new developer/employee:
| https://letterstoanewdeveloper.com/2020/03/16/how-to-manage-...
| zestyping wrote:
| Hm, I have mixed feelings about this article.
|
| One-on-ones can be highly effective, no doubt. The kinds of
| practices that the author describes are often helpful. However,
| I'm not sure the claim applies to all companies and pairings.
| I've had a wide range of experiences with one-on-ones.
|
| I've worked for the company that the author is talking about
| (full disclosure: I worked with him there, had an excellent and
| productive time, and then was fired). That company places an
| extremely heavy emphasis on imposing a specific culture from the
| top down -- not just a culture of how work is done, but pervasive
| to the extent of personal habits and lifestyle advice.
| Alternative suggestions about culture are generally not
| entertained because there is a primary tenet that everyone has to
| align 100% with the culture for it to work, and it is more
| efficient for everyone to simply align with exactly what the CEO
| believes than to make culture decisions as a group. Maybe that's
| the best way to run a startup when your overriding priority is to
| execute as fast as possible, but it does have other negative
| side-effects, which were unfortunate for some of my teammates.
|
| Consequently, I am reluctant to generalize from experiences of
| working there. It is a unique company, and not all working
| environments and team relationships are going to be like that.
| par wrote:
| Gonna have to strongly disagree on this. Just because the author
| has specific anecdotes for their 1x1s, there's no way this
| applies broadly and generically. I've had a thousand+ 1x1s with
| countless people (both as a manager and as a report), and the
| majority of them are just time sucking status updates, casual
| meet and greets, or some performance/process related discussion.
| Literally never have I walked out of a 1x1 and thought "wow that
| was unreasonably effective".
| balaji1 wrote:
| I don't have much I want to bring up to my manager in 1:1s but
| I still prefer to have them as a manager myself. So 1:1s
| definitely never felt unreasonably effective. Never thought to
| optimize it tho.
|
| Anything of value or importance has to be written down, it is a
| short objective statement, usually a few lines. And then
| pursuing those over time (1 to several weeks or months) and
| having accountability check-ins. This would make 1:1s very
| formal and 1:1s usually seem better as casual conversations.
| UnpossibleJim wrote:
| Yes and no. I've had one on ones tied to OKR's that were
| completely pointless and a waste of time. Corp speak nonsense
| that kept me and the people I worked with away from our work
| and was really just shuffling papers in middle management.
|
| I've also had one on ones with small team leaders, who knew
| their people and knew their jobs and understood their
| motivations that were SUPER helpful. Even if it meant preparing
| those people to leave the company. That's the difference
| between a good manager and a bad manager. That's also why I
| like working in small teams. We gel faster, work closer
| together and get to know our manager (even though that manager
| is me, right now). I've tried to learn from my former managers
| and bring that to my team of a few people and try to shield
| them from as much corporate BS that I can. That isn't their
| job. They look at code (as do I, when I can), and I go to
| meetings and deal with that. And when members of my team seem
| interested in other things (and mention it in one on ones), I
| try to help them with that. That's what they're supposed to be
| for. Not just poor performance... hopefully. Maybe I've just
| gotten lucky.
| jollybean wrote:
| "Literally never have I walked out of a 1x1 and thought "wow
| that was unreasonably effective"."
|
| ? Nobody would ever suggest that you should feel that way, or
| that an individual 1x1 would be singularly effective.
|
| When you go Heli-skiing, you ski with a partner, and you're
| constantly shouting out to your partner to let the know where
| you are. Primarily, you do this because of the various kinds of
| danger, especially avalanches. That those things are unlikely
| does not abnegate the need for communication.
|
| One thing never made obvious in films or popular culture is the
| amount of communication in the military. 1/2 of the game is
| communicating. It's information, which is the basis of
| coordination, which is the basis of management of force. A
| 'radio' is as important as one's 'rifle'. A rifle can defend
| you against one person; a radio connects you with the totality
| of the power of the system you are in.
|
| The point is it's a form of systematic communication which I
| would overwhelmingly support.
|
| Especially the bit about 'open ended' - my gosh there are so
| many details lost in the normal operative aspects it's almost
| scary.
|
| 'Status Updates' are generally not meaningless, it's one of the
| means that people use to coordinate, though they can be
| cumbersome.
|
| Wasted time in meetings is definitely endemic, at the same
| time, a lot of complaint is sometimes rooted in the lack of
| understanding of the nature of one unit within the larger
| system.
|
| As developers, we feel that our 'code' is our productivity, but
| it's like the 'rifle' - it's just the obvious thing. The
| 'radio' is the other key thing.
|
| Also - the 'performance' bits are probably overdone. It's
| extremely hard to change habits. You can definitely get people
| to do things like adjust to a coding style, but it gets hard
| past that. I'm more of the view of just trying to leverage what
| people are already good at because most people are good at
| 'something'. But merely as 'coordination', these things are
| important.
|
| Especially with direct managers, there needs to be fairly
| consistent communication, which is different FYI from large
| team meetings of which there are probably too many.
| par wrote:
| ok but that was literally the title of the blog post so
| someone did suggest it?
| jollybean wrote:
| Running is an effective way of getting in shape. No single
| 5K is going to get you in shape.
|
| 1-on-1's are very effective. No single 1-on-1 is going to
| feel particularly effective.
| nostrademons wrote:
| The point of 1:1s is largely about building trust. It's very
| rare that anything seriously consequential gets discussed in a
| 1:1; arguably, if it gets to that point, you're doing something
| wrong. Rather, 1:1s are about thousands of _little_ course
| corrections, pointing out something small that should happen,
| watching it happen, and then building trust that further
| communication will be well-received.
|
| It's so you don't get blindsided out of nowhere with "I'm
| leaving for Facebook now" or "Sorry, your project is canceled"
| or "We're not happy with how things are going, so you're now on
| a PIP."
|
| It's the same reason to say "Good morning" and "I love you" to
| your spouse every day and buy them flowers - by itself, it's
| inconsequential, but if you don't you'll likely hear "I'm
| leaving you for your best friend" in a decade or two. Same
| reason, for that matter, that people are looking at America now
| and going "What the hell happened?" Trust and emotions are real
| things too.
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| If you walk away from a 1:1 and think "wow, that was
| unreasonably effective", there's probably something wrong with
| all the time spent when you're not doing a 1:1.
| jklinger410 wrote:
| I've always felt like 1:1s, even when not "productive", are
| good breaks between work and great at building culture and
| connections.
|
| Not every aspect of productivity in a company is about
| completing a specific task.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| There's a common factor to all of your 1:1s, so that may be
| worth looking into.
|
| Like the author, I have had some ongoing 1:1s be incredibly
| productive. Like really changing my life. Unlike the author, I
| wouldn't broadly recommend them. They're so easy to do in a way
| that isn't productive. I think that's the default, really. So
| if I was going to tell people to do them I'd be very explicit
| that you need to do something different than you probably
| think. Here are exacts steps and characteristics, if you don't
| follow these then it won't work and don't come to me about it.
|
| The overall general trend of why they're not effective is
| they're too surface level. You say some updates to your boss in
| a way that doesn't get you fired, maybe complain about some
| stuff. You kinda just talk about things.
|
| It needs to be a time when there is some work really happening.
| It's metawork, but it's still work. Like "what were the things
| that distracted you last week?" and you write them down, there
| in the meeting. Not "anything distracting you lately?" "nope
| I'm fine". It's a much more vulnerable, interactive process.
| This is probably why a 1:1 with your boss isn't the most
| effective person. Too much image to maintain.
|
| I think the sports model is better. In baseball, the Manager
| (coach or head coach in other sports) makes decisions about who
| is playing. Coaches (aka assistant coaches or trainers) are
| skill experts who help you get better. You can be more
| vulnerable with them. I think some industries, especially
| software, would do well to have more of a manager/coach model.
| tootie wrote:
| I prefer to build trust through actions rather than meetings.
| My 1:1s are mostly chit chat or occasionally sensitive topics
| because I am already keenly aware of what people are working
| on and what their bottlenecks are.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| > I am already keenly aware of what people are working on
| and what their bottlenecks are.
|
| How? You would need to be on a team that's basically
| completely nailed safety in order to have an accurate view
| into that just from group conversations.
| par wrote:
| What do you suggest i'd look into? I said i've never walked
| out of a 1x1 and thought it was "unreasonably effective". And
| when I discussed features of my 1x1s I discussed the
| majority. Sure there have been occasional nuggets of gold but
| I'd hardly consider it the primary outcome of majority of
| 1x1s. Feel like you're attempting to evaluate my 1x1s based
| on a couple of sentences I wrote in response to a hyperbolic
| clickbaitey title.
| kmonsen wrote:
| Just to state the obvious, the common factor in all your
| 1x1's have been you.
|
| I have no idea about you, so in very general terms to have
| them be unreasonably effective there needs to be
| preparation and input from both sides.
|
| Even if nothing else happens in the 1x1, it is where you
| can build personal relations as well. That will happen
| regardless of how prepared anyone is, but it is not always
| a positive one.
| nostromo wrote:
| > There's a common factor to all of your 1:1s, so that may be
| worth looking into.
|
| This was rude and uncalled for.
| jcrash wrote:
| I disagree. The original commenter obviously does not enjoy
| 1:1s, and has said they believe the majority of them, even
| the ones where they have been the manager (!), have been
| useless. I think that is unusual.
|
| It may very well be that the original commenter should look
| into changing how they handle and respond to 1:1s. It might
| help them.
| par wrote:
| You're quite wrong jcrash. I actually love 1x1s, love
| getting to know my team, and spend a ton of time
| developing trust, solving problems, etc in 1x1. At no
| point have I thought "WOW this is _unreasonably
| effective!_ Instead I think, "hey here's me doing my job
| that i love, in a reasonably effective way."
| maxbond wrote:
| If this is how you feel, then the way you phrased your
| comment is pretty confusing. You said you strongly
| disagreed with the author's premise, described the
| majority of them as "time sucking", and finish off by
| saying you've never walked away thinking they were
| unreasonably effective - which, given the tone of the
| previous statements, reads like an invitation to infer
| that you often feel the opposite way.
|
| I don't have any sort of dog in this race, but I read and
| reread your comment, and each time took the impression
| that you think little of 1x1s. Having read your other
| comments in the thread, I think I see better that you
| were disagreeing with the _broadness_ of the author's
| claim, not the claim itself, but I can understand other
| commenter's reactions.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Are you sure you have your real stance on them not the
| reactionary one? The first thing you had to say to
| describe them originally was they were time sucking
| status updates and ended with out of 1000s you literally
| never walked out of a single one thinking it was
| unreasonably effective. The warmest words were that
| reviewing process and performance was common. When I look
| back and think of my most time sucking god awful
| unproductive meeting series there was a "stand up"
| (wasn't really) meeting for a couple years at one company
| and even then I remember walking away from a handful
| thinking "that was a really super crazy productive
| meeting".
|
| I mean if it's your well established thoughts then it's
| definitely your well established thoughts, regardless
| what anyone else thinks you thought, but I don't think
| jcash was the only one caught of guard with how/what you
| were countering the author on.
| zepolen wrote:
| It's not rude and uncalled for to point out a very valid
| point.
|
| Your comment on the other hand is completely rude and
| uncalled for as it gives zero value and the only thing we
| learn is that 'it hurt your feelings', probably because you
| too dislike 1:1s
| par wrote:
| lol, agree. It was rude!
| marnett wrote:
| While it was matter of fact, I do not find it rude or
| uncalled for. But a call to action that in a one on one it
| is very much in one's power to try to steer the format to
| more productive pastures, and perhaps worth considering if
| the majority of 1:1s are falling into the unproductive,
| time-sunk bucket.
| par wrote:
| I listed three qualities of 1x1s in my post. Quality #2
| and #3 I did not deride as time sunk, those are just
| things that need to be done. Regarding status updates,
| whether people want to believe it or not, most ICs feel
| like giving a status update in a 1x1 is time sunk.
| Managers don't feel that way. However at no point did I
| say that are unproductive. I just said they aren't
| "unreasonably effective".
| KerrAvon wrote:
| > whether people want to believe it or not, most ICs feel
| like giving a status update in a 1x1 is time sunk
|
| I can see people believing this for Agile-style standups
| (I can argue both sides of that one), but something like
| a scheduled weekly 1:1 should always be valuable sync
| time for an IC and manager. It also should not be a
| prison: if you want to skip a week, slack your manager
| and say "I've nothing, you have anything this week?" or
| something like that.
|
| edited to add: that said, I too have never had the
| "unreasonably effective" experience, which is your
| broader point.
| reidjs wrote:
| They might mean that it's on both parties to make the 1:1
| effective.
| loopz wrote:
| There's just no way that can happen while there are no
| overlapping common goals and incentives.
|
| Think about _that_!
| mandelbrotwurst wrote:
| Does a situation like this actually exist? Managers
| succeed when their teams perform well, which is more
| easily accomplished when the people reporting to them who
| compose those teams perform well.
| loopz wrote:
| Is that how it's like out there? Managers having
| responsibility and not just the workers? Maybe I just
| never experienced that..
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| Many people who (until recently) perused Reddit's
| /r/antiwork will tell you that all managers are out to
| get you and all business hate all of their employees.
| They will do this with a straight face and accuse you of
| every kind of evil under the sun if you cite
| counterexamples.
|
| It is irrelevant to them that there are managers and even
| Corporations (ew! boo hiss!) that do not, in fact, act
| that way. They really hate it when anyone points out that
| treating employees well can result in greater profits,
| not fewer.
| jmchuster wrote:
| From the employee standpoint, that means they've never
| tried to achieve the goals layed out by the company and
| their managers?
|
| And from the manager standpoint, that means that they've
| never tried to assign work that matches up with the
| interests of people they manage?
| Supermancho wrote:
| > There's a common factor to all of your 1:1s,
|
| That they are a timesink used to justify a positions
| existence, rather than boost productivity? That's correct.
| [deleted]
| lacker wrote:
| A 1x1 is really what you make of it. When you are the manager,
| you have a lot of latitude for how a 1x1 operates. If you find
| that your 1x1s are rarely useful, change how you run them.
|
| In particular, you mention "time-sucking status updates". In my
| experience, often someone thinks you want a status report, but
| from your point of view you are sufficiently aware of the
| project status already. As the manager, you can just politely
| suggest that you are already happy with the project status, and
| move on to other topics.
|
| Some of the most effective 1x1s are either when the manager has
| a tough problem to solve, or the report has a tough problem to
| solve, and the 1x1 can be some focused time to detect these
| problems and resolve them. This can be anywhere from a
| technical issue that this report has some expertise in, or a
| social issue like "I feel like it's been taking a while to
| reach an agreement among the team on topic X, how do you think
| we can speed that up?" Or perhaps you notice that a report
| seems frustrated on a project, but you aren't quite sure why,
| and you can use the 1:1 to draw that out.
|
| I find it helpful to take notes ahead of time, with some ideas
| for myself for what I might be able to accomplish with a 1:1.
| Otherwise you run the risk of not really knowing what to say,
| your report doesn't really have anything urgent in mind either,
| and you fill up the 1:1 time with chit chat.
|
| I really like this blog post on how to run effective 1:1s:
|
| https://randsinrepose.com/archives/the-update-the-vent-and-t...
|
| Running an effective 1:1 is an important managerial skill, it's
| something you can practice and improve at over time, and it's
| worth working at it since there is so much you can accomplish
| through 1:1s and you're likely spending a lot of time as a
| manager in them.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| I've had a lot of great one on ones and a lot of bad ones. They
| changed towards being great when I started gathering a list of
| things I wanted to cover or talk about.
|
| One on ones where we make small talk about the weekend are
| useless to me. One on ones where we can talk through a
| technical topic I don't understand and I know I have at least a
| half hour of time to do so with someone who knows the topic
| well? Very helpful.
|
| Most of the time its only tangentially related to anything I've
| been working on.
| nojito wrote:
| Is discussing performance not a worthwhile endeavor?
| par wrote:
| Of course it is. Is it "unreasonably effective" or is it just
| another part of our jobs though?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| If I'm meeting with someone and it's all status updates and
| pleasantries, I try to change it, and, if I can't, to leave. If
| you find every meeting you're in to be useless, consider the
| common factor.
|
| When done properly, 1:1s are powerful. But they require at
| least one side to be willing to be vulnerable. To talk about
| problems and weaknesses and needs. That doesn't come naturally
| to most of us, and requires practice and intent to become
| habit.
| heymijo wrote:
| They require the person with more power to respond positively
| to any gambit that shows vulnerability.
|
| A direct report may try a couple of times to go deeper or be
| vulnerable but if the manager isn't receptive that 1:1 just
| became perfunctory into perpetuity.
| codingdave wrote:
| I've had both good and bad 1:1s, yet I still find them to be
| quite effective. Because even when they feel like a waste, they
| serve a purpose - to maintain the habit of talking to your
| boss. That way, when something does come up worth talking
| about, you just do.
|
| I have little to say to my current boss most weeks. I just keep
| my platform running independently, so he gets to trust me to do
| so and ignore it. It is a good working relationship. Our weekly
| calls are 5 minutes long, just a quick check in and move on.
| Until they are not - and then we raise concerns, talk them
| through, fix them, and go back to the regularly scheduled
| program.
|
| Each individual 1:1 is fairly worthless. But the habit makes
| all the difference in the long run.
| ozim wrote:
| I think that is what a lot of people miss also on other
| things.
|
| Daily stand-ups are mostly also not really that useful - but
| getting team together so they are used to at least 15-20 mins
| talking to each other I believe has benefits anyway.
|
| The same with writing unit tests, I see my team is writing
| too many useless unit tests. But then if we have habit of
| writing tests - important tests will get written as well. If
| we would skip tests and say that we write only "important
| ones" then I saw that no tests were written in period where
| we had such an approach.
| jraph wrote:
| > Daily stand-ups are mostly also not really that useful
|
| This is my feeling. Wouldn't a weekly meeting where we
| don't need to stand up be sufficient for this?
|
| I guess it depends on the people and how they function. And
| how the team communicates throughout the day or the week.
| asdff wrote:
| If its just you reporting then its going to feel like a waste
| of time and suck. The best 1x1s though are problem solving
| related where you both are sitting there and coming up with a
| gameplan. That sort of meeting doesn't go well over email
| because there's often a lot of things you come up with and
| address that would take 40 emails or slack messages to do the
| same.
| mkl95 wrote:
| One-on-ones can be scary due to their potential implications. If
| one-on-ones are frequent, it's usually a symptom of an immature
| culture where people are too lazy to write things down, or they
| don't want to do it to dodge accountability. Personally, I'd
| rather send people a chunky paragraph with what I want from them
| and let them go about their day.
| jeppester wrote:
| While I was a team manager I really liked the one-on-ones.
|
| It was a great way to handle issues while they were still small
| and manageable.
|
| Someone unhappy on a project? I'd do my best to talk to the
| project mangers and voice the criticism in an impactful way, or
| possibly reassign the person.
|
| Problems at home? I would have never picked that up during our
| normal interactions.
|
| Those meetings gave me the opportunity to help my coworkers with
| lots of stuff they would otherwise not have mentioned.
|
| It was a true pleasure when I was able to help them out, and even
| when I wasn't, I think it helped a lot that they just had that
| chance to vent and then get on with stuff.
|
| While some one-on-ones might have been a waste of time, I believe
| that overall they had a very positive impact.
|
| Reading the rest of the comments here, I think I might have been
| in a very favorable position. I started as a developer, and then
| got promoted at a time where I was the obvious choice. So I
| always felt like "one of us" during those conversations, and I
| could very much relate to every work-related challenge.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > her philosophy department is leaving a lot of productivity on
| the table
|
| The mind boggles as to what could be done with that increased
| productivity.
| jldugger wrote:
| Grant more PhDs per year, while reducing the cost of education
| to the student. Grad student stipends are often meager,
| assuming you even get funding.
| Hokusai wrote:
| One on ones are a very good tool. In someone with good training
| and in a good job environment are incredible to gather feedback,
| make sure that the company environment is good, and it's an
| opportunity to help individuals with the kind of problems that is
| hard to talk in public. Finally, even in functional companies,
| employees may feel unsure about their performance. Regular
| meetings help to dissipate any doubts.
|
| That the article also applies it to personal life makes sense.
| It's not just a company tool.
|
| If you have been in a company where ones on ones were bad or
| counterproductive be open to think that it may be a problem on
| how it was used not inherently a problem with the tool.
| lifeplusplus wrote:
| one-on-ones are kinda anti-pattern, if you have something to say,
| there should be an easier way to say it. if you have nothing to
| say it becomes dumb status report about things any competent
| manager would already be aware of.
| sethhochberg wrote:
| I've found that many people are really, really averse to the
| perception that they're "bothering" their manager, no matter
| how often it is emphasized that ad-hoc conversations about
| things that are important to the teams' members are part of the
| manager's job and despite however much effort the manager puts
| in to genuinely welcoming these ad-hoc conversations when they
| happen.
|
| Regularly scheduled 1:1s are a great backstop for this kind of
| thing, and let people feel confident and prepared for
| conversations with their management.
|
| If neither party has anything to say, its true the meeting can
| become a dumb status update - but if neither party has
| something to say, that implies the time since the last 1:1 saw
| no growth, no challenges, nothing of note at all to bring up...
| and this is probably a red flag on its own.
|
| I'm perfectly willing to reduce frequency of 1:1s with very
| senior and self-sufficient members of my teams, but even once a
| month is valuable.
| bell-cot wrote:
| This +10 (if I could). Very regular, _very_ short (if there
| 's not much to discuss) 1:1s can be quite valuable.
| Especially managing folks who are reluctant to speak up.
| Doesn't much matter the reason for their reluctance -
| introverted, self-conscious about not being very articulate,
| burned by previous shitty management, overbearing co-workers,
| ...
| lifeplusplus wrote:
| once a month seems more useful, but i doubt i'd hold in
| something for a month. i think it's better to create a
| culture where managers are approachable human beings then to
| have dedicated meetings that are so far away, and if they are
| weekly then you have got a problem having nothing to say on
| both sides.
| tomcat27 wrote:
| There are some conversations I think are better exchanged more
| thoughtfully and that takes time. Schedule of people with many
| direct reports is just overwhelming and it's too easy to
| naturally avoid certain discussions unless they are
| deliberately scheduled. IMO 1-1 is "at least" meeting than "at
| most" meeting.
| lifeplusplus wrote:
| then just schedule a meeting, in one year i had like 3 times
| i had something to say that was employment related and other
| 50 1-1s were waste of my time
| retrac98 wrote:
| Shameless plug, but I made a little app for generating one-on-one
| questions: https://one-on-ones.app/
| amelius wrote:
| The unreasonable effectiveness of hyperbolic headlines.
| llbeansandrice wrote:
| I think in any endeavor it's important to try out different
| methods and situations. This post resonated with my hobby as a
| swing dancer. Lots of folks like to take group lessons where the
| format is teachers have a lesson plan and more or less spoon-feed
| it to students. This can involve some or no homework. It can be
| exercises to work on technique, just a new move to try, etc.
|
| I've seen a lot of people overvalue this format of lessons as a
| way to "get better" at their craft rather than weekly practice
| sessions with a group or private lessons. This is usually because
| there's a lot more friction and effort to set up practices and
| private lessons usually mean _you_ have to come up with what you
| want to learn.
|
| As others have mentioned though, the most important factor is to
| go into it being earnest and genuine. Group lessons can be done
| poorly just as 1:1s can be done poorly.
| jll29 wrote:
| This isn't so much an article about 1:1s in general, I would say,
| but more of a rant about bad Ph.D. student supervision in one
| particular case, which the author generalises from N=1
| observations.
|
| Of course there are many stories of poor grad school experience
| and the notable Prof. Smith from the legendary Ph.D. comic; but
| just to point out that there are also "rock star" supervisors:
| for instance, I was blessed to be able to email drafts of
| conference papers to mine at 11 p.m. and get corrections back by
| 5 a.m.
|
| For example, here are some interesting supervision anecdotes from
| CMU (computer science, not philosophy):
| https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_3361714_1/component/file...
|
| Now I can't say I know how the distribution of grad student
| supervisors looks like on the good/bad scale, but let's just be
| careful not to extrapolate from a single data point.
|
| PS: I applaud the author's approach to try to help using the
| methods he knew - a beautiful example of making use of
| transferrable skills (computing is full of them).
| stakkur wrote:
| I rarely have found 1-1s 'effective', and I've experienced them
| in four different companies. In stints as a manager, I never have
| them.
|
| First: like all management, their usefulness depends utterly on
| how effective the _manager_ is. In my experience, most managers
| just use them to 'chat'. Which is invariably a waste of both our
| times.
|
| Second: Most things I want to talk to a manager about, I can talk
| about _anytime_. We just talk as the need arises. In my
| experience, most managers schedule them 'just so we have
| available time', which really means "I don't have time unless
| you're on my calendar".
|
| To be an effective manager, I need them to be _available_ , to
| _communicate well_ , to _listen_ , and to give me feedback and
| guidance based on what they hear. And that has nothing to do with
| a regular '1-1' meeting.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| But are most managers available? That is the last word I think
| of when I think of managers in general. Maybe available in an
| emergency but what about when I want to ask questions that are
| relevant to my career/the company/technology but not directly
| relevant to my/our current task or goal?
|
| I wouldnt really expect my manager to drop everything Monday
| morning to talk to me about that unless I know I had a weekly
| scheduled time to do so.
| loopz wrote:
| If managers are not available to manage the business, what
| are they really doing??
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| My last 1:1 was followed by me giving three weeks notice, so I
| suppose that's effective.
| brimble wrote:
| In this thread, we explore more ways in which almost any practice
| or system works great when someone competent and well-meaning
| does it, and almost none do when someone incompetent or malicious
| is involved, which is most of the time.
|
| See also: all project management methodology discussions.
| lkrubner wrote:
| Are people capable of learning? If not, then why read Hacker
| News at all? Here is a technique that clearly is powerful when
| done well, so why not read the anecdotes and try to internalize
| the lessons? If you are in a leadership position, how about you
| push yourself to learn what that means, and then push yourself
| to get better and better? Stories like this are one of many
| ways to learn a new leadership technique.
| brimble wrote:
| That justifies the article, but I can guarantee this
| discussion is going to be 99% "nuh uh" and "yeah huh" and
| both will be right, mostly because of the effect in my post.
| I'm either a mystic who can predict the future, or these
| discussions all look exactly the same.
| baxtr wrote:
| Welcome to HackerNews!
| brimble wrote:
| Fair.
| taneq wrote:
| yeah huh
| robertlagrant wrote:
| The parent poster is saying the technique is less important
| than being well-meaning and trying sincerely.
|
| Having said that, perhaps the lesson we can learn here is
| that reading is a powerful technique to learn to employ.
| brimble wrote:
| Right, we're gonna get a lot of "my manager did them and
| they were great, so I think they're great" and (probably a
| lot more of) "mine did them and they sucked, so I think
| they suck" and "I did them and my reports loved them"
| (true) and "I did them and my reports loved them" (their
| reports were lying or this person can't read the room) and
| _the reason for those experiences_ will not have much to do
| with the practice itself.
| buscoquadnary wrote:
| I can find value in understanding why some people felt they
| were useless and why others felt they were productive. Most of
| it probably won't be great, but it helps consider things I did
| not know I did not know.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| For some managers they are a weapon they use to gaslight their
| reports. That is, they tell one person one thing and tell another
| person another thing.
|
| At least in a team meeting you never are thinking that this is
| going on.
|
| It might not be the usual situation but it happened to me once
| and because of that the 1-1 is going to have a bad smell that's
| going to require a huge amount of trust in the manager to
| overcome.
| iamdbtoo wrote:
| Pretty sure this is exactly what happened to me and it's soured
| me on 1:1s. I thought he was listening empathetically, but
| really he was using the information I was giving him, in what
| was supposed to be a private setting, and used it to paint a
| very negative picture of me to the rest of the bosses.
| loopz wrote:
| I've had a manager use exactly what I warned about when later
| being promoted to executive position. Also having the person
| bragging confidently about power over their employees.
| swagasaurus-rex wrote:
| I find it's often helpful to send messages to relevant people
| who did not attend summarizing the findings of a 1-on-1.
|
| At that point you start a paper trail and can track down where
| inconsistencies or straight up dishonesty are originating.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I read a book a while back called Tribal Leadership that calls
| out exactly the problems you are referring to.
|
| One is that the manager has to say the same thing to multiple
| reports, which simply isn't scalable. Second the person at the
| other end of the 1:1 feels commoditized, and third, people
| start to spot inconsistencies (intentional or not) between what
| the manager is telling different reports, which damages their
| credibility. Their solution is to form triads (three person
| meetings).
| jldugger wrote:
| I'm just gonna put this out there: none of this sounds like a
| problem if you don't lie to your reports.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| "Lie" is an accusation that I try pretty hard not to use.
| (Some people are quick to say "you lied to me" as soon as
| they discover a mismatch between what was said and what the
| reality is, I try to save that for when it's really clear
| that deliberate deception is going on.)
|
| Frequently people tell untruths because they really don't
| know the truth or are confused. Also people who hear bits
| and pieces of a story might come to the conclusion that
| deception is going on when actually their imagination is
| getting the better of them. Also information changes over
| time. You might tell reports A and B that X is the case,
| then you talk to C who educates you that X is not the case
| and really Y is the case, then you talk to D and E and tell
| them that Y is the case. A and B might never get updated or
| get updated after some time delay in which they might
| compare notes with D or E and think there is a problem.
|
| Even if you don't lie you are going to pay for the sins of
| other people who lie who hear stories that don't add up and
| think you are lying.
| routerl wrote:
| Let's clear this up: a lie is intentional. "Saying
| something false" doesn't count as a lie, _only if you
| believed the falsehood_.
|
| Given this clarification, the original point is fair.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| You're right also that people can compare notes and find
| small inconsistencies from somebody honest and blow that up
| into believing somebody is totally dishonest.
| worldvoyageur wrote:
| "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most
| honest of men, I will find something in them which will
| hang him."
|
| -- Cardinal Richelieu
| par wrote:
| It's not good to gaslight people and lie to them. But sometimes
| you need to have a more direct conversation with someone in a
| 1x1 than is appropriate to have in a larger group. And
| sometimes you need to motivate someone in a specific way
| (performance issue, etc) that may not be right to demonstrate
| broadly. For instance, in a 1x1 "Jon, I really need you to get
| the signup flow working as you haven't been meeting your
| estimates or deadlines at all" ... and then to the team "let's
| get the new signup flow working, we think it will increase user
| engagement!"
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It's a reason to have a 1-1 meeting. It's not a reason to
| have regularly scheduled 1-1 meetings.
| jldugger wrote:
| As a manager, you never have an immediate need for
| regularly scheduled 1-1 meetings. You can always just ask
| your directs for their time and expect to get it -- rare is
| the employee who says no to a request from their manager to
| talk.
|
| Regularly scheduled 1-1s are for the direct, to have a
| dedicated, planned 30 minutes a week to talk, with a person
| who controls your access to food, water shelter and all
| material needs, but whose calendar is often booked solid.
| Even when there's no immediate need for clarification,
| approval or discussion, theres still discussion about
| promotions and career development that need to happen more
| frequently than once a year or quarter.
| gilgad13 wrote:
| I agree, and from the subordinate's point of view I feel
| having a regularly planned session lowers the barrier to
| raise issues early without making things confrontational.
|
| Its the difference between "we talked about many things,
| including this issue" and "we need to meet to discuss
| this issue". I find the second starts everyone off on a
| defensive foot, regardless of peoples' best intentions.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I have rarely been unable to talk to a manager when I had
| a good reason.
|
| As for promotions, career development, etc. that's not
| something that everyone is going to get through the
| organization that they work in for various reasons. (e.g.
| "This is a library and if you want to be promoted you
| have to be a librarian to get ahead")
|
| Organizations like that don't deserve to not be able to
| hire computer programmers and a programmer can be
| perfectly satisfied working there. That programmer might
| be somebody who isn't ambitious or if they are ambitious
| they might pursue their ambitions outside of work in the
| form of side projects, relationships, etc.
| jldugger wrote:
| > This is a library and if you want to be promoted you
| have to be a librarian to get ahead"
|
| There's more to career development than promotion into
| management. Level promotions are a thing, after all. Or
| at the very least, annual reviews and compensation.
| [deleted]
| XorNot wrote:
| 1:1's are basically a mix of every anti-pattern for CYA in
| business - they're verbal, they're isolated, they're strongly
| implied to be considered private, and there's a massive power
| imbalance in the communication.
| brink wrote:
| Can we change the click-bait title? There's nothing unreasonable
| about one-on-ones being effective.
| djur wrote:
| I think the reason it's used here is because the one-on-one was
| surprisingly effective even when applied outside a typical work
| environment, just like the original usage was that math was
| surprisingly useful in understanding natural phenomena:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness...
| mekoka wrote:
| Note that in the original usage of the formula,
| "unreasonable" meant that there's _no valid and explanable
| reason_ to why math is so effective in the prediction of
| physical phenomena. It did not simply mean ill-understood, or
| explanations to come later. The relationship between math and
| nature was _stated_ to be akin to a mystery. Most titles
| borrowing the phrasing nowadays simply mean to say that
| something is considered very effective and _the author_ finds
| it surprising.
| baxtr wrote:
| Here is what I always recommend people: Try to use the 1:1s with
| your boss productively, ideally engage her/him in a problem
| solving session for one of your work topics.
|
| I used to managed a large group of people. I always made clear
| that this is the time of the report. She/he could use the time
| with me at their will.
|
| I have found the best use of our time was when a report would
| walk in (back in the day, you know...) and shared what they were
| struggling with. We would then jointly problem solve. This way, I
| could get an insight into their daily struggle, get updates on
| status and help them.
|
| The least effective ones were over after 5 minutes or so, when
| the report didn't want to share anything. I am aware that this is
| a trust issue. But you can't build up trust without time to
| interact.
| redisman wrote:
| Personally I just don't want to do all the heavy lifting which
| is what "let's talk about whatever you want!" means. Meh what I
| want is one less meeting on my calendar - now how's your
| freaking dog doing sir?
| titanomachy wrote:
| Then say that... "I think I'd like to reduce the cadence of
| this meeting to bi-weekly, we haven't had anything
| substantial to discuss in the last few weeks." Your manager
| probably wants calendar time back at least as much as you do.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-31 23:00 UTC)