
How Regular One-On-One Meetings Saved Our Company Culture - AliCollins
https://www.groovehq.com/blog/one-on-one-meetings-for-company-culture
======
jdcarter
My company seems to think that Scrum stand-ups are a replacement for one-on-
one meetings. They're very, very wrong. Coordinating work and keeping the
project moving forward is one thing, but like Alex points out here, there's
far more to management.

Agile methodologies/slack channels/etc. are simply _not_ a replacement for
people management. In many companies, the people manager and project manager
are the same person, and they generally default to managing the project first.
(Squeaky wheel gets the grease, right? And what's squeakier than an executive
breathing down your neck?) But when your culture starts dissolving and
employees start leaving... well by then it might be too late to get interested
in people management.

In my group, morale is a big issue, and retention is about to become one--I
know of several people with one foot out the door already. I'm not sure
management is even aware.

~~~
themodelplumber
If you can, start passing around links to Manager Tools or just drop
references to it. It's a podcast where they absolutely hammer leaders on
issues like doing one-on-ones (this problem often goes right up to CEO),
running meetings well, etc. With any luck management will pick up on it and
change while you're still there, but if not--these people will probably be
managing other people for the rest of their lives so someone somewhere will
probably be grateful.

~~~
dccooper
Product manager here, seconding Manager Tools as invaluable.

------
mc32
One on ones are one of those things which don't terminate with satisfaction
from both sides. They are necessary but they are unfair. (necessary because of
imperfect information).

This lack of resolution stems from the power dynamics. The one on ones don't
go through a drone (powerless) proxy. They are lower level employee to higher
level manager, if not manager, influencer, lead, etc., not someone equal or on
a lower rung, so they are inherently asymmetric therefore most employees
always (if they care) have to wear a mask and couch things and pretend.

On the other hand employees should be flexible enough that things should not
become problematic. For the most part people working together should be able
to resolve internal team issues. If something needs external influence bring
it up for resolution using the channels available.

To add, the employee for the most part has to subvert themselves to the
manager's style else risk being interpreted incorrectly. To be redundant, one
on ones are useful, if the constraints are understood, till trouble arises at
which point one on ones become useless vehicles for resolution.

~~~
jdcarter
I've been on both sides of the 1-on-1; was a manager for a while, decided to
go back to focusing on the technology. I've only observed the power dynamic
you describe with managers who actually care about power over their
subordinates--and in that case, you've got a much bigger problem than a 1-on-1
meeting!

Done right, these meetings are simply an honest conversation. When wearing my
manager hat, I've had employees freely express frustration with company
decisions, say our strategy is stupid, etc., and those were all very important
discussions for both me and the employee. That stuff shouldn't be buried;
it'll boil over if not dealt with.

If you can't have an honest conversation with your manager, there's something
really broken. I don't know your circumstance, of course, and maybe you just
work for a power-hungry (bad) manager. But maybe they _want_ that honest
conversation and your relationship will greatly benefit from opening that line
of communication.

EDIT: another tool for defusing the superior/subordinate awkwardness is to
change the location of the meeting. Most 1-on-1 meetings (in my experience)
happen in the manager's office, which immediately puts the employee on the
defensive. Suggest moving the meeting off-site, e.g. to a local coffee shop.
That does a lot to reduce subconscious power dynamics--it's just two people
talking over coffee.

~~~
manyxcxi
> EDIT: another tool for defusing the superior/subordinate awkwardness is to
> change the location of the meeting. Most 1-on-1 meetings (in my experience)
> happen in the manager's office, which immediately puts the employee on the
> defensive.

Great tip! I had a manager a long time ago that did just that. If we couldn't
go grab coffee or something they would book a conference room other than their
office. He explained to me why he did it and it was on of the first things I
made sure to do when I began managing.

~~~
seanp2k2
This is a good point. Most of our 1:1s are in small 2-3 person conference
rooms or walks outside if it's nice out. There are no offices.

------
SyneRyder
I loved my one-on-one calls, and I'm someone who really hates phone calls &
meetings.

For me it was 30 minutes each week where I could bounce ideas about work, my
own side projects, life in general, and chat about their work / projects /
life too. It was like two friends with a mutual interest in business having a
catchup & occasional rant & a laugh. It was fun & left me energized &
motivated - hopefully they felt the same.

Perhaps one difference is that I was working remote. In the article, they also
say "We’re a remote team [...] and we don’t spend all day with each other." If
I was on-site & seeing people every day, I probably wouldn't want a 1-on-1
each week either. A 1-on-1 in a manager's office sounds awful. If it must be
in person then you should go to a cafe, get a burger or a bubble tea, make it
enjoyable!

If you feel the conversations have to be politically correct, that it's all
about "professional development" (eww), or you sense asymmetric power
dynamics... maybe that's a red flag that it's not a job you want to stay in or
people you want to work with. It shouldn't feel like that. Life is too short
to put up with office politics.

------
cableshaft
I've had really good bosses, but every time a one-on-one comes up, I get
nervous. I've been laid off in one-on-one meetings in the past. I've also had
to make split decisions without properly evalutating it, like tell my manager
who to lay off, before.

I'm also not perfect, so every time one of those meetings comes up I start
wondering if something I did that wasn't perfect is going to come up and I'm
about to get a stern talking to, even though more often than not the one-on-
ones go well.

If I really had a problem that I wanted a resolution on, I'd knock on my
managers door and talk to him when I was ready to talk to him about it. I
usually don't bring those things up in one-on-ones, so they haven't been
terribly useful to me.

So generally, I get really nervous before the meeting, and relax again
afterwards. I don't know if I'd get rid of them entirely, but I wish they were
less frequent.

~~~
manyxcxi
If they're a normally scheduled meeting it seems odd that you would be so
anxious about them. I could totally see the anxiety if they weren't part of a
routine, where if one suddenly popped up you'd be wondering what it could
mean.

But if you always had a meeting on the books every week or couple of weeks, it
would seem like it would just be a normal run of the mill check in. Then
again, if you weren't working with your boss that frequently or your one on
ones were generally most of the relationship you had with them, I could see
how they'd cause anxiety.

Hopefully you are able to find a cadence with them, or a boss, that eases the
anxiety and provides you with connection and value.

------
xyzzy4
One on ones can also screw over employees if they say the wrong thing. Ever
notice how management usually wants regular one on ones, but employees don't?
They damage the quality of life for the employee because they must have a
risky conversation every two weeks. Reputations can take months or years to
create, but only minutes to destroy. Many engineers just want to get work done
instead of having politically correct conversations to prevent the loss of
future bonuses or promotions.

~~~
infecto
I can only speak from and engineers view but my hope is that I have a good
enough relationship with my manager that we can have an open dialogue. You
should also have pretty wide berth in what you can say, even if the complaints
or comments are unjustified, sometimes people need to vent.

If I was scared to vent to my manager I would be looking for a new job.

~~~
xyzzy4
Many managers could interpret it as a bad attitude or lack of motivation. As
an engineer, I don't like having a financially risky conversation every week
or two weeks. There's too many variables and ways to screw up.

~~~
eropple
I think it depends on where you are and what the market looks like. The only
time I felt at all hesitant about shooting straight with my manager was my
first job out of college when I didn't know any better. In every subsequent
job, I had no fear of unemployment, and without that fear 1:1's became a very
enjoyable experience. I could be honest, and that begets honesty in return,
and when I was managing people I paid that forward.

~~~
ryandrake
You know what puts the fear of unemployment into you? A sudden bout of
unexpected unemployment.

~~~
eropple
Been there. I was your-services-are-no-longer-required at a job in 2013;
that's what precipitated my career pivot into devops/platform infrastructure.
I was out of work for about eight weeks, five of which were by choice (and my
new company paid me a significant bonus to start _that_ early).

That said, yes, the notion of "hey, I could get fired for this" did sometimes
enter my head afterwards, but I never feared it, because I knew _I had
options_.

------
thefastlane
i'd play along, but i wouldn't provide more information than is absolutely
necessary to someone who, by definition of their role and mine, does not have
my best interests in mind.

~~~
manyxcxi
A one on one shouldn't require playing along or a good poker face. Granted,
you're the best judge of the type of manager that you're dealing with, but if
they're any decent kind of person you should be able to ask them for help or
guidance and bring up issues you're encountering.

Now, it's true that they may get a sour impression if every meeting is you
complaining about this, that, or the other- but this really should be your
chance to alert the right person to issues that could be affecting more than
just yourself, but the entire team.

Your boss may genuinely have no idea of the problems you're facing until you
tell them. If you never tell them, you'll have no idea if they could've helped
or not, and you may just wind up burned out and leaving the company.
Conversely, they may be able to go out and alleviate whatever the issue was
and show how much you mean to them or the company.

------
kzhahou
The best places I've worked had 1-on-1 meetings that were only rarely useful,
and no daily standups, no scrum, and weekly team meetings where people mostly
were trying to stay awake.

Those also happened the most productive places I've worked, by far, because we
had a ton of on-the-ground collaboration. We were all on the same floor, and
we talked all day, looked at each other's code, worked hard, and had fun.

The 1-on-1s were a distraction. Every once in a while it was useful, but it
could have easily been a monthly thing.

~~~
Grishnakh
1-on-1s are something where it doesn't seem necessary if you don't need it at
the moment, but if you do, it's very useful. If everything is going great for
you and you have no real issues, then a 1-on-1 meeting with your manager is
going to seem like a waste of time. If you have an issue, however, which you
don't want to discuss with your group at large, a 1-on-1 is essential. You
might think employees should just request a meeting with the manager if this
happens, but having a regular 1-1 meeting frequently helps get employees to
discuss things they otherwise wouldn't volunteer. Most people don't want to be
the one making waves and rocking the boat, but the 1-1 gives them that forum
to do so since they're not bothering the manager (the manager is required to
spend his time in the 1-1 meeting anyway, so you're not cramping his schedule
to talk about your concern). They're not perfect; employees still may be
reluctant to bring things up, but a good manager can deal with that.

------
brogrammer90
Before you become honest, make sure you understand the politics of your team.
I worked with a 40 something obese, single, just plain miserable neckbeard who
got off on hazing new employees. I mentioned this in the one on one to our
manager and the day after, both manager and neckbeard conspired to make my
life hell. And they won, I resigned.

~~~
peekajew
And when hiring, it's important to avoid hiring folks who think it's
appropriate to recount a problem by saying the other person was old, fat,
single, and a "miserable neckbeard" before they mention a single word about
the problem.

That's poisonous behavior, and if you let that sort of cancer into your
company, you won't get it out. Attacking behaviors is great, attacking people
is garbage.

------
mathattack
This seems so obvious, but then I was surprised when I inherited a team that
this wasn't happening on.

As companies grow, they need to provide regular cadences for communicating.
Some of it is group meetings or emails. Some of it is one on one. This is
especially true for coaching.

