
One-on-one meetings are underrated, whereas group meetings waste time (2017) - lkrubner
http://www.smashcompany.com/business/one-on-one-meetings-are-underrated-whereas-group-meetings-waste-time
======
maxxxxx
I hate "meetings" but I am big fan of conversation. When I worked in a team
room with 3 other engineers we just naturally had good conversations from time
to time. There was no schedule, no agenda, no start or end time. But we solved
a lot of things that way. I also chat with my manager several times a week
about stuff. I feel if there is a need to schedule formal one-on-one meetings
it indicates a dysfunctional environment.

~~~
sanderjd
I'm the exact opposite. Short meetings with a small group (preferably just one
other person, as discussed in the OP) at a scheduled time with an agenda are a
much more efficient use of my time than ambient conversation. I've worked on
teams and with people who feel like you do and it drives me pretty nuts. I'm
constantly getting pulled into low value conversations that are a distraction
from what I'm doing. I can't determine ahead of time whether the conversation
is more or less valuable than whatever else I'm doing because there is no
agenda for "hey you got a sec?".

What I don't know is: am I just wrong about this, or are you, or is it just
pure subjective preference? If it's just subjective, what's the best way to
structure teams with respect to this? Is it all or nothing, or can you build a
team with both kinds of people in such a way that they respect each other's
preference?

Edit to add: To make a different point, I'm a big fan of standing closed-door
1:1s with your manager, because the conversations you can only have with your
manager are the most awkward ones and asking for a one-off closed door meeting
when it's uncommon makes it way worse. For instance, if you're having strife
with a co-worker that you need to bring up with your manager, the last thing
you want to do is walk over to their desk and say, "can we talk privately?".
Waiting for your next standing meeting is a much better option.

~~~
maxxxxx
“What I don't know is: am I just wrong about this, or are you, or is it just
pure subjective preference? ”

Yes. It’s subjective. It probably also depends on the people you work with and
the nature of the things you are working on.

------
cousin_it
> _They can offer negative opinions about their co-workers, without worrying
> that their co-worker will find out and retaliate._

In my experience, if everyone on the team knows that they're expected to
comment on each other in one-on-ones with the manager, that does wonders
against team cohesion and morale.

~~~
overgard
I think you're reading more into the quote than is fair -- he says they _can_
offer opinions, not that they _have_ to.

Also you're leaving out that he mentions it gives people an opportunity to
praise teammates, whereas in a public context it might be awkward/seen to have
ulterior motives. (Maybe I'm weird but I've done this a lot in one-on-ones
with managers. Especially if I was mentioning someone that might have been
shy/didn't want the spotlight)

~~~
gamesbrainiac
I think you need to look into the intent of that statement, and by doing so
understand its consequences.

~~~
overgard
The intent seems to be to create a safe space for employees to share opinions
about the status of the team. Is that not what a manager should do?

~~~
gamesbrainiac
Or you can see it as a manager getting plenty of ammunition on members of the
team to use at his or her whim. You're not creating a safe space, but rather a
miasma of fear. Trust will break down in the team.

------
kjar
In my experience a 1 to 1 meeting cane help avoid defensive impulsive
responses. Removing the reduced fear of broad judgement I think is a factor.
They also covey personal respect which helps and feels good. Cutting out
distractions from uninformed meeting participants also helps IMO.

------
scottlegrand2
The best way I have seen to handle this was by a former manager who made sure
we ate lunch together most days as a team. It wasn't mandatory, but it was
informally expected to happen. That team had zero communication problems.

~~~
raindropm
Having lunch together is the most overlooked things ever in team building
aspect.

It sounds so insignificant, so silly, but it is the natural way to build
camaraderie between team member. People lower their guard, and have nothing to
'prove', unlike...uh, work.

~~~
tuesdayrain
> It sounds so insignificant, so silly, but it is the natural way to build
> camaraderie between team member.

This strongly depends on the type of people you are working with. If I knew
I'd be expected to have group lunches every day I would not even bother
applying to the company. Based on my experience with team lunches, it means
that I can expect at least an hour(often even more) of every day to be lost to
uninteresting, forced conversations. I am so much more productive now that I
have a job where I can casually continue my work while eating lunch alone.

------
gamesbrainiac
This article is quite nefarious. I would not recommend this kind of management
in order to instill fear and division among your team.

~~~
cfqycwz
I have to agree. The premise in the headline is so obviously agreeable, but
the application described sounds like it would make for a terrible place to
work. This isn't an article about building a supportive work environment that
sets realistic expectations and fosters a mutually-supportive team
environment. It's about the one-on-one meeting as the most effective tool to
extract as much work as possible out of each individual worker—which obviously
_is_ quite hard in a group meeting.

Of course, a manager who does that effectively is also doing their job as a
manager well. One reason I will always refuse to become a supervisor is that
being a good manager (i.e. nice and reasonable to work for) and being a good
manager (i.e. extracting the maximum surplus value out of each worker) are
often directly in conflict, as this article shows.

ETA: In fact, I can think of a manager just like this at an employer I
recently left. Individual meetings were a tool to push each of us to the
limit, try to pit us against each other, &c. Employees hate this boss, but
management loves them!

~~~
overgard
> One reason I will always refuse to become a supervisor is that being a good
> manager (i.e. nice and reasonable to work for) and being a good manager
> (i.e. extracting the maximum surplus value out of each worker) are often
> directly in conflict, as this article shows.

You seem to think that getting the most out of the employee is harmful to the
employee, but I don't think that makes sense. If you're not asking them to
work extra hours, it just means you're figuring out the best way to make them
efficient. That's good for THEM (promotions, new skill-sets, new
opportunities). It's also good for the business.

Also, as long as they're using ethical means, why would the business trying to
get the most bang for their buck be an implicitly bad thing? As an _employee_
(I'm not a manager), I'm happier if I feel like my time is being used
productively, and I'm less happy if I feel like I'm collecting a pay check but
my services are not being put to good use. I want to work reasonable hours,
but I'm an adult and I'm not there to slack, I feel better about myself and my
situation if I'm earning my paycheck.

------
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16002687](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16002687)

------
overgard
I'm not a manager, but it seems to me that one of the biggest obstacles
managers face is that they often have less information than the people they
manage. Humans are gossipy creatures, but we tend to gossip with peers, not
with those we perceive to be higher or lower status. (A lot of times the
person that is most clued into the happenings in the office is the
receptionist). I think managers would be smart to focus more often on one-on-
one meetings. I'm always baffled when managers don't have time to talk to low-
level employees. If I were a manager, I think I'd definitely want that.

------
ineedasername
The problem with one-on-on meetings is they proliferate information silos
where relevant parties aren't aware of impoprtant details because they weren't
involved in conversations.

Group meetings don't _always_ waste time. They _nearly_ always waste time, for
very simple and fixable reasons:

1) There is often not a clear leader for the meeting. Oh, the ranking manager
make be the "leader" but the actual leadership is lacking with no clear
attempt to keep things on track. From this follows the next two issues:

2) They nearly always lack a clear agenda, or given an agenda, it is not
strictly followed. Issues arise that are allowed to derail things. These
frequently involve only a subset of participants that should address these
issues "offline" but instead waste everyone's times.

3) Given the agenda slippage, each person ends up feeling they need to say
something, to be heard, in order to be seen contributing. So everyone comes up
with something they think they have to say, further breaking the agenda for
the real reason for the meeting and making it longer.

The above contribute to nearly any scheduled meeting I'm involved in going 50%
to 100% over time. I however am known for generally being quiet in meetings
because I self censor for "is what I need to say relevant to the direct
purpose here, to all members of the meeting?" When the answer is "no", I
follow up afterwards. Often on issues I wouldn't have been aware of without
the group meeting, but that only concern one or two other members, and I would
have wasted the time of 5 or 6 or 10 other people to go into detail on it in
the meeting itself.

In short, group meetings aren't the issue, poor leadership of the meeting it
the problem.

------
blatherard
I think the author should consider acquiring some facilitation skills, rather
than rejecting any other model than him and someone else talking.

------
go_ruby
The reality is that both need to happen regularly. Issues that are too
sensitive for the entire group are talked about during the regularly scheduled
1 on 1 or an ad hoc 1 on 1 if the issue is urgent.

------
soneca
I am bootstrapping a 1:1 meeting tool, so I always pay attention to the
subject here on HN.

I chose the idea because I believe it is a great resource for a manager to
build trust and a team as a whole improve.

This is the article that was most upvoted in HN about the topic and it has a
complete opposite take. It goes for a _"divide for conquest"_ tactic that
seems very hostile to the team members.

------
bharam
As someone who manages people I think the author's approach will lead to a
culture of fear. Ultimately it will lead to poor results and retention. I
prefer the guidance given by Manager Tools ([https://www.manager-
tools.com/](https://www.manager-tools.com/))

~~~
sjellis
Manager Tools is amazing: the single best source of practical guidance for
managers that I know.

------
darepublic
Nice article but some people may not feel comfortable telling the truth in a
one on one meeting either. In the article the author even admits that if he
deems that his one one one participant falsely blames someone else (which
could be subjective) he'll try to boot them off the team if possible.

------
mattoxic
Lost me at having a meeting with marketing people. No one should have to do
that.

------
fogetti
So the author basically proposes everyone to go behind others' back to stick
it to each other and promotes to rat on each other. And he even feels good
about it. Wow.

~~~
vbuwivbiu
regardless of meeting size in any company where people don't trust each other
there will be more gossip and backstabbing

