Looks like he was Director and then CTO at these companies. In other words his reports were very senior and had a wide array of organizational information sources. Similar to the Nvidia CEO who doesn't do 1-on-1s with his very senior VP level reports.
Which says very little for the 99% of managers who aren't at that level.
He also seems to focus a lot on 1-on-1s being for career advice or feedback to the report versus being a way to build rapport/trust, share information, get a pulse on the organization and get feedback yourself. Again, these things matter less when you're a manager of managers but matters more when you're managing ICs who view things from a non-manager lens.
It's also the only way of getting direct takes from ICs. Can it turn into a vent session, yes. But it also can surface small issues early on and allow you to prevent things from becoming problems.
This is super important for when you manage multiple people who have to collaborate together very regularly, less so when your reports are managing teams with clear missions and defined interfaces with more internal projects.
"Meetings are a waste of time" + doesn't raise problems independently = "I'm leaving because this place sucks and nothing gets better" with no appreciation of their role in making things better.
Mine are fortnightly or monthly. I decrease the frequency with reports I think will independently and promptly raise concerns in a productive fashion.
Catching problems early is not the only reason to meet -- we also use the time to talk about company priorities, career growth, what's been learned, answering questions about why the company is doing X instead of Y, etc.
In my org, I customize meetings based on the specific report, their function, and their needs. With some reports, I meet with weekly, others biweekly, some monthly, some as needed. We adjust as needed based on turbulence, new projects, approaching deadlines, etc. It’s a very effective model.
From a report's perspective, success of a 1:1 is if you feel like your manager is an ally or not. If your manager is willing to give you information, listen to your problems, say things a bit too spicy for public settings, and escalate issues, then 1:1s are great. If you feel like your manager may use things said in confidence against you, makes empty promises, and go overs topics covered elsewhere, then 1:1s are a waste.
Like all relationships, its a two way street. But if you can't get your employees to talk to you in a 1:1 besides performative platitudes, then they might not trust you. Someone people are more trusting than others, and I definitely think people play a more strategic game the higher they get in management.
I always found 1:1s enormously useful, coming from an academic background where that not normally happens. They're the only place where you can regularly:
- check in on your people, and vent to your manager
- celebrate small wins that in other cases just get dropped under the table
- get a feel for the 'whisper'/'hidden' culture in your office, not the stuff that's the official face of the organisation
- raise issues that usually fall under 'etc.' and don't have their own space in other kinds of meetings
- in stressful times, just a place to decompress a bit before you go back into the thick of it
- lets you check in on people's career planning, and prod them a bit
I see articles about common (mis)management practices come up on HN semi-regularly, and I have to wonder if I've had uncommonly good experiences or if we only hear from the people who've had uncommonly bad experiences.
In my current and previous roles (both working under the CTO, coincidentally), 1:1s were quick little meetings at mutually-convenient times. We got through any uncertainty in my short-term plans, sometimes did a little brainstorming about longer-term work, then got back to it. If a day didn't work for either of us, we'd push till another day or the next week, no pressure. Seems like a simple and helpful use of 10-15 minutes per week.
Besides normal 1:1s, there's also pathological ones...
The worst 1:1s I've seen is when the IC is aligned and capable and driven, but the manager is wildly misaligned/erratic in an actively counterproductive barrier way.
Like a lot of crazy bits corporate dysfunction, it might not sound like too big a deal in abstract, until you see a particular real-world example of it, and how harmful it is to the IC.
People go into the meeting upbeat and on the right track, and come out of the meeting with looks of dread, and nearing tears or shaking, from the inexplicable brick wall. Then keep repeating that pattern, for each routine 1:1.
Incidentally, in two instances in which I was close enough to intercede, it eventually turned out that the manager with the bizarre behavior was being enabled/shielded by someone else, for complicated reasons that included personal trust/obligation relationships, and sometimes CYA. This wasn't immediately obvious, and took time-consuming digging, until the inexplicable is partly explained.
In situations like those, IMHO, the most urgent priority is to protect the IC's health (and career), even if you don't know exactly what's going on. Then, understand and see what can be done to help the manager, while in parallel rescuing whatever the work that everyone was supposed to be doing. I don't have enough experience with that to suggest methodology (and hopefully never again have occasion to figure it out).
I remember as an IC when my boss first told me about doing biweekly 1 on 1s. I was not a fan of them at that time. But as I grew in my career, I found them useful, and realized that part of it was he was not a good manager.
I found them useful as a manager of ICs, and now that I'm a manager of managers, I also find them useful. It's good to check in and let people talk about what they want. I always start and let my reports talk what's on their mind first. I have questions to ask too. I let the conversation flow, and never take more time than necessary. Some will take for an hour and a half, some for 15 minutes. That's fine in both cases.
But weekly I think is too often, and 3-6 months is too rare. Biweekly seems the sweet spot for direct reports, but could see monthly maybe. I do bimonthly for indirect reports.
It's striking that he recommends quarterly 1:1s or biannual 1:1s if an employee is doing well, but "of course" more frequent 1:1s if they're struggling.
How's that going to affect team morale, when it's apparent to everyone that frequency of 1:1 events on calendars is tied to performance?
As a manager, I've been comfortable with every-other-month 1:1s with some people and weekly 1:1s with others, but that decision generally is not made based on performance considerations. Instead, it has to do with how well we know each other, how information is being communicated outside of 1:1s, and what the other person wants to get out of the meeting.
I think that 1:1s are super important for startups, especially those with remote workforces.
When managers are player/coaches and ICs as well (I.e not middle management that focus on ppl management) they are super busy and need this time with their reports to understand progress, detect bottlenecks and blockers, and unblock them / answer any questions. Sometimes jr employees might not even realize there are bottlenecks that will impact them.
These meetings also help fostering a relationship, help with their reports growth, and retain them.
I'm not a fan of regularly-scheduled meetings in general.
I prefer using a mix of communication media, appropriate to the information and urgency, including async-friendly, documentation-friendly, and time-respecting.
But I also think having occasional face-to-face occasionally (preferably in person, but if not, on videoconf) is generally good. Not necessarily regularly-scheduled, though.
If recent face-to-face doesn't happen incidentally for project/task-oriented purposes, or we did but it was always some highly focused (no deep breath and how's things going), then I might ask when's a good time for non-urgent general checkin.
For these general checkins, super-ideal would be WFH of a small team of people who are aligned and very good at their jobs, and who're close enough to the same city, such that we could easily meet up for coffee/juice/whatever. Then it's not just an interruption of your flow, but a bit of a deep breath and step back, when the timing is good, and the in-person and physical context change reinforces that.
Of course, if a situation has gotten too crazy, and someone seems to be running themselves into the ground and hurting their health (this is not so unusual)... then it's time to talk with them, even if they feel like they need to stay in self-immolating marathon mode for "just another few weeks...".
I have engineering VPs that report to me. In our weekly 1 on 1s we catch up on how we’re both doing and I ask them if there’s anything I can do to make their work lives better/easier or unblock them in some way. If so we talk about it and I make a plan to get them what they need. If not we wrap early. Seems to work pretty well without causing stress or wasting time.
Mine's (IC currently) fortnightly, and it always feels extremely structured/forced. We're fully remote too, which IMO makes it even more critical for these things to hit their mark because you can't smooth things over with the typical office contact/banter.
If they feel extremely structured, what is the structure that is in place for your 1:1s?
I do my 1:1s fortnightly and don't have a rigid structure to them but try to make sure to remember at least once a quarter touch on career dev and learning opportunities. And at least a little bit of normal bullshitting you don't get when everyone is remote.
Occasionally, but rarely they end up going "How you doing?" "Good." "Need anything?" "Nope." but I still like them because they represent I'm always setting aside time to talk, its a priority, and the lines are open. And I'm typically very close to the "this meeting could have been an email" end of the spectrum.
The sad truth is that a lot of senior corporate leaders, by the time they get promoted up to that level, if they ever had useful skills (in management or anything else) they’re usually long atrophied away. Since at that level of nearly all companies of any meaningful size those jobs are pure politics (jockeying for influence, fighting for resources in yet another reorg).
If you want to improve in your career don’t listen to a thing these people say (unless you need to learn about public posturing).
> Using 1:1s to track what someone is working on is also archaic. There are plenty of modern methods to assess output across a range of functions. Wasting time on status updates is inefficient.
That is exactly what the 1:1 is NOT. Use status sync/dailies for this, these updates should not be directed to the manager (unless you hate collaboration, giving your team visibility, or want to consolidate everything in you).
The quality of the 1:1 depends on the manager, I've been on both sides in this. Some managers want to fill all the 1:1 time into "keeping in check" because they hate any moment of silence, but the 1:1 is the reports meeting, not the manager.
If the manager talks more than 25% in the 1:1 then they are doing it wrong
The 1:1 is a safe space for the report to bring things that most of the time they might not prefer to give in public or to measure the current project feeling. Engineers can sense things way before the manager does, with a good rapport, you can get a lot of things fast and change course early, for example:
- Are we well equipped to deliver things, are we drowning in meetings or useless processes?
- If what we are doing is important/worth it. This is important for retention, and also if they feel disconnected from the product.
- Feelings about codebase health, system health, and pipeline health.
Generally, I ask broad questions and it does not take long for the person to bring up things they are passionate about.
Also, managing is caring and liking to talk with people, if the IC wants to take the time to talk about something like their trip or their cat it is their meeting to do so, let them drive the agenda. Some people call this good for "rapport" but it is just "making friendship". People last way more than companies and projects.
Also, not everyone needs to have weekly 1:1s, if the 1:1 ends fast, increase the time in between. Same if they are taking the full 30 mins, increase the frequency/time.
Some people are also way more outspoken and opinionated than others.
Some people take more time to be talkative, and that's okay. But you need to know them first.
This links a thread on twitter, which is unreadable unless you have an account. Could somebody provide a link that makes the entire thread readable for everyone?
What's going well, what's annoying you? How are you feeling? How's life? What can I do to make your job easier? Are you heading in the direction you want for your career?
Showing and taking genuine interest in your team is the mark of a true leader and will help you retain A players. Don't wait for any issues to grow and fester - get your team to talk about them so you can resolve them.
Weekly is maybe too often, every other seemed to work best for me.
I mean... It seems really logical to me that one of the worst "staples of management" is simply that so many practices are applied without much thought in general. I don't disagree with the intent here... but I also am a bit surprised at trying to instead say quarterly is likely to be better?
What is really missing, is this isn't a one way street. Please, please ask your directs, say what your intent is, what you want out of the time, what they want out of the time, and figure out the cadence that works. If they like the weekly because it turns into a moan session where they can complain, address it! It may not be the most effective... But it might it be what is needed to care for that relationship.
I have a strong believe that the most you can ever get from a management book/trainer/etc is ideas and techniques you can try,(some of which are really really good!), but you can never give someone a checklist or a flowchart and expect them to be a stellar manager and any business that does believe that is likely a place where you are unlikely to want to be a manager or be managed.
Pointless waste of time. For progress you already have stand ups daily and sprints every other week.
1:1 are mostly about bitching about other people in not so blunt words. He could use more of... She is too... They doing that would be nice... and such.
As for career development, let's not get delusional about it. It's a fraud and most pretend its not. We're masons. At best you can oversee other masons may be 5 at the lower end and few hundred to thousands on the higher end and for the too, there's no objective criteria rather a function of who you know, who knows you, who you talk to and who talks to you. Not such a deterministic meritocracy.
Which says very little for the 99% of managers who aren't at that level.
He also seems to focus a lot on 1-on-1s being for career advice or feedback to the report versus being a way to build rapport/trust, share information, get a pulse on the organization and get feedback yourself. Again, these things matter less when you're a manager of managers but matters more when you're managing ICs who view things from a non-manager lens.