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.

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."

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.

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.

It's pretty common for manager-types to say one opinion offhandedly and then, when others judge them, to say the opposite opinion and pretend they held the same opinion all along. In this case, the GP realized a little late that being a manager for 10+ years and thinking the majority of your 1:1's are useless is a signal for incompetence. Most competent managers take care not to put their funny business in writing on a public forum.

> Most competent managers take care not to put their funny business in writing on a public forum.

This is true, and also feedback on your views from the replies on HN can be valuable and make you a better manager.

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.

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".

> 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.

They might mean that it's on both parties to make the 1:1 effective.

There's just no way that can happen while there are no overlapping common goals and incentives.

Think about that!

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?

Seems asymmetrical the way it’s phrased.

Did you simply mean to say both fucked up?

The parent theorized there was no way for a 1:1 to be effective because there are no overlapping common goals and incentives between managers and employees. So then I've presented two common examples of how such goals might exist.

I would be surprised to find that neither of these have ever applied. That would seem to indicate that their entire professional working experience has been only ever adversarial and toxic. Just not a great look, especially if you've also been responsible from the manager side.

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.

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.

Is that how it's like out there? Managers having responsibility and not just the workers? Maybe I just never experienced that..

I’ve experienced both types of organizations. In my current workplace, managerial performance evaluation is very much tied to team deliverables. I highly encourage you to keep looking, if this is something you care about.

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

lol, agree. It was rude!

I don't really think it was rude. However reading this and your other comments I can see that the way you are communicating (at least in this HN thread) is quite confusing.

Your main comment could be read in a way that you almost hate 1on1's and find them completely unnecessary. But in another comment you said that it's not true - you actually love them.

Now in here you say "lol" and that it was rude, so which is it? are you laughing at this comment or feeling offended?

I don't think it's necessarily rude to point out something that is obvious, without judging. You are the common factor of the 1-on-1's you took part in. They could suck because of the whole organization, or because of the people that talked with you, but it's also possible it's something related to your character or skillset. I think it's worth looking into this and a reasonable feedback, not a "rude" one.