- There are some people who just won't speak up or request an ad-hoc 1-on-1 if something is wrong. It's just a personality thing. I can use this time to ask them about things and try and get them to open up. I have two people on my team where the world could be on fire and if I asked them how things were going they'd say "fine". Direct 1:1 time with them is super valuable for me to dig in a bit. - Especially now that we're remote 1:1s allow for us to handle a lot of little things that aren't super important all at once. "I don't understand how to submit and expense report even though I read the documentation". It doesn't make sense to have a specific meeting for that since it's going to take 5 minutes, let's just tackle it in the 1:1. - As my team has gotten bigger, a lot of my information starts to come through the same few people. I rely heavily on my project leads for updates which means everything is filtered through them. 1:1s give me a chance to hear other people's opinions on things without them being filtered. - I use this time to discuss career and personal goals. "What do you want to work on next?", "Here's a plan to line you up for a promotion next year". - I'm never going to force to chit chat about our lives if they don't want to, but I have multiple people on my team who want to have some sort of connection to the people they work with. There are some people who half our 1:1 is talking about travel or sports.

Honestly, my philosophy is our 1:1 is your (direct reports) time. You provide the agenda and you tell me what you need. If you want to cancel it every time, that's fine. If you want to spend 30 minutes talking about our weekends, that's also fine.

What kind of things do you ask them. wondering if you have some examples. Trying to get some ideas.

You have to open up first. Share what you’re comfortable with sharing. If you don’t share and make yourself vulnerable first, they will never open up. You have lower the risk for them.

Once you have established that rapport, then they’ll do it. Your report will mimic you based on how you run the meeting. It also has the advantage of making hard conversations easier.

So for example a conversation may go like this:

-----

Me: Hey, so you've been on project X for a month now. How are you feeling about it?

Report: It's good.

Me: I know this is the first time you're using Y technology. Are you finding the ramp up easy?

Report: Yeah. It's not too bad.

Me: That's great! I remember when I was working in that codebase it took me forever to understand Z component. What did you think of that?

Report: Oh, yeah. I worked in there, it was fine.

Me: Just fine? Is there anything we could do to make it easier for the next person we onboard?

Report: No, I don't think so.

Me: Oh, okay. Well I know Team Lead was looking into refactoring that code and updating the docs and she was looking for suggestions. If you're saying the component is good as it is, I might tell her that we should delay that until later this year.

Report: Well actually...

-----

Basically first I tried to relate to them a bit and share my experience. My hope is that if they are worried about looking dumb or incompetent in front of their peers, this defuses that

Second, I tried to ask something open ended. If they're just kind of on auto pilot, asking something that can't be answered with a yes/no answer can help shake them out of that.

Third, I put words in their mouth and just labeled them with an opinion they might or might not have. I don't love this one because it can feel a little manipulative, but I'm trying to get them to take a position and understand the consequences of not taking a position. It's kind of the equivalent of sending an email saying "I'm going to do X unless you tell me not to". At this point, either they agree with what you said and you can hold them to that or they have to give you an alternate opinion. Again, not my favorite tactic so I only use it on things that matter, but it works really well.

Another way of approaching that third attempt that feels a little less manipulative is "From my perspective it looks like XYZ. What do you think about that?"

I would amend this to "If they want to cancel it every time, that's fine".

I personally think its best to keep 1-1 availability as consistent as possible. Always be available to spend the time and avoid last minute changes to the meeting. The time is an opportunity for the direct report as well. If they want to cancel, that is fine. Same with whether they want to use the whole slot or only 5 minutes. Cancellations and changes from the manager side may throw plans askew since reports might be hanging onto something to unleash during the time.

My 1:1s are not all on the same cadence, and some of them end up spending more time on general rambling than others, but it means that there’s a known space where people who report to me know they have my time and can just bring up whatever. Notably, I do not use 1:1 time to ask tactical questions about projects that are ongoing, there’s other existing channels for project status tracking.

When I run 1:1s I end up scheduling them for 45 minutes, but target them for ~25-30 minutes. The extra time is there for when we need to go long without forcing a hard stop too quickly.

Agree with this completely, and is something I always introduce straight away with my team.

If someone stops me in the corridor / sends a slack to say "Jim's tapping drives me nuts" (as a lame example), then it's now a big thing. I have to stop what I'm doing to establish how much of a problem it actually is, and how soon I need to deal with the issue. It takes a lot to interrupt someone for something that potentially is a small, yet personally important thing, so people are less inclined to do it.

If instead, at the end of a regular scheduled one on one, as we're winding down, at the inevitable "anything else" stage, someone mentions "oh, yeah, small thing, but Jim's tapping drives me nuts", then we can discuss and establish a path forward in an open environment. Invariably they feel listened to, we can decide a way to approach the issue, and it's far less dramatic.

I think this is a significant part of the 1-on-1: to catch problems when they're small / solvable, rather than only recognising the problem when it's beyond the point of repair.

A "just raise the problem if you have it" only works if people have high psychological safety.

Though, if in the 1-on-1 the reportee doesn't feel confident raising issues/concerns (or aspirations), then I'd agree the 1-on-1 is useless.

As a manager, I DESPISED doing 1v1s at my old company. We don't do them at my new company. It's an incredible waste of time. Create a culture that allows employees to come to you when THEY need to. If this isn't within the realm of possibility, at least make 1v1s optional for employees that just don't have anything to discuss every 1-2 weeks. Some people just like to do their jobs and get paid. As a manager, you should be able to see what your people are working on. If you have questions about it, ask them. But for the love of god, don't schedule a recurring meeting just so they can tell you things that are easily gleaned by reading a git commit.

Interesting though, and now you say it I realise the submitter also wrote '1-on-1s'.

as manager you got to smell it out. 1-1s are great for that.

Some people will say that this isn't required with a good company culture, but when people are involved nothing is perfect. Maintaining positive culture requires work. Recurring 1-1s are the bread and butter of management and in my experience the work pays off by staying ahead of things and preventing minor issues from turning into major issues.

When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration.

The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting.

Yes, the dream team is one that can just raise their hand and bring up any issue at any time, either in private or in public. But those teams need to be grown and the trust needs to be there. Nobody wants to be ridiculed for saying bringing something up in public.

This was my interpretation of the comment I was replying to. Here's what they wrote "A good people-person manager can get the employee to bring up things they otherwise wouldn't think of.". To me, that's a nice way of saying poke and prod. I'm not advocating for that.

> When I did 1:1's I had lunch (on the company's dime) with the team member. If they wanted to bring up something work related, that was their opportunity. I might bring up some general news about the team or company if I wanted their comments on it without a crowd around. Some asked for raises, brought up need for new training or interest in another kind of task within the company. With some we just chatted about video games and whatever for the duration.

That sounds fine to me, but why schedule a recurring meeting to do this? I'm not against meeting up with people and shooting the shit. I'm not against bringing up and discussing issues. I'm not against helping someone grow and flourish in their career. What I'm saying is that 1v1s are a horrible way to do any of those things. Recurring meetings in general are a horrible way to get anything constructive done. My suggestion is to be more proactive in how you manage. Don't wait for a 1v1 to discuss things. It's the same for all-hands. I despise all-hands meetings with a passion. It's a horribly inefficient way of setting company-wide expectations, doing an announcement, or whatever it is executive teams use all-hands for now.

> The point is to accommodate people who are not comfortable contacting you directly about issues or feel that they can bring them up in a group. When you have a regular routine meeting with them that has no real set agenda, they know that in the next two weeks they'll have an opportunity to bring any issues to you in an informal setting.

This is incredibly easily solved by having open office hours. It achieves the same goal without the stress inducing event sitting on the employee's calendar for them to worry about hours before and after the meeting.

It's like having regular meetings with a mentor, coach, or even a counsellor. I find these meetings to be very useful because the discussion inevitably leads to revelations that I would otherwise not have thought of. Could they have been discovered ad-hoc? Some of them, maybe. But it would be a coin toss with the hundreds of other distractions and responsibilities tugging us from every direction. Even with my spouse, I've found that having regular meetings where we sit down and really talk about things has been extremely helpful.

That being said, everyone runs 1:1s differently and I've been on some really bad 1:1s that had no value or always ended with a negative, bitter taste in my mouth. I use it as an opportunity to connect personally and to provide coaching and mentoring towards their goals, especially when they align with company goals. I then poke and prod in a way to really get at what the other person is thinking and feeling, what they are struggling with, and ultimately what the root cause of the problems are. The key in my mind is to surface issues that would otherwise not be discussed, and normalize it. I then work diligently with them to make sure we're addressing those issues, and if I have action items to report back to them on how I've been able to make progress. 1:1s are definitely not the only way of approaching this, but the one I've found the most effective.

Granted, some individuals are very vocal and constantly raise and discuss issues outside of the 1:1s to the point where we don't need them as frequently. For them I just push out the schedule more and have them less frequently, or we just use the extra time to again, build that relationship.

If you’re poking and prodding, you’re doing 1:1s wrong. You should talk to your manager or HR about how to run effective 1:1s. If these resources aren’t available, you need to reach out to others managers at the company or in the community.

Lastly, this doesn’t imply that it’s a sign of desperation, but reach out to your reports. Ask them if they think the meetings are effective, and raise your concerns. They’re an equal partner in this meeting, and should be for their benefit just as much, if not more than your benefit.

Honestly, given your comment, “But for the love of god, don't schedule a recurring meeting just so they can tell you things that are easily gleaned by reading a git commit.” tells me that you don’t actually understand what an effective 1:1, nor team meeting is. If you’re stuck a dramatic reading of the status reports, you failed to set the expectations of the meeting, and should learn how to run effective meeting. There are literal books written about this.

Reach out if you need help.

You're misrepresenting what I said, and are being disingenuous. See my comment here → https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34332925 - I was not advocating for poking or prodding.

> Lastly, this doesn’t imply that it’s a sign of desperation, but reach out to your reports. Ask them if they think the meetings are effective, and raise your concerns. They’re an equal partner in this meeting, and should be for their benefit just as much, if not more than your benefit.

Thanks for the incredibly obvious advice.

> Honestly, given your comment, “But for the love of god, don't schedule a recurring meeting just so they can tell you things that are easily gleaned by reading a git commit.” tells me that you don’t actually understand what an effective 1:1, nor team meeting is. If you’re stuck a dramatic reading of the status reports, you failed to set the expectations of the meeting, and should learn how to run effective meeting. There are literal books written about this.

I'm being absolutely serious. I do not believe effective meetings exist. At least not how meetings are typically defined in the modern workplace. They are solely for the purpose of creating the illusion of work. I've read many literal books on the topic, and believe them all to be mostly trash.

This is great advice in general but regular 1v1s give you a forum to proactively ask employees how things are going, which can help you detect problems quieter employees are having that they might not be willing to raise themselves. Some people are conditioned not to complain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're happy.

As a manager it is critically important that I have a sense of what my staff is doing. New assignments come in all the time that require quick turnaround. I need to know who on my staff is available for such projects.

But managers, or at least the one that replied when I mentioned the above once, seem to like them, here what everyone's doing all at once ... Without having to read Jira titles themselves I suppose.

Perhaps ideal then would be some kind of Slack bot/app where everyone has to submit a quick video or voice clip once a day, and it queues them all up to play at whatever time the next day/stand-up period the manager wants the report.

OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

But I'm not a huge fan of standups either, don't get me wrong. They aren't a great use of time, I just think they are better than weekly 1:1s to communicate things like "what I'm working on" or "what's blocking me."

- The staff/personnel manager is there for managing the engineers and getting their time allocated to projects. The 1:1s are for these managers to understand their engineers' skills, weaknesses, goals, and direction for growth/development so they can effectively allocate them.

- The team leads and project managers participate in standups so that the teams can effectively operate, work gets done, and project leadership knows what is happening.

The division makes sense when you have a lot of projects which may only be funded for parts of the year or where development isn't regular. Doubly so in industries which have a legal requirement for strong compartmentalization of knowledge & involvement. In these environments, your team leads, project managers, and standups will change like hats over the course of weeks, months, and years while you likely will only change personnel managers and 1:1s a few times over the course of a decade.

2. Why would 1:1 be a waste of time, but a standup isn't?

3. I am not "regularly interrupting people," this is a regularly scheduled 1:1. Why is that an interruption, but a standup isn't?

But to be fair on the first point, you were replying directly to someone who is (obviously), so it's a reasonable assumption.

However, even at that, long before I was involved in software development I still hated the redundant reporting of status and availability in repeated verbally or specially-prepared status reports. Do you really not have any system to track all of these work requests? To fit them into project plans using transparent and queryable project management tools? Do you wait to make assignments until you've had the week's 1:1 with everyone? How do requesters or other stakeholders know the status of requests--don't you track that?

Even if it's a spreadsheet with statuses and comments it still seems like this should be continuously updated, not once a week; and available to interested parties for transparency (so you don't have to have the meeting with your boss or other stakeholders where you imperfectly regurgitate what has already been said in 1:1s). Having one-on-one verbal conversations to repeat status and assignments at a snail's pace to each other, up and down the chain, is something I find very annoying.

I don't think 1:1s are a "waste of time", I just think it's a waste to do status reporting and work allocation using anything other than an agreed-upon tool. The tool might need to be reinforced by verbal meetings, depending on the employee, because different people need managed in different ways. So yeah, there are people who need to be told what to do and be reminded to use a tool, of course.

Which is why I think a 1:1 is the time do things differently depending on what each employee needs (since your group meetings are not individualized), and they should probably have the most influence in what you do in a 1:1. Some people need to talk about feelings. I like to use it as a brief social connection, to build social trust and rapport at work--for me, that's much more valuable than status updates. Others maybe need to review the work that they're doing.

Also: introversion != lack of motivation or overall perspective

I personally doubt introversion has much to do with the parent comment. Several bad leaders over time can easily jade a person's perspective towards their leadership, ESPECIALLY if they end up discussing daily operations during their 1-on-1 instead of the big picture.

That has been my experience, at least, I am somewhat of an acquired taste, personality wise, and often unwillingly unaware of my effect on others, or bad habits I might slip into. Having regular 1-on-1s gives manager opportunity to give me early feedback.

It also gives me a regular chance to 1) ask for help with interpersonal things I struggle with and 2) get positive feedback, when I manage, to everyone's surprised, to not fuck things up.

All of that depends hugely on the manager, of course. If your manager is using this time to check on your regular work, or give you tasks ... there might not be hope for this job. Maybe you can talk to them, maybe to their boss, but it smells like just a bad culture, that you're better of leaving than trying to fix.

This is a cynical view of 1:1 time. I've always felt like a 1:1 is a time to bond with my manager, and look out for my own needs so I can make the most of my career.

Today I am a manager and I can hand on heart say I am at the service of the people I support. I am not telling them how to spend their time, I am not trying to know everything they are doing, I am there to listen, assist, and fill in organizational gaps to keep things moving and keep ICs unblocked.

Engineers are smart people perfectly capable of outthinking me, they are relied on for keeping their own work on track but to ask for help (maybe in a 1:1!) when they need it.

My work is done when everyone is happy and productive, 1:1s help me do my job and my job is to provide support, advice, consultation, and communication between the business and my team. I don't know how I could possibly make sure everyone has what they need, is working toward goals they care about, feel valued and heard, without regular 1:1s. If I were an IC and my manager didn't check in with me regularly I would not feel like I was part of something, managers help glue teams together because no one else on the team is going to do that.

With a bad boss, the 1:1 is a regular compulsory reminder of who is the boss, and gives the boss something to do.

Juniors may need to have regular checkups so they feel they have the space to ask questions, particularly if the manager's calendar is busy.

Others might have personal problems but don't feel they are important enough to book a specific slot.

There's value in making it a regular thing. Maybe not to you, and that's fine, that's something you should define with your own manager.

But careful in not falling into dogma, or one size fit all solutions that may inadvertently exclude talented people from your teams.

However, often, before you can have a meaningful conversation with your manager you need to have build some sort of relationship first. By having a scheduled based (e.g. every two weeks) 1:1's will allow you to create a report with your manager. You can talk about anything, doesn't have to be work, can be hobby etc. Try to find a common interest. Maybe you're both games or rock climbers. Whatever. The main point is that you create a relationship with your manager in which you feel that you can talk to this person.

I have 1:1's with my team members and often we just talk about what we did on the weekend. It's not the objective to drag your personal life into your work environment but its to create a meaningful trust relationship. Once that is established you can have a meaningful conversation that could lean more towards your feelings.

As a manager and/or team lead, one of the worst things is to have an unhappy person on your team.

Edit: PS, forgot to add. Its best that the manager you have 1:1's with is not a person who you work with on a day to day basis. I.e. not your project/team lead e.g. but someone unrelated to your daily efforts.

> One story has it that when Seymour Cray was asked by management to provide detailed one-year and five-year plans for his next machine, he simply wrote, "Five-year goal: Build the biggest computer in the world. One year goal: One-fifth of the above." And another time, when expected to write a multi-page detailed status report for the company executives, Cray's two sentence report read: "Activity is progressing satisfactorily as outlined under the June plan. There have been no significant changes or deviations from the June plan."

A good manager should already know what the team is doing. And that shouldn't be the point of the 1-1.

As a manager I believe part of my job is to run interference for my team. It's better for me to be in a bunch of meetings than my team. But this also means I have a potentially crowded schedule. I have recurring bi-weekly 1-1s with each of my team members so they know that they are important as an individual and that I am guaranteeing them time with me every two weeks. This time is for them and about them. If we don't have anything to discuss we don't mee or sometimes it's only 5 minutes. But they know w that the time si there for them.

I use these meetings to see how they are doing, not what they are doing. How are you and your spouse doing with the new baby? How is your child's college search going? I think it's important to have an idea of where they are as a person to help understand how they are doing at work and how I might help make things better.

I myself am a mid-level manager. I have 1x1s with my employees. I also have 1x1 with my manager (the CTO).

I personally look forward to my 1x1 with my manager, the CTO, each week. I find them very useful. Without them we always meet in the context of other projects and often around other people. Having dedicated time to talk one-on-one is very nice.

I know that my employees enjoy one-on-ones with me, because by default I generally only schedule them biweekly (every-other-week). But many of my employees go over on time each meeting and many of them request meeting weekly.

We discuss goals, difficulties, challenges, successes, and often even personal things (only when provoked by the employee, I never ask personal questions or personal topics myself). The 1 on 1 meetings are the best true barometer for how an employee is doing. Some employees might be overwhelmed, but don't show it in other meetings. 1 on 1 meetings give me an idea for how they are truly feeling. I might even invite them for time off (we have unlimited PTO) when hearing things in 1x1s.

A bad manager might make 1x1s worthless. If that's the case you should look at other teams or companies. Life is too short to work under bad managers.

That is exactly why ongoing meetings are important. If you only do rare ad-hoc meetings, you have established a relationship where you don't talk to your boss. Everything runs through processes, everything seems fine, you guys don't talk... until one day you need a talk and it is a big change to the status quo.

If you don't get value from regular 1:1s, fine - make them a 30 second pit stop of, "Everything is still fine, talk to you in 2 weeks". But you really should have that ongoing quick check so that you have an established point in time to change your answer and say, "We need to talk about X."

With periodic 1:1s, the manager has already allocated time to listen to you, so it's easier to talk about what's going on: sometimes it's important stuff, others not that much, but there's communication.

However, it can get bad if people wait for the 1:1s to address important which should be taken care of before.