Ask HN: How do you have effective 1:1s with your manager?
I'm about six years into my career now and I have no clue how to make my 1:1s with my manager more effective. How do you all prepare for your 1:1s, how do you conduct them, how do you see them as a tool for improving your career?
Manager here: first, I'll say that you're ahead of the rest of the class just by asking this question. Most people don't bother trying to get much out of the 1:1s with their bosses.
Here's the basic answer: the 1:1 is for you, not for me. If I'm doing my job well, I already know the status of your work. This is a chance for you to talk about anything that you want.
Some of my reports ask about technical things: how can we solve X better? Can we use Y algorithm? Why did we wind up going with Z tech instead of something else?
Some of my reports ask behavioral questions: how can I work better with Sue? I'm not confident in my presentation skills, can you help with that? I think I pissed off Bob, how can I recover?
Some ask for business discussions: how can we contribute better to the business? what are the most important priorities of the business? why are we focusing on a silly feature when there's so much tech debt to take care of?
And others talk about themselves: how can I get a promotion? How do I level up? What's my biggest weakness and how can I work on it?
Some people do all of the above, and some do none of the above. Some people have no interest in 1:1s, and it's just a quick status update and we bounce.
For that last group of people, I tend to try to poke and prod and try to get _something_ out of it, though.
I'll put it this way: the 1:1 for you, but it's also too valuable to skip just because you don't want it. We will have a 1:1 on a regular cadence, whether you like it or not. I don't want a meeting for the sake of having a meeting, but 1:1s are the single best way for managers to connect to team members. If you want to cancel all of the time because you have nothing to talk about, then that indicates a number of different possibilities, very few of which are good.
With that in mind, it's in your best interest to make 1:1s the best they can possibly be, which you are doing, so kudos to you.
Hope that helps.
> I'll put it this way: the 1:1 for you, but it's also too valuable to skip just because you don't want it. We will have a 1:1 on a regular cadence, whether you like it or not. I don't want a meeting for the sake of having a meeting, but 1:1s are the single best way for managers to connect to team members. If you want to cancel all of the time because you have nothing to talk about, then that indicates a number of different possibilities, very few of which are good.
So what I'm hearing, it's not actually for me, it's for you.
I give my reports the option of canceling 1:1s if they want to, or have other priorities. Sometimes they just have a pressing deadline and would rather be coding so they can go home. Sometimes their kid is sick and their boss is the last person they would rather be talking to.
I try to avoid canceling 1:1s myself if possible, since it really sends the message that your boss doesn't care about you or your work, and if the boss doesn't care, why do the work?
Many people in specialist roles are not motivated by management attention to their work and prefer minimal involvement unless it's to remove obstacles or provide resources. Intrinsic motivation does not care if boss cares about the work...
That's like saying high school is for the teacher's benefit rather than the student's, because attendance is mandatory.
At least teachers come with a lesson plan. This reads like a vibe manager.
1 on 1's are entirely for the report, not the manager. They are useless if the manager takes control. The manager can explain the concept and give examples, but they shouldn't be giving direction. It's totally up to the 'vibe' of the report, that's the whole point.
That said, if you are checked out of one on ones it's legitimate for your manager to wonder 'what else are you checked out on'.
This still sounds a 1:1 is for the manager to make judgement calls about you based on the fact that you're not into hanging out with him on a schedule that he sets, and not for the report.
Dude, scheduling things in a business makes them useless is honestly the point you are trying to make?
No? How'd you get to that interpretation?
(Public) High school is for the politician's benefit. Public education was first and foremost a way to assimilate immigrant groups so that they would adopt a uniform culture; second a way to provide day care so the parents could work at the factories; third a way to get students used to factory work like following directions and showing up on a schedule; and only last a way to provide valuable skills and education to the student.
You can see that by observing the conditions under which a state is willing to not have students go to school. If the schools are not teaching the ideology that the state wants, their funding gets axed entirely; you can see that with current MAGA efforts to defund the DoE and various public schools, with the DEI efforts in California, and with the anti-DEI efforts in Texas and much of the South. Likewise, if the students are being subversive and talking about getting rid of the capitalist system entirely, you shut down their schools and arrest them. If the adults no longer need to go to work, you see states entertain the possibility of students no longer going to school; you saw that in COVID. But if the students aren't actually learning anything, as is the case in much of the U.S, it's not a big deal.
Education that is actually for the student's benefit rather than the teacher's usually tends to be private schools or tutors, or occasionally charter/magnet schools. In rare cases, you'll have a public school where the surrounding community really values education. But notably, attendance is not mandatory in most of these scenarios.
OP here. Yeah, the basic answer is "it's for you," but there's certainly value for me.
Consider it this way: if I schedule a 1:1, and you cancel it every week, then that tells me that you don't find time with me to be valuable. How do I fix that? Is that a signal about you hating meetings, or is it a signal that I'm a bad manager?
If I schedule 1:1s, and you join them, and then you give me one word answers to everything I ask, then you clearly don't want to be there. That gives me signals about our relationship: if we had a good relationship, we'd have more comfortablec conversations.
If I schedule 1:1s, and you join them, and you are apathetic or antagonistic, then that also tells me that there's a problem.
The 1:1 is an incredibly valuable period of time for us to have candid conversations, exchange feedback, and develop our relationship. That kind of thing requires two people to tango. I can't force you to do those things. But if you don't want to do those things, and you don't want to ensure that we work well together and can exchange feedback freely, then maybe we don't work well together, and we should re-evaluate our working relationship.
So is it for me? Sort of. The goal is for you to be involved with me in a private but accessible way. You and I having a relationship where we can build on fundamentals and create a safe, welcoming, innovative environment is the single most valuable thing a manager can do and that a report can accelerate and encourage.
But if you don't want to participate in that, then that doesn't bode well for your career at my company.
If you want to take that as "it's for you, not me," then that's fair, but I don't think you and I would work well together.
>So what I'm hearing, it's not actually for me, it's for you.
It's totally for the manager, they gotta fill their calendars to look like they're doing stuff. I hate when they want me to rank myself from 1-5 on various things just to tell me, "I don't think you're a 5, you're performing as expected. COL raise." I just put 3's on everything and wait for it to be over. Our company (whose application I built from scratch) just started doing this with a new manager after 6 years and I put in my notice on the first one.
My buddy put's all 1s. It's a stupid business culture bullshit thing like mandatory after hours "team building" exercises and stupid infantilization things they love to do now. The best managers on the best teams I worked with never did this.
I’m sorry you’ve had managers that make you feel that way.
I can assure you that not every manager needs to book 1:1’s to fill their calendar.
> It's totally for the manager, they gotta fill their calendars to look like they're doing stuff.
I can’t imagine a sillier take.
No one gives a shit what’s on my calendar. They didn’t when I was a manager, director, VP or when I had a C in my title.
The 1:1 is to help you figure out why you’re an average dev and aren’t getting fives. It’s unfortunate you haven’t quite grokked that and instead just spend your time imagining how everyone around you is incompetent and out to do you wrong.
You don't know anything about me. How can you even make that assessment? See, this is another example of modern manager bullshit. I certainly hope you don't lackadaisically asses your team in the same flippant, emotional manner. Here's another thing, you probably aren't even allowed to answer the important questions. When are layoffs? Is there an M&A going on? What projects are going to be tanked in the coming year? Who are all those new people walking around? It's all fluff and you know it. Do you make them sit in the little uncomfortable chairs in your office across from you after you ask them to shut the door? If you do, you probably should rethink the environment you're setting up. Do you even shake their hand when they come in? Managers today are so bad at building team unity and trust. I've been on both sides of this table and I know exactly what this is.
Want to have more interaction with your team? Try taking them out to lunch once in a while. It works wonders for team unity. If the boss doesn't let you use the corporate card, use your own.
> You don't know anything about me. How can you even make that assessment?
I used only the words you actively wrote. Do you not see the irony in the rest of what you wrote, though?
Immediately suggesting I’m being “emotional”? What is this, 4chan?
Uncomfortable chairs? What?
It’s just, a whole mess of “you’re going to do me wrong, so I’m going to hate you first.” It seems like it should be unsurprising that you got low ratings when you approach things this antagonistically right off the bat.
I don’t want “more” interaction - I want interaction that helps them get fives/bonuses/equity grants, helps them get promoted (yearly raises will never be anything but useless), and helps them move forward with whatever their goals are.
You’ve made a lot of weird assumptions that simultaneously assume I’m a moron, and that no one could possibly ever want to help you. Why?
>The 1:1 is to help you figure out why you’re an average dev and aren’t getting fives.
>It’s unfortunate you haven’t quite grokked that and instead just spend your time imagining how everyone around you is incompetent and out to do you wrong.
Where did I write that I don't get 5s? That seems like a knee-jerk (emotional) response to a take you didn't like.
Have you ever given anyone all 5s? Are you one of those "no one is perfect," people?
Sorry, but 1:1's are bullshit. It's a power move that managers use to keep costs down by making excuses to not give more than COL raises (if that). It's typically based on emotion at the time of the review and not looking at performance or output or anything. People the manager likes (ass kissers, yes men) gets higher numbers, people who the manager doesn't like (gets pushback on bad ideas) gets lower numbers. They fool themselves that because they're writing down a number that it's data driven. You might not do it, but to deny that's quite commonplace is just not facing reality. I've watched good IT departments fall apart and the enjoyment of building software degrade over 30 years because of process bullshit. Good teams that had minimal turnover start to vanish as soon as things like this start getting implemented.
If this isn't you, sorry I ripped your head off. I've spent most of my career getting startups over the finish line in M&A situations on the technical side. The number of really good, dedicated, happy, low turnover teams that fall apart after the acquisition because of things like this is pretty close to 100%.
>Uncomfortable chairs? What?
In business school in the 90s, one of the things that came up is the layout of the interview room when interviewing a candidate. You don't want all of the company interviewers on one side of the table and the interviewee by themselves on the other side because it gives them a feel of being outnumbered and is a generally confrontational positioning. Rather you should have the interviewers spread out at different positions at the table, some sitting next to the candidate to make them feel included, etc. This is to prevent false negatives for a company in desperate need for talent.
Long explanation short, when people do 1:1s, the layout is typically the manager in their chair, behind their desk with the subordinate in an uncomfortable chair on the other side with the door shut. This is also a dominant/subordinate layout. This stuff matters and is one of the things that make 1:1s so bad. The "grade yourself on this and that," is also a really bad idea that is now commonplace. When the manager essentially says, "you aren't that good," it's a real kick in the teeth. Psychologically, one of the worst things a manager can do in terms of motivation is unnecessarily criticize someone after they worked really hard for their approval.
I could go on and on, but at the risk of rambling, I'll leave it at that.
> Where did I write that I don't get 5s? That seems like a knee-jerk (emotional) response to a take you didn't like.
Your words were:
> I hate when they want me to rank myself from 1-5 on various things just to tell me, "I don't think you're a 5, you're performing as expected. COL raise."
Performing as expected implies a 3. Again, why do you want to frame this as emotional on my part? Why project that on me when again, I’m literally responding to the words you wrote?
> Have you ever given anyone all 5s? Are you one of those "no one is perfect," people?
Absolutely, though most people have at least some opportunity for improvement in their current role, so there’s often a four in there. That said, a stray four for an overall five is still an overall five, and should have no real effect on anything.
> Sorry, but 1:1's are bullshit. It's a power move that managers use to keep costs down by making excuses to not give more than COL raises (if that).
I mean, that’s ridiculous. Why would I want to not give appropriate raises to people? I don’t get to pocket leftover budget, and I have no incentive at all to avoid giving someone a 4% raise instead of a 3% raise.
> Long explanation short, when people do 1:1s, the layout is typically the manager in their chair, behind their desk with the subordinate in an uncomfortable chair on the other side with the door shut. This is also a dominant/subordinate layout.
It feels like you’ve worked at some deeply dysfunctional places. This has never been true anywhere I’ve worked. The door is closed if we’re having a conversation the other person wants private - I don’t close it or request it be closed. The chairs are just the chairs - I don’t want my team uncomfortable any more than I’d want a potential partner, another part of the team or company, or my boss uncomfortable.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the manager-report relationship.
It being for the report means it is also for the manager. The success of the report is the success of the manager.
> If you want to cancel all of the time because you have nothing to talk about, then that indicates a number of different possibilities, very few of which are good.
But all of your examples are things I would have already discussed with my manager outside of any kind of formal 1:1s, so that doesn't leave anything for the 1:1.
That makes a 1:1 basically a performative exercise: I have to perform in it well enough that my manager won't be left thinking as you do in the quote.
If you and your manager have frequent contact so that you can talk to them at any time, then 1:1's aren't needed.
Some of us don't have matching calendars so having a regular 1:1 cadence is easier. I know that I'll have a meeting with my supervisor every 2 weeks and if I have something I can tell them then. And if there's nothing to say we end it early and get back to work.
> If you and your manager have frequent contact so that you can talk to them at any time
I've never had a manager where this wasn't possible, even when my manager has been in a different country than me. It does typically require me to reach out to them, though.
Honestly I feel like this is what I do, fill it with what they want to hear so I can progress versus actually discussing anything worthwhile because those things I bring uo at the time when it matters. 1-1 feels so pointless..
Like someone else said, a good manager doesn't want you to tell us what you think they want to hear; they want to hear the truth. If you can't trust your manager with work-related support, then that indicates other problems! Maybe it means your manager sucks, maybe it means you have past trauma with managers who couldn't support you, maybe it means that your company culture is toxic. But I view my 1:1 with my boss and my 1:1s with my reports to be some of the most valuable time at my job. I learn so much and it removes a lot of obstacles.
I've had bad bosses who don't know how to use 1:1s, and that means I have to do more work to make it valuable. I usually don't last long at those jobs, because I want bosses that make my job easier, not harder.
I've had reports that don't know how to use 1:1s, and it's incumbent upon me to teach them and ensure that they're getting maximum value out of it. If they aren't, then either I'm failing and I need to fix that, or they aren't interested, and I also need to fix that.
If you think your boss isn't hearing you or isn't someone you can trust and build a bond with and level up your career with, then but you either need to do some self-reflection or find a new boss.
There are other options, of course. You can keep your boss that you don't trust and get guidance elsewhere. Places like Rand's Leadership Slack or other tech hubs can be good places to get advice on how to level up in your career. There's a lot out there that you don't need to be chained to a boss whose 1:1s feel pointless.
I wish you the best of luck. Let me know if there's any way I can help.
That's the fault of your manager who hasn't framed it correctly, or who is not keen to do it themself (perhaps it is required for them as well!)
For me the key to good 1:1s is to build trust and to make clear that there is no such thing as "what I want to hear". I want to hear what you think and how things are going generally. And if there is not much to discuss them let's have a coffee and chat about the weather and holiday plans, that's good as well.
I think that's a totally fair take! (Mostly. I don't think 1:1s are necessarily about performance evaluations -- if you think they are, I hope you can learn to think of them differently, but I understand the perspective, I really do. I'll leave that alone for now and talk to your other points.)
I have one or two reports that fit pretty well into a group like you, who talk about "all of those things" outside of 1:1s. Totally a valid position! We still do a 1:1, but those turn into sort of work-tangential conversations, things like new tech that we're experimenting with on the side, or ideas for features that might be fun, or ways that we can incorporate the things they want to do into future roadmaps. Maybe it's not the most productive thing, but it can be fun, and sometimes you can be surprised by what comes out of a really good 1:1.
As sort of an example, I had a guy on my team that was super smart, highly productive, and he didn't need much hand-holding. We'd schedule 1:1s, and they would go well, but we'd also talk almost every day about the kinds of things that would normally come up in 1:1s. Just like you're describing.
We shared direct feedback regularly (he got distracted easily), we talked about the way he interacted with team members (which wasn't always great), the projects that he worked on (which were not necessarily the ones he wanted to work on). It was, on the surface, a good relationship, but obviously not a great one.
Then one day he mentioned off-hand something about his immigration status. My ears perked up, and I said "Tell me more." So in our 1:1, for probably 2-3 sessions, we talked about nothing but immigration and how it works, what his concerns were, and how much energy he spent thinking about his immigration status. Then he taught me about how the H1-B priority levels worked, and in the midst of that conversation, something clicked.
The reason this guy was easily distracted and the reason he was unhappy with the projects that he was working on wasn't because he had ADHD or thought the work sucked. The reason was because the projects he was working on were not things he could show to Immigration and say "See, I deserve a higher priority."
Once I had that realization, I was able to zoom out a bit and find projects that would give him a leg up on the prioritization scheduling. I was able to find time to let him work on white papers and formal, published research. He was able to patent something that we worked on. I helped him find conferences to give speeches at. All of these things he tackled with gusto and enthusiasm and, incidentally, fit into our company's roadmap.
Without that 1:1 that was seemingly unnecessary, I never would've made this connection, and he would still be miserable. Now he has his green card, just 18 months after that conversation, in part because he was able to demonstrate that he met certain criteria to the immigration authorities.
I understand the perspective of "I checked all the boxes outside of the meeting, why do I need this meeting?" but I encourage you to consider some of the softer values of the meeting. Even things as simple as getting to know your manager and finding out you have things in common will help.
It kind of sucks, but the more people can view you as a PERSON and not as a RESOURCE, the happier you both will be. And part of that involves spending lots of time with someone offline.
> I don't think 1:1s are necessarily about performance evaluations -- if you think they are, I hope you can learn to think of them differently
I don't think this. When I said it become "performative", I didn't mean that in terms of my work performance, I mean it in terms of having to perform well enough in the 1:1 so they don't leave a bad impression in my manager's mind.
I understand what you're saying here, and I'm certainly not of the mind that 1:1s are bad for everybody in every circumstance. I have just never been able to find any value in them myself. 1:1s are not a great forum for all people.
> Even things as simple as getting to know your manager and finding out you have things in common will help.
We do that, though, in less formalized interactions. Small talk before meetings, that sort of thing. Meaningful human interaction comes from normal social interaction, not from formal, scheduled meetings.
Re: "performance", I was responding to this sentence
> I have to perform in it well enough that my manager won't be left thinking as you do in the quote.
although I admit I may have just misinterpreted this. A good manager expects honesty, not a performance. Have you spoken with your manager about what they expect from these 1:1s? Like OOP, you could just ask. Maybe you've done that.
Look, I hear you. I know exactly what you're saying. My stance is that if you rely on ad-hoc meetings, you can't reliably get these interactions. A regularly scheduled cadence provides peace of mind for everyone.
But also, that doesn't work for everyone. I've had some managers where 1:1s were not regularly scheduled, but kind of random. The key that i want to get across is that we can't just stop having these conversations, scheduled or not.
I think we can agree on that part?
Oh, sure!
I'm not saying that you're wrong, by the way (and I don't think we disagree on the fundamentals you're talking about). I'm just expressing what it is about the 1:1 format specifically that makes me dislike them.
For perspective, I have a weekly meeting with my manager where we touch base to discuss team direction and whatnot (I'm the lead of my team). That's not in a 1:1 format at all and isn't about me, my professional development, any of that.
However, those meetings result in most of the benefits that you're talking about nonetheless and work for me precisely because they're not about me.
My point is that the 1:1 format itself is not one that works well for everyone. If you're the sort of personality that doesn't mesh with the whole 1:1 thing, then 1:1s are just things you have to do because the company requires them.
You could argue that our weekly meetings are, in fact, 1:1s in disguise. I wouldn't say that you're wrong, even though the focus is a bit different. But they are very useful to me because of that, where I find it extremely difficult to find value in actual 1:1s.
This is a great answer. Three things to add:
1. OP didn't say what they wanted to achieve, except for generally improving their career. It's worth trying to make that specific. OP's idea of that will be different from yours, and different from mine. Each person has different objectives.
2. In most situations, your manager is trying to make you successful, for some definition of successful. This is a joint endeavour. It's worth trying to understand what your manager sees as success, even if there is not 100% overlap with what you see as success. 'High Output Management' has good sections on both effective 1:1s and delegation. They are only a couple of pages each. Worth reading and re-reading.
3. Good 1:1s require some effort (including preparation and follow up) but the investment should be worthwhile. (Of course, it's possible that the majority of people have regular 1:1s that are close to useless. But this doesn't have to be you.)
If one of my people want to skip the 1:1 I would never force them to do it anyway.
> Here's the basic answer: the 1:1 is for you, not for me.
It's for both.
It allows the manager to build rapport and trust, to find out things that might not be said in a public or formal setting, and to mentor and coach in a safe environment.
You, as manager should also be asking plenty of questions, including to seek feedback.
Absolutely. That's why it was the "basic answer." The longer answer, of course, is that it's for both of us.
I don't do it in every 1:1, but probably every 3rd or 4th 1:1, I ask for feedback about my own performance and about how they feel about other parts of the organization. I've found it incredibly valuable.
But the primary agenda is your agenda, not mine. Mine is often supplemental and periodic, but the more important and more immediately relevant agenda is yours.
If I need to talk to you about something else, it would be in something other than a regularly-scheduled 1:1, typically.
It depends on how skilled/engaged is your manager. If it’s not a „you report progress“ exercise, you certainly should use 1:1s to „manage up“ and pursue your own agenda. Ask questions, suggest solutions, discuss plans etc.
Don’t make it too practical, try to have small talks too and chat about topics unrelated to work to build personal connection. The purpose of 1-1s is that and not to discuss current projects.
When you touch work-related topics, try to be as efficient as possible. Make sure you keep track of all discussed topics and ready to answer questions about action items from previous 1:1s.
If you need something, show some work in that direction too: e.g. you need some training? Find a few courses, check prices, suggest the best option on your opinion. If something can be done in advance or in async way, do it that way (applies to all sorts of meetings).
English uses quotation marks "like this"
I‘m using non-English keyboard.
I used keep a running list of things I wanted to talk about, wether technical, cultural, help talking to other teams, etc.
I also always asked how did I look from his point of view. It was very important for to know how my performance was perceived, since it’s easy for there to be a discrepancy between how I see my performance vs how it is perceived.
He was also very friendly and shared career advice and whatnot. I truly truly believe that having a dedicated eng manager can be a big factor of a 1x vs a 10x. I know that during that time with my manager I was a 10x and when he moved to another department my performance lowered, where it was motivation, lack of resources/feedback, or a combination or a bunch of other factors, having a good manager can make or brake a role in a company!
God, I hate 1:1s. In years on the job I've never had one that was useful. Managers already know what's going on because they're getting daily updates plus a weekly staff meeting. The rest of the time, please just leave me alone so I can work!
If your 1:1 is just status updates, that's not useful, I agree. It should be focused on things that only the manager can give you feedback on. Career growth, work feedback, training opportunities, budget for XYZ, etc. Things you want to get out of work that can't be supplied by your peers.
Maybe you've been lucky to have better managers than me. IMHO managers should be giving continuous feedback; it's been a long time since I had a manager whose input on my career growth mattered; and I seek out my own training opportunities. When I've brought up issues in my 1:1s that are making it difficult to work effectively, I've gotten lip service at best. When I've said week after week that I need specific support, I haven't gotten it. It's honestly been over a decade since I've had a manager who was helpful in any way.
>IMHO managers should be giving continuous feedback
That would be great, however it is not always possible. Your manager may not be closely involved in your work, so for meaningful feedback they must bring focus from somewhere else. When calendar is packed with all sorts of meetings, it is easier to reserve dedicated time slot for you and guarantee that you will get all the attention this way. You may have never encountered a good manager, but they do exist. When I met one, I have got a massive decade long push in my career because of what I learned on those 1:1s.
My experience is quite the opposite, 1:1s are the only meetings I regularly look forward to.
Please tell us more, because I'm in accordance with the other person. What do you talk about in your 1:1s? Are you driving the conversation or is the manager? What are the topics of conversation? How long does it usually last?
My manager always say that my 1:1 are the easiest for him. I've asked him what in the world the other people are talking about that don't make them as easy, but his response is so vague (to maintain confidentiality) as to be useless. Not that I really want a longer 1:1...
It's a 30 minute slot but usually runs a little over that. We first chat about how life is going for a short while, then topics anywhere from job satisfaction, personal or teamwide improvement potential, specific products or technical issues, performance inhibitors, anything that is on our minds with respect to the job at hand really.
That's pretty much what mine are. Some off-top-of-head rambling that sometimes reveals larger-scale stuff because the manager has other context, some "perf this year is likely to focus on X, please do that" reminders, some "getting exhausted by X, would prefer to not do it, what numbskull even came up with this".
It's for stuff that doesn't tend to come up in other ways, because there aren't jira tasks for mood. We skip about half of them when nothing in particular stands out for that week.
Just a random guy chiming in to say my favourite 1:1 was when Fallout 4 released and we spent the entire time talking about the game. We then made a pact that we'd save up our leave so we could take a week off when the next Elder Scrolls game was released....... I have so much leave saved up.
As a remote worker, 1:1s have been a great way for me to get to know my managers and make friends with them (well, friends who have the power to fire you, but anyhow). I've loved picking their brain on various topics, not limited to things related to work.
Then again, if you dislike your manager, the meetings can be pretty jarring. Sometimes you just don't have that chemistry with them. And some managers try too hard to make 1:1s "useful" according to their taste, which really makes them just another reporting session you want to avoid.
Strategy, not tactics. This isn't a meeting for you to update your manager with project status (you're doing that in the issue tracker, right?), it's for you to grow your career (and maybe get status from your manager for things that aren't in the bug tracker). Are there other teams I should be talking with? Any customer feedback from that incident a couple weeks ago? Did people like the foobar feature I added? I see "frobnix the glorlaz" is on the career ladder, how do you suggest I start doing that? What are the major priorities for Q3? What should we work on next?
We do it like this at GitLab and it's very effective: https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/leadership/1-1/
> Consider encouraging direct reports to keep their 1:1 document open in their browser throughout the week
A bit unexpected, doesn't seem healthy to me. Surely there are more important things happening in the average week other than career progression?
EDIT: I better stop reading this as I've always liked GitLab, but am catching some heavy Lumon vibes :D this is one of the possible agenda items: "SING - if added, the person who added it leads a singalong with all willing participants in the meeting" (at https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/leadership/1-1/suggeste...)
Is there really anything more important than career progression? You're there to get paid; your manager is there to help you get paid more.
If you want to get paid more, then don't engage the company for "career progression". 90% of that stuff is designed by HR for "engagement" to keep you on the hamster wheel. A lot of that stuff at my company is kept under the retention category in HR, which tells you all you need to know.
If they like you, you will get promoted anyway rather than engaging in that sort of stuff.
If you want more money, get a better job.
> Is there really anything more important than career progression?
In a particular company? Yes, most things are. In my professional life? Yes, but career progression ranks pretty darned high. However, my career progression is a layer of abstraction above whatever company I happen to be working for, and can really only be effectively managed at that level.
> your manager is there to help you get paid more.
That's not the most important thing I want from my manager. The important things I want from my manager are making sure I have what I need to do my job, making sure that I am not being unnecessarily hampered in doing my job, and making sure that I am working in sync with the rest of my team and other teams toward a common goal.
In other words, the most important thing a manager can do for me is to keep the skids greased.
In my book, yes. Things like delivering value to customers, building great products and doing work that you'll be proud of. Career goals are quite often orthogonal to those.
That looks like a lot of work.
Could be worse, like a meeting with more than two people.
This sounds horrible.
Once a week is way too often in my opinion, and the whole setting is much too formal.
I prefer 1-to-1s to be informal without agendas. Once a month is enough. It is a time to build rapport and trust and obviously it has to be "synchronous" and in person if possible.
I used to do every other week with my previous manager and I feel like that was an appropriate pace. Unfortunately my new manager wants to do it every week and that's definitely way too frequent.
Wow, that’s really helpful and quite inspiring to see an org doing it like this. Thanks for sharing!
To any managers here, please avoid and forever forget blank cheque questions like "how are you". Makes the mood instantly superficial.
Maybe it’s a cultural difference but to me that is just normal friendliness and ice-breaking. I’m quite happy for my manager to ask how am I and to have a 2 minute chat about life outside work before diving into the 1:1.
I dunno, I feel like I can be transparent with my manager when we ask each other that. I think it depends on your relationship with them and the company culture.
I had a manager that always started with "How are things?" and I thought that was a great jumping off point. "Not good, production is always down and I've been paged 700 times in the last day," is a potential answer to that question, and a 1:1 is a good way to start forming a plan on how to deal with that. Realistically, if you competently addressed all the pages that are coming in, they might not even know it's going on. So it's good to mention it and that it's bugging you!
I hate it so much. My manager always asks it and presses the issue whenever I try to move past it with some generic response. As if I want to start having a deep "how are you" discussion with a business stranger, especially one with whom I do not share a geographical location, a culture or first language.
My manager does something even worse: we have a team meeting every Monday morning, and each of us is expected to give a brief report of what we did in our private lives over the weekend.
He lets me slide when I say "not much", fortunately, but I think it's an overly intrusive ask, especially in front of the whole team.
I hate to break it to you, but this sounds like pretty normal human social behavior
No, it doesn't. If this were between two friendly co-workers chatting on a Monday morning, sure. But in a team meeting, asking every person what they did over the weekend, when that is actually none of the manager's business? Not normal, not by a long shot.
I've been in this business for multiple decades, and I have never had a manager do that before. It's very unusual in my experience. A status meeting is a business occasion, not a social one. Asking for a status report about my non-work time is just very strange and intrusive in that setting. My time is my time, not subject to company review.
It's a world apart from talking over the water cooler, where it would indeed be normal social interaction.
I have seen this. Presumably it is done for team cohesion and it may work for a while, but as soon as someone sets the personal boundary and refuses to talk or says something generic it starts looking weird.
Bingo, if the meeting is geared for openness but people aren’t open, now you’ve got conflict. Of course if people aren’t open you might run into trouble anyway but there’s a grey area there
I really don't think this is about people being "open" or not. I think it is strictly about inappropriate questions from the manager. They probably think they're "establishing rapport" or "building team cohesion" or something but what they're really doing is sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. It's inappropriate prying and bad management.
Yes, entirely this. It's not a question of whether or not you have open conversations at work about work-related topics. It's a question of having appropriate boundaries between work life and personal life.
My employer has no right to demand that I talk about my personal life at work.
In this case hardly anyone is demanding that you talk about personal life. You are welcome to share anything that will let others know you better, but in all but some pathological cases you are not expected to tell anything you are not comfortable sharing. This format is obviously not great and may not work, but it’s also not awful.
When my manager asks me to present what I did over the weekend to the team, that's a demand from my boss. He may or may not think it is, but there's a power dynamic involved here that can't be ignored, which is why I think it's an awful practice.
I answer "not much" and immediately pivot to giving a work status report before any followup question can happen, and my manager lets me get away with that. That's a little better, but it still starts every week off on the wrong foot.
Did you try to discuss it on 1:1? There may be some power dynamics involved, but this is a good opportunity to practice your pushback skill. Managers should hear “No” more often, otherwise they won’t know that this is not ok for you.
No, I haven't. Good point. Despite the emphasis I've put on it here, it's really just a relatively minor irritation not worth bringing up in a formal way, at least at this time. He's getting enough pushback from me on things that are more important to the team as a whole already.
I'm very far from shy, though, and if/when the general subject comes up in more casual conversation, I will certainly say something.
Bad advice. It is not the problem with question when you feel it that way. It’s the problem with engagement of the manager. It’s perfectly normal to ask „How are you?“
This already reminds me of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22347296
Sort of. Questions are tools, tools can be used incorrectly. It doesn‘t mean that every manager asking „How is your wife?“ is an idiot or that is inappropriate question in all situations. It may take a lot of time working under idiots before you meet a decent person, but they will ask those questions at some point and you will be happy that they asked. Better to teach the appropriate use.
I choose to drive the agenda, so bring one to the meeting. I also tend to avoid detailed technical discussions or blockers, that is what stand-up is for.
Areas of topics I focus on:
* Opportunity for Personal Growth
* Feedback on complex dynamics within my team or company
* Market opportunities for product (if relevant)
* Overall Engineering strategy
After my agenda is complete, then the manager can bring up items they feel are noteworthy. I generally leave half of our one-on-one open for them to drive a bit.
Back in the day when I was on the receiving end of a 1:1, I had an agenda, and I would send it to my manager prior.
I asked for feedback, and when I would hear a basic response like "keep doing what you're doing" I would shoot back and ask if that means I will receive a 5 on my annual performance review.
Bring up things like performance reviews, comp adjustments, promotions, etc.
But, caveat, there are a lot of really mediocre managers. If you put in work to make your 1:1's more effective, and they're not having the intended effect, it's a them-problem, and it's time to find a better team to join.
As a manager, I hate using 1:1's for status reports.
We follow traction and use software called bloom growth. The 1:1 meetings with my employees are accessible to both of us and items can be put it at any time. We define long term goals and short term objectives and issues and work on them.
Some of my employees prefer a phone call and we just chat. Others like the structure. I spend 4 hours a week doing 8 x 30 min 1:1s
I’ve come to embrace that it doesn’t look the same for each person.
To answer your question directly, take some time and figure out for yourself, what are your work goals, what are your personal goals, what problems do you encounter at work that affect you that you feel could be solved. Bring out of the box ideas… unless you’re facing disciplinary action, the 1:1 is for you and your personal growth.
Wow I gave this answer before reading the comments and there are a lot of scary comments. I am projecting love and positivity to everyone here who has had a poor experience. I can promise you that’s not how it is everywhere in the work force
Ask questions. Questions you have about the business, about future work, about your future. Ask for mentorship, ask for things.
1:1’s are both ways. As a manager, I’m giving you the unfiltered truth and access to ask anything you wish. I also will be candid about observations I see (or perceive) to help you improve. Or I’ll forward praise I heard someone give you.
These aren’t meant to be performance reviews. They’re meant to be relationship builders. For the betterment of the team and yourself.
Next time, come prepared.
There are multiple kinds of 1:1s (career, project/work coaching, etc.). It's worth understanding what your manager thinks they are about and suggesting to your manager what you think a given meeting should be about. Personally, I find the overly structured approach too formal and it's more effective to limit the agenda to a short list of important topics but listed/agreed upon ahead of time (many people, both managers and not, are not comfortable diving into topics "on the spot" without some time to think to themselves about it first). One thing that should always be covered is whether there's anything your manager could do to facilitate your work. It's in both of your interests to make you as efficient as possible.
I ask about any insights into what's happening between managers and upper management, and if there's anything I can help.
I stopped expecting meaningful career growth at a company. It's easier to grow by jumping ship, plus it widens your perspective.
When I was a bit more junior, I asked if I'm performing at your expectation and what I should be doing if not. If there was a suggestion, it was a typical generic statements that didn't add much value.
Whether a manager "cares" about their reports or the company is going to matter a lot. I find most people don't care much. I had this one manager who cared both. We built the entire platform ecosystem company relies on, and I still chat with him every once in a while :)
ignore all the managers reciting gospel "1:1 are for you not for me" here and keep only one thing in mind:
1:1 are a place to ask for a raise and let your manager tell you why you are not getting one.
And I mean raise, not promotion. That's a misdirection and more work. Your goal is raise, until you are capped, then promotion, and back to raise.
As a (probably horrible) manager I leave the 1:1 context to the report.
Some people Im going over technical things, some people are gripe-ing over external depts, some people we just grab a beer and chat.
I try to push the conversation towards business growth topics but not very hard.
So to answer the question I think frame the meeting to your own goals.
Genuinely curious about how not great my process is
My goto was basically: "I want to do <x>. What do you think?" (but a bit more diplomatically phrased)
Some examples:
- Change the way standups are done - Do something not directly related to the team - Do debt - Change / take over the way a project is being done
In general it worked well because either I had a good idea in which case I'd often get the agency to do it, or perhaps not directly but a path towards it or it wasn't and I learnt something.
Good question. I have been in the same boat.
In my current role they have a system so we just base it off that. There are goals and level (i.e. job titles) rubrics.
You could ask if aligned goals could be set and then discuss how they are going.
Goals should be able to change in an agile org.
They should align to the company but also align to your growth and outcomes that can be used to promote you or get you a bonus.
If the companies doesn't have this set up it might be worth asking for it for you as a "snowflake".
Believe me (bitter experience!) if you look for another job having impact stories (this will generate) will help you get hired at a higher level.
Goals and accomplishments isn't all the 1-1 is. I see another comment about gitlab which seems worh a read!
I am a new manager (around 5 years of non-continual experience).
I stole this format from Mike Crittenden [1] and made some modifications to it. It has worked wonders for me and my team.
It helps us to create our Brag Document [2], introduced by Julia Evans, together.
1 - https://critter.blog/2022/03/25/my-new-and-improved-1-1-form...
2 - https://jvns.ca/blog/brag-documents/
TL;DR I compile a document between each 121 containing:
- current goals (including 5 year goals, 1 year goals, short term goals) - significant actions since last 121 - skills matrix score increases and justification for him/her to approve - projects I'm doing/ideas - tasks that me and him/her need to do between now and the next 121 - questions and concerns
Documents have ranged from 14 pages down to 4 - Typically when I have a bad manager the documents tend to be longer.
This came about because in my previous role I found I would go into 121's saying "yes, I think I have earned a better score in EntraID" and he would say "I need evidence". There were also allot of very inconsistent bits of information regarding progression passed. It became very clear I needed to keep track of all of this and essentially game the system, and twist my managers arm. This became so effective three of my co-workers have also began doing this, and to my understanding copies of my 121 prep documents are passed around upper management as a way of saying "yea, this is what happens when you don't address issues".
From doing this I have somewhat taken control of my 121's and typically lead them rather than let them happen to me. If I am honest it is an incredibly effective measure for self advocation and rapid career progression. I have been considering for some time putting a template onto my GitHub for others to use.
Use this to learn more about what is going on at the company and how you can provide more value in exchange for what you want.
Want more money? Use this to figure out what the company and manager would want in exchange so you can work towards it.
Want more visibility for promotions? Use it to figure out the highest visibility projects and get assigned to those
Want to work on newer/different technologies? Use it to figure out where those could best fit in or get reassigned if they are already in use.
I’m a manager, and have been for a while (although I also have 1-1s). Personally, I think project updates belong in stand-up, sprint planning, tickets, etc. Anywhere except 1-1s.
If you want a really simple framework just focus on the previous week and highlight what went well (ie. that needs repeating), what went badly and needs fixing (or coaching, etc), what needs changing (could be a combo of both above).
Every 3-6 months I try to have a more strategic conversation about career paths and making sure annual goals are on track. Effectively reviewing progress against them and making sure the person is on track for success, adjusting as necessary. Similarly, asking about what projects they want to do next, where do they think we should dedicate effort and focus, etc. If they had the resources what would they do? This can be a great way to learn about how they approach problems, and to uncover issues in process and tooling. I want everyone on the team bought in to feeling like they can make a difference, and it’s really helped my teams develop great tools.
Other good questions I like to ask periodically are around what’s frustrating, what could we improve as a team, etc. I want their input to improve the life of everyone.
I always try to ask for feedback and how I can improve, or what roadblocks I can remove for people.
Sometimes we just chat - teams work well together when they understand each other. I like to know what’s important to people, and what isn’t. What stresses them, and what helps them flow. Sometimes those things just come from less structured conversation.
I’ve found having a shared doc to jot down notes in the week really helps. A google doc, OneDrive doc, whatever. Just something that’s open and can throw in some bullets to talk about. Particularly when blocked on something, or I need to ask a question about how to strategically approach a problem, I’ll throw it in the doc. Then before the 1-1 I reread it to prep my thoughts. It’s worked really well for me with my managers, and with my reports.
Ask what they’re focused on and how you can support that. Ask about what their manager cares about and how you can support the larger department or org. Ask what they’re worried about. Ask what makes them happy.
The most value I’ve had from 1-1s has often been just getting to know people, and demonstrating empathy, compassion, and engagement. This is why I really hate the project based 1-1s - they end up being very transactional, and very 1-sided; just a list of “I did this ticket” type things. For people who are used to it, it can take a while to break out of the cycle.
from the manager side, what i like to do is find out where the person wants to go in the company and do some introductions and coach them how to get there (this process can take years, it's not a quick thing). I use the phrase "i hate to see you go but love to watch you leave" a lot. I feels really good to watch someone you mentor blossom even if it means they leave your team.
If the person in the 1:1 just wants to turn the crank and go home then it's pretty pointless. At the least come with a bullet list of corp. questions that need answers and if you don't have any then cancel the 1:1.
This is something we follow and it works well!
### *Agenda*
- Highlight of the week - Work: - Personal: - Updates + Questions - Issues? - Topics - Top Tasks - Feedback
It should help to keep a document of the points to discuss in the meeting. Populate it with points during the week.
It's on your manager to make them good, not you. I don't think you will be able to change your manager.
On what's a good 1on1 I wrote this https://www.paceflow.io/guides/topics/one-on-ones
Though it will be probably different from what you are going to see in big tech and their smaller copycats where they make 1on1 a glorified status update.
I'm in R&D, not software engineering. I bring an agenda, even if it's thrown together at the last minute: a list of things I've worked on and the progress on each, and I highlight things that I'm either quite pleased with or things that I think aren't going too well. Sometimes I spitball through any upcoming task where I'm either not too sure what I'm doing yet, or if I think they might be able to offer some guidance/suggestions.
By getting a manager who wants to have effective 1:1’s. The reality is that the effectiveness and quality of a 1:1 has very little to do with your own actions and more to do with who you get assigned.
Some managers only want more status updates and find more ways to discredit your work. Others want to genuinely build you up and will even help you get a new job because they truly value their subordinates.
I found the best way to have “effective” 1:1s was by getting a new manager. Either switching projects, teams, or companies. Most often it was by switching company. Even then, you’re still a victim of circumstance.
Especially in a place like Silicon Valley where the idea of truly investing in an individual is a long gone concept - you’re gonna have a hard time finding that kind of resonance. This is why some people follow their managers everywhere. I will also mention - just because a manager does this for someone else doesn’t mean they will do it for you. There are many reasons for that, of which are completely out of your control.
As a manager, this is the framework I use
1. Staff updates their personal journal by Friday before our 1:1
2. Staff takes a one time skill assessment of all the tech dimensions we use on a likert skill so I know what they are strong and weak at (like might be weak in batch processing, containers, etc).
3. Staff periodically updates their career journey which has
-Start Date
-Elapsed Time
-What were your expectations in the elapsed time you were here?
-Review of skills matrix and what you want improved
-Current Role
-Desired Next Role
-Projects worked on in this year
-What skill sets did I learn in this years projects?
-Certifications
-Next year I want to accomplish
-In 5 years I want to accomplish
[ these are all the artifacts I use as a reference point ofr myself]
-- then during the 1:1 I ask
1. 'how are you?' --> And then I listen to see how their response is. Are they sighing a lot, are they stressed are they bored. I then follow up to make sure everything is okay emotionally or they have issues. I have noticed a lot of employees are not honest in what they say
2. I then assess how they are doing in terms of their
- project delivery
- tech skills
- soft skills
and get feedback accordingly.
Most engineers I have are doing well on projects and tech skills, but often need work on soft skills. I ask them to focus on soft skills by thinking of
- communication
- writing
- reading
For those who need help in communication I advise them to attend a Toastmasters class in person. Also I have been advocating for staff to read 'Supercommunicators' as a way to think about communication as a framework.
For soft skills, I believe the way of improving is being well rounded in the humanities, and not just going hard core tech.