How to get the most out of your 1:1s(erik.wiffin.com)
erik.wiffin.com
How to get the most out of your 1:1s
https://erik.wiffin.com/posts/how-to-get-the-most-out-of-your-11s/
211 comments
As a manager - I would love it if someone tells me that! This makes my life so much easier!
It means, that I will not have to worry about figuring out a good place for you to grow into. It also means that I will not have to worry about finding a replacement for you after you get promoted.
Hell, if you tell me that I'll do everything I can to give you a raise asap.
Tip: Your manager really, really wants to hear what you really honestly think. Even if it's not a positive thing (and just wanting to continue doing what you're doing is very positive!). It's super hard to guess what people are trying to say because most people don't just tell you straight. Of course there are exceptions - that's probably a sign of a crappy manager. If that's the case, sorry, you can probably find a better job.
It means, that I will not have to worry about figuring out a good place for you to grow into. It also means that I will not have to worry about finding a replacement for you after you get promoted.
Hell, if you tell me that I'll do everything I can to give you a raise asap.
Tip: Your manager really, really wants to hear what you really honestly think. Even if it's not a positive thing (and just wanting to continue doing what you're doing is very positive!). It's super hard to guess what people are trying to say because most people don't just tell you straight. Of course there are exceptions - that's probably a sign of a crappy manager. If that's the case, sorry, you can probably find a better job.
> Tip: Your manager really, really wants to hear what you really honestly think.
As the original commenter noted, the person who was honest about what they really thought was the one laid off when the time came. I won't say it's true for you, but at many organizations "I really want to hear what you honestly think..." has a second clause: "... so that I know who my most valuable 'resources' are."
I'm unconvinced that (from the employee's perspective) the best way to engage with management or HR is radical transparency.
As the original commenter noted, the person who was honest about what they really thought was the one laid off when the time came. I won't say it's true for you, but at many organizations "I really want to hear what you honestly think..." has a second clause: "... so that I know who my most valuable 'resources' are."
I'm unconvinced that (from the employee's perspective) the best way to engage with management or HR is radical transparency.
> As the original commenter noted, the person who was honest about what they really thought was the one laid off when the time came
It could have been for any of 100 other reasons.
It really boils down to whether your manager is bullshit or not. If they are, switch teams or switch jobs. If you can't be honest with your manager, it's not going to work out.
It could have been for any of 100 other reasons.
It really boils down to whether your manager is bullshit or not. If they are, switch teams or switch jobs. If you can't be honest with your manager, it's not going to work out.
Humans, in their majority, are natural liars and dislike the truth (even when they say the opposite)
Treat managers as you will most tech companies: the information you share will most likely be used against you.
Being honest is not in your best interest, nether is lying, not divulging information (privacy) is your best approach.
Unless necessary, be very careful what you share; your manager represents the company, and their interests are not often aligned with yours.
Treat managers as you will most tech companies: the information you share will most likely be used against you.
Being honest is not in your best interest, nether is lying, not divulging information (privacy) is your best approach.
Unless necessary, be very careful what you share; your manager represents the company, and their interests are not often aligned with yours.
Indeed you bring up a good point. There is risk. However, you never know what is the complete reason for someone getting fired, unless you are the one doing the firing. There are lots of things that do not get disclosed. It's also very easy to assume reasons if you're a bystander and be 100% wrong. I've certainly done that a lot.
It could easily have been that the other person got fired for completely unrelated reasons. It of course could also have been that he did in fact get fired for the reason suspected. In this case the question is again - what does the parent commenter want to optimize for? Is it peace of mind or job stability?
If the situation of having to lie is really bothering them, then perhaps the risk of things going wrong is worth taking? The original commenter is the only person that can decide that.
Also, if they keep lying, what's going to guarantee that they will not get promoted because they accidentally did well enough? Or if, indeed they keep getting not promoted, then will that look bad? Are they in an "up or out" level?
It could easily have been that the other person got fired for completely unrelated reasons. It of course could also have been that he did in fact get fired for the reason suspected. In this case the question is again - what does the parent commenter want to optimize for? Is it peace of mind or job stability?
If the situation of having to lie is really bothering them, then perhaps the risk of things going wrong is worth taking? The original commenter is the only person that can decide that.
Also, if they keep lying, what's going to guarantee that they will not get promoted because they accidentally did well enough? Or if, indeed they keep getting not promoted, then will that look bad? Are they in an "up or out" level?
I think it depends on what kind of unambitious it is. I have one guy who I don't connect with much who I estimate is pretty much like the OP. Has a kid, doesn't want a lot of stress, doesn't really want to proceed further, but is happy to do his current job and has a lot of experience as a senior.
But at the same time, this guy just jumps in whatever you ask him to do, and figures it out pretty quickly, doesn't need hand holding and is fairly independent and gets stuff done. He does his job and is a very low maintenance employee overall. He also updates his tickets / status as you ask him. He's an adult.
Since I know I don't have to be responsible for coaching him or moving his career forward or fixing issues or reminding him to do his job or figure out what to do, he's pretty good! He gets the job done and I don't have to do a lot of work for and is a reliable guy. If layoffs come, he would not be on the bottom of the list.
Other employees that don't want to be ambitious, or are picky about their workloads, that I have to remind constantly to do stuff, create conflicts I have to resolve and so on are significantly more work for the manager. If they are also not performing then yes, they would be the people on the bottom of the list.
So overall, if you want to be unambitious to advance after the terminal level of 'sr engineer', be a low stress easy employee to manage who is overall productive and have a good or neutral personal relationship with and it's really doubtful you'll be on the layoff list anytime soon. It lets managers be more effective and bigger with their team, because one high maintenance employee has the workload of 5 low maintenance ones.
Also only %10 of engineers ever advance into management or staff engineering leadership positions, so it's somewhat expected there will be a lot of people who are not going to go further anyway.
You could couch you being unambitious in asking your manager, how can I become a low maintenance employee for you? What would make your job easier in respect to managing me? How could I reduce your stress load? Tell him you don't want to be a manager (super common in engineering) but you do want to make life good for you, him and the team.
> I'm unconvinced that (from the employee's perspective) the best way to engage with management or HR is radical transparency.
I totally get that, and I was like that before being a manager. But once you become a manager, you realize there are a bunch of things that are actually very helpful to be transparent about, and other things that are not and it can be hard to communicate what those are unless you have a buddy who's a manager elsewhere and likes talking about the good and bad of their job outside of work. I really recommend that people do the "tour of duty" for 2 years into management to understand what it is. It will make your future career way less stressful and everything makes way more sense. https://twitter.com/mipsytipsy/status/1345574901818609664
But at the same time, this guy just jumps in whatever you ask him to do, and figures it out pretty quickly, doesn't need hand holding and is fairly independent and gets stuff done. He does his job and is a very low maintenance employee overall. He also updates his tickets / status as you ask him. He's an adult.
Since I know I don't have to be responsible for coaching him or moving his career forward or fixing issues or reminding him to do his job or figure out what to do, he's pretty good! He gets the job done and I don't have to do a lot of work for and is a reliable guy. If layoffs come, he would not be on the bottom of the list.
Other employees that don't want to be ambitious, or are picky about their workloads, that I have to remind constantly to do stuff, create conflicts I have to resolve and so on are significantly more work for the manager. If they are also not performing then yes, they would be the people on the bottom of the list.
So overall, if you want to be unambitious to advance after the terminal level of 'sr engineer', be a low stress easy employee to manage who is overall productive and have a good or neutral personal relationship with and it's really doubtful you'll be on the layoff list anytime soon. It lets managers be more effective and bigger with their team, because one high maintenance employee has the workload of 5 low maintenance ones.
Also only %10 of engineers ever advance into management or staff engineering leadership positions, so it's somewhat expected there will be a lot of people who are not going to go further anyway.
You could couch you being unambitious in asking your manager, how can I become a low maintenance employee for you? What would make your job easier in respect to managing me? How could I reduce your stress load? Tell him you don't want to be a manager (super common in engineering) but you do want to make life good for you, him and the team.
> I'm unconvinced that (from the employee's perspective) the best way to engage with management or HR is radical transparency.
I totally get that, and I was like that before being a manager. But once you become a manager, you realize there are a bunch of things that are actually very helpful to be transparent about, and other things that are not and it can be hard to communicate what those are unless you have a buddy who's a manager elsewhere and likes talking about the good and bad of their job outside of work. I really recommend that people do the "tour of duty" for 2 years into management to understand what it is. It will make your future career way less stressful and everything makes way more sense. https://twitter.com/mipsytipsy/status/1345574901818609664
> Your manager really, really wants to hear what you really honestly think
I mean, yes, this is almost always true, but that does not mean that it's always in your best interests to tell your manager what you honestly think.
I mean, yes, this is almost always true, but that does not mean that it's always in your best interests to tell your manager what you honestly think.
Absolutely. But it's also a question of what you want to optimize. Is it more about making sure you keep your current job, is it about maximizing income or is it about having peace of mind?
First, figure out what is the probability of you being able to find a new job. For most developers that are reasonably good, in the current market, finding a new job of at least the same compensation (probably more!) is possible, if not easy.
Assuming the calculation from the previous item goes well and if you want to optimize for peace of mind, say what you feel. If it turns out you have a bad manager, start looking for a new job. Getting fired immediately in the situation described in the original comment is extremely unlikely. If you get the impression that things are not going as expected, start looking for a new job.
If you want to optimize for keeping the current job and not for peace of mind, yes, technically the safest way for now is keep doing what the original poster said. However, how long can you keep that up? How bad will it make you feel to keep faking?
Also, it's very common to over-estimate the likelyhood of extreme edge cases happening. They are possible, but need to be weighted with the likelyhood and the risk. Again, if you are fairly certain that you can get a new job if needed, then the risk is small and the likelyhood (as you mentioned) is low. However, the peace of mind change can be substantial. To me it seems worth it. Maybe to you it wouldn't be. Then yes, don't do it. But it's important to think of all the factors and not just focus on not rocking the boat. Sometimes risks are worth taking. Sometimes not. Life's complicated and you only get one go at it :)
First, figure out what is the probability of you being able to find a new job. For most developers that are reasonably good, in the current market, finding a new job of at least the same compensation (probably more!) is possible, if not easy.
Assuming the calculation from the previous item goes well and if you want to optimize for peace of mind, say what you feel. If it turns out you have a bad manager, start looking for a new job. Getting fired immediately in the situation described in the original comment is extremely unlikely. If you get the impression that things are not going as expected, start looking for a new job.
If you want to optimize for keeping the current job and not for peace of mind, yes, technically the safest way for now is keep doing what the original poster said. However, how long can you keep that up? How bad will it make you feel to keep faking?
Also, it's very common to over-estimate the likelyhood of extreme edge cases happening. They are possible, but need to be weighted with the likelyhood and the risk. Again, if you are fairly certain that you can get a new job if needed, then the risk is small and the likelyhood (as you mentioned) is low. However, the peace of mind change can be substantial. To me it seems worth it. Maybe to you it wouldn't be. Then yes, don't do it. But it's important to think of all the factors and not just focus on not rocking the boat. Sometimes risks are worth taking. Sometimes not. Life's complicated and you only get one go at it :)
It’s always in my best interest to tell my manager that I don’t want to get promoted.
If I don’t tell him and they surprise me with a promotion, that’s not a great outcome. I know I’m a horrible people manager (did that for one horrible year). But I’m pretty good with managing projects.
If I do tell him and he forces it on me anyway or I can tell that’s not what he wants to hear, I need to know that and be prepared to change jobs.
But then again, I enjoy coming in fixing a problem, training, and “putting myself out of a job”. That isn’t exactly the model of someone who is interested in career progression at one job…
If I don’t tell him and they surprise me with a promotion, that’s not a great outcome. I know I’m a horrible people manager (did that for one horrible year). But I’m pretty good with managing projects.
If I do tell him and he forces it on me anyway or I can tell that’s not what he wants to hear, I need to know that and be prepared to change jobs.
But then again, I enjoy coming in fixing a problem, training, and “putting myself out of a job”. That isn’t exactly the model of someone who is interested in career progression at one job…
I will add that these types tend to amass deep expertise in what they do as well, because they're not just "passing through" the responsibilities - it's their craft.
They are incredible teammates and, in my experience, contribute more than "their share" to the mission.
They are incredible teammates and, in my experience, contribute more than "their share" to the mission.
Absolutely! There is always a risk of stagnation and turning into a cynical downer, but if it goes well, then it goes really well.
> Hell, if you tell me that I'll do everything I can to give you a raise asap.
This is not how salary raises work IMHO.
In my experience as a new (~2 years) manager, you get many questions when proposing salary raises to people perceived as happy, satisfied and agreeable.
I always feel like I need to put more effort on behalf of my reports and kind of repeat many times the obvious fact that it is better if we don't wait for people to find another job so that we - as a company - come back begging for them to accept a counter-offer raise.
This is not how salary raises work IMHO.
In my experience as a new (~2 years) manager, you get many questions when proposing salary raises to people perceived as happy, satisfied and agreeable.
I always feel like I need to put more effort on behalf of my reports and kind of repeat many times the obvious fact that it is better if we don't wait for people to find another job so that we - as a company - come back begging for them to accept a counter-offer raise.
The problem I've always had in asking for a raise is that it seems to me in a downturn situation, dissatisfied over-performers are probably second in line for layoffs after under-performers. If you can't give them a raise, and they're likely to jump ship soon, and will likely land another job shortly. (I'm not sure how unemployment time of recent layoffs feed back into employer's unemployment insurance rates.)
So, my career has been a big raise my first year out of college, followed shortly by a 2x lateral move to another company, followed by a bunch of single-digit percentage annual increases, followed by another doubling of my salary. A couple of times managers have also pro-actively scheduled meetings with senior management when they feel they've screwed me over on bonus/salary adjustment, and I got assurances they knew they owed me once there was more budget available.
I know I'm too agreeable, but I don't ask for a raise unless I have a written offer in-hand. I've seen varying advice on how to handle counter-offers, but it's also risky to accept a counter-offer if there's a company down-turn, as you're now more expensive and recently have shown a willingness to leave the company.
I guess the solution is just to be confident in your ability to quickly find a new job if you're laid off. I've given plenty of interviews (somewhere between 200 and 500 in my career) and am very confident in my ability to both leet-code and pass technical interview questions. Yet, I'm very hesitant to risk being in the position of interviewing when I don't currently have a job.
So, my career has been a big raise my first year out of college, followed shortly by a 2x lateral move to another company, followed by a bunch of single-digit percentage annual increases, followed by another doubling of my salary. A couple of times managers have also pro-actively scheduled meetings with senior management when they feel they've screwed me over on bonus/salary adjustment, and I got assurances they knew they owed me once there was more budget available.
I know I'm too agreeable, but I don't ask for a raise unless I have a written offer in-hand. I've seen varying advice on how to handle counter-offers, but it's also risky to accept a counter-offer if there's a company down-turn, as you're now more expensive and recently have shown a willingness to leave the company.
I guess the solution is just to be confident in your ability to quickly find a new job if you're laid off. I've given plenty of interviews (somewhere between 200 and 500 in my career) and am very confident in my ability to both leet-code and pass technical interview questions. Yet, I'm very hesitant to risk being in the position of interviewing when I don't currently have a job.
Sure - it does depend on the company quite a bit, but still justifying a raise is always difficult. That's intentional. Doiing this is a big part of your job - figuring out who you should fight for and then fight for that person.
> Tip: Your manager really, really wants to hear what you really honestly think.
Ofcourse. I too want the same. But neither do. As an IC I want hard to be replace me and get top pay for my ability. Exact opposite is my managers incentive.
Ofcourse. I too want the same. But neither do. As an IC I want hard to be replace me and get top pay for my ability. Exact opposite is my managers incentive.
okay I will try this thank you for the suggestion!
Good luck! Hope it works out for you. There are always risks of course, but in the current market, keep in mind that it's highly likely that they need you more than you need them.
No, please don't !
Without thinking through all possible consequences do not take any action which will jeopardize your status-quo. There is nothing wrong with your current strategy for your 1:1s. You should know your Manager very well before following "terryf"s suggestion; most Managers will not respond positively to somebody on their team who they think is "stagnating" (slacker, bad for team morale and growth etc. etc.). The worst-case scenario is, you get laid off while the best-case scenario is you never get a raise again.
Without thinking through all possible consequences do not take any action which will jeopardize your status-quo. There is nothing wrong with your current strategy for your 1:1s. You should know your Manager very well before following "terryf"s suggestion; most Managers will not respond positively to somebody on their team who they think is "stagnating" (slacker, bad for team morale and growth etc. etc.). The worst-case scenario is, you get laid off while the best-case scenario is you never get a raise again.
Couch it in how you want to contribute to your team.
Instead of "I don't want interesting work", say you want to help support members of the team who are looking for new opportunities, or something like that. There's X work maintaining the codebase and Y work on new and shiny projects and Z employees. Suggest perhaps cross-training in other people's less-stressful work (if there is any).
If you say that, then your manager (in their head), can be thinking, "Okay so we have this new project, and songzme doesn't want it, but her coworker does, so if songzme can pick up some of the maintenance work, the coworker will have time for new project." Obviously, keep your total workload under control, but a manager's job is to get a team to do something. It's fine to play support, just be open to it.
It doesn't have to be permanent. I've had time periods when I've volunteered for projects and others when I'm not interested due to external factors. During those times, I just did more of the team's work that required the least 'brain'. Which is great for the team members who are feeling bored and want to try something new.
Instead of "I don't want interesting work", say you want to help support members of the team who are looking for new opportunities, or something like that. There's X work maintaining the codebase and Y work on new and shiny projects and Z employees. Suggest perhaps cross-training in other people's less-stressful work (if there is any).
If you say that, then your manager (in their head), can be thinking, "Okay so we have this new project, and songzme doesn't want it, but her coworker does, so if songzme can pick up some of the maintenance work, the coworker will have time for new project." Obviously, keep your total workload under control, but a manager's job is to get a team to do something. It's fine to play support, just be open to it.
It doesn't have to be permanent. I've had time periods when I've volunteered for projects and others when I'm not interested due to external factors. During those times, I just did more of the team's work that required the least 'brain'. Which is great for the team members who are feeling bored and want to try something new.
I would be totally fine with someone telling me in a one on one that they are comfortable with their current position and would like to stay there. My expectation at that point would be that we would work on growth within that position. How can we (you and I) do the best job we can maximizing your impact and output where you currently are and make you the best version of what you want to be.
Honestly, any manager who is against that isn't a good manager.
Honestly, any manager who is against that isn't a good manager.
I like growing employees, but I'd be lying if it said I didn't put immense value on the great employees that are content where they are with what they're doing. They're dependable and they mean I have some form of "old guard" that really knows a system inside out without going through documentation or experimenting. That is very valuable.
That is very valuable until that employee needs to find another job and find their skills aren’t marketable.
Its up to the employee to continue to build marketable skills, not the employer. If the employee is content in their position, then that's that.
This is not how good managers think. They're not building good employees, they're helping build incredible team members. This isn't some altruistics BS, it's because the attributes of a great employee are symptoms of the indvidual. If your manager only cares about your bottom-line impact towards your job, start looking for a better situation.
I will absolute do what I can to grow employees. But they have to want to do that. Not all employees want to climb the ladder. They do not want to become a manager, they do not want the responsibility that comes with lead or architect roles. That does not mean they cannot grow in their position. You can always improve your coding, automated testing, devops, not to say soft skills, learn a new framework etc.
Manager: “What happens if I train my employees and they leave?”
What happens if you don’t train your employees and they stay?
Why would anyone want a team who hasn’t updated their skillset since 2006? That’s the epitome of the “Dead Sea Effect”
What happens if you don’t train your employees and they stay?
Why would anyone want a team who hasn’t updated their skillset since 2006? That’s the epitome of the “Dead Sea Effect”
Exactly and while the employee may appear from the untrained eye, to be "going nowhere" they may well be quietly gaining skills of highly marketable long term value, in fact having time to learn stuff properly due to lower pressure. So everyone wins...
I have seen the thought "employers are responsible for skills growth of their employees" and I am with you on this.
Employees need to take responsibility for their career and growth. I am responsible for continuing my learning and maintaining my skill set. To that end though, I choose to work places that encourage and support that since it's in their own interest.
Employees need to take responsibility for their career and growth. I am responsible for continuing my learning and maintaining my skill set. To that end though, I choose to work places that encourage and support that since it's in their own interest.
Agreed, I think companies that foster an environment of growth and learning ultimately become more competitive in the market and have an easier time innovating, so its a big plus from the shareholder equity side, but certainly not their responsibility to elevate each and every employee.
As an engineering manager, I would absolutely love to hear this from a report. It provides immediate clarity to me on how to provide great projects and work options for you.
However, there are a few points in your post that may be conflating topics.
First, 'maintaining the current codebase' and providing work that is valuable to the team/org are not the same thing. Some engineers will endlessly poke around the internals of a code base, refactoring, tuning, renaming for clarity, but never provide anything of real value. This is a pitfall.
Second, I would separate 'career growth' from promotion. Companies orient promotion ladders around particular dimensions that you may or may not care about, but that doesn't mean you can't be growing. Consider if there are ways you want to grow that are outside of what your company is asking for as a promotable step. I don't mind if engineers don't want to be promoted but I'm concerned if they have no desire to grow.
Finally, your post makes it sound like you believe an engineer's lack of ambition led to their being laid off, however this may conflate ambition for output. Are you sure a lack of ambition was the reason or were they not producing anything of value (as in point 1 above)?
For bonus courage points, consider having a candid discussion with your manager about each of these topics. I would wager that you will be much better aligned afterwards.
However, there are a few points in your post that may be conflating topics.
First, 'maintaining the current codebase' and providing work that is valuable to the team/org are not the same thing. Some engineers will endlessly poke around the internals of a code base, refactoring, tuning, renaming for clarity, but never provide anything of real value. This is a pitfall.
Second, I would separate 'career growth' from promotion. Companies orient promotion ladders around particular dimensions that you may or may not care about, but that doesn't mean you can't be growing. Consider if there are ways you want to grow that are outside of what your company is asking for as a promotable step. I don't mind if engineers don't want to be promoted but I'm concerned if they have no desire to grow.
Finally, your post makes it sound like you believe an engineer's lack of ambition led to their being laid off, however this may conflate ambition for output. Are you sure a lack of ambition was the reason or were they not producing anything of value (as in point 1 above)?
For bonus courage points, consider having a candid discussion with your manager about each of these topics. I would wager that you will be much better aligned afterwards.
You have two options, If you have a good manager just say that you just want to keep the same volume of work to be done and that will be all.
If you have a bad manager just lie, say that the work is hard enough, that its challenging maintaining a codebase up to date, that you are interested in this kind of work, that there is lots of work to be done, documenting, making tests, replacing old parts with newer parts and that you see your future being an expert in that kind of tasks.
Usually there is a kind of trade off between being responsible for a piece of software and the amount of work to be done on that project.
If you have a bad manager just lie, say that the work is hard enough, that its challenging maintaining a codebase up to date, that you are interested in this kind of work, that there is lots of work to be done, documenting, making tests, replacing old parts with newer parts and that you see your future being an expert in that kind of tasks.
Usually there is a kind of trade off between being responsible for a piece of software and the amount of work to be done on that project.
As a manager I would be fine with this explanation. If you are valuable in the area you are and you don't want to move on that's fine with me. We need someone in that role and you fill it nicely so by all means stay in that role. There should still be plenty of growth opportunity for you if you want it... it doesn't have to come with a title change. Having 100 people that all want promotions that cycle and only 20 slots to promote into is stressful to handle so you not being part of that but still contributing is kind of great.
Hiring engineers is hard. Unless you’re in a very large company with complex internal politics, you can tell your manager literally anything and they’ll be fine with it. Most managers have been taught that engineers need excitement and growth and so they’re offering it because trying to retain you, they’re trying to avoid you being excited by something new and shiny. “I am happy and want to stay exactly where I am” is music to their ears, shout it from the roof tops. I wouldn’t take any lessons from layoffs.
>which manager wants an unambitious engineer?
If you are doing good work, that sounds like any managers dream: reliability!
I certainly want to help every member of my team to reach their personal goals but all of that means work for me, and work for finding who will replace them at their current position.
If you are doing good work, that sounds like any managers dream: reliability!
I certainly want to help every member of my team to reach their personal goals but all of that means work for me, and work for finding who will replace them at their current position.
Actually that sounds amazing: you seem to want to do what you do and do that right, nothing more, nothing less.
There are only so many L+1 spots, someone who wants to do actual work in the team rather than invest a lot of time getting such a spot and potentially do things that may be risky or end up leaving the firm could be a very valuable part of the team.
There are only so many L+1 spots, someone who wants to do actual work in the team rather than invest a lot of time getting such a spot and potentially do things that may be risky or end up leaving the firm could be a very valuable part of the team.
Have you considered contracting / consultancy engagements?
I find things like 1:1's infantile / patronising / condescending, I'm sure some employees are convinced about their benefit, however I'm unable to come to that conclusion myself when thinking about it.
For me contracting is a more honest exchange of my time and expertise, for money.
I find things like 1:1's infantile / patronising / condescending, I'm sure some employees are convinced about their benefit, however I'm unable to come to that conclusion myself when thinking about it.
For me contracting is a more honest exchange of my time and expertise, for money.
I thought about it, and I decided not to. TBH, I like vesting stocks and the stock growth helps me work alot less than I need to ( get to quit, take a year off and live off selling the stock, then go back to work).
With contracting I would have to save and every hour I don't work is an hour I'm not getting money its a bit stressful to think about.
With contracting I would have to save and every hour I don't work is an hour I'm not getting money its a bit stressful to think about.
This is asking a lot from you, but in your situation, I think your goal should be to build up enough of a relationship with your manager that you feel comfortable telling them that, or realize that that's never going to happen at your current company and find a new job.
I have reports who have told me that they're happy doing what they're doing. I don't see it as a negative at all - they're employees who are quietly getting their job done and I don't have to worry about them leaving for career growth or Peter Principle-ing them into incompetence. It's important that we continue to have 1:1s though. People aren't static, they can change their mind, and I also want to make sure I keep an ear out for little things that are annoying them, and do what I can to make them go away.
I have reports who have told me that they're happy doing what they're doing. I don't see it as a negative at all - they're employees who are quietly getting their job done and I don't have to worry about them leaving for career growth or Peter Principle-ing them into incompetence. It's important that we continue to have 1:1s though. People aren't static, they can change their mind, and I also want to make sure I keep an ear out for little things that are annoying them, and do what I can to make them go away.
That’s good for you. But how good is it for them for you not to inform them of the existential risks of them not getting better at their job and staying marketable? Even if they don’t want a raise? Every industry goes through changes and you should encourage them to stay up to date on those changes instead of just chugging along on the legacy products.
I met two developers in 2016 who had been with the same company for 10 and 17 years respectively maintaining a PowerBuilder app from 1999 running on Sql server 2003.
The company was happy to let them keep chugging along until the company got acquired by venture capital and they said they “no longer wanted to be a software company”. How do you think that worked out for them?
I met two developers in 2016 who had been with the same company for 10 and 17 years respectively maintaining a PowerBuilder app from 1999 running on Sql server 2003.
The company was happy to let them keep chugging along until the company got acquired by venture capital and they said they “no longer wanted to be a software company”. How do you think that worked out for them?
Sounds like you're working somewhere with an "up or out" culture? I've been there, done that, then moved on to a much nicer job. IMHO its a ridiculous way for a company to run. There are loads of people, like you or I or other commenters here, who will do a hard day's work, but don't want the extra stress and instead want enough time with our spouse and kid(s). We are nevertheless super useful to our employers. In fact, we're excellent value, because we don't chase the big bucks and we stick around gaining knowledge. My advice is GTFO from there. ;)
Do you trust your manager? You should just tell him/her that. I don't think I'd worry about layoffs in this market. Big difference between unambitious and lazy/not competent. I'm a PM and devs like you are worth their weight in gold. You could work on the framing a bit. Something like "I'm quite happy with my current scope and responsibilities. I enjoy working to make our current codebase more stable and maintainable and adding scope would either take away from what I enjoy or my family time at home, which isn't worth the tradeoff to me"
>> 2. Do you want more interesting work?
>> Also no, I'm perfectly happy maintaining our current codebase, not interested in new and shiny projects because my most interesting time is spent at home with my kiddo.
So as a manager my concern here is you're communicating I don't want to grow or add more value. I'm not sure if that's your intent. There are actually very few roles where I've needed someone to "just keep doing exactly what you're doing right now", and they are typically short-term bridges to more important projects or quickly devolve into lowest-cost commodity solutions.
You don't have to get promoted or work on bleeding-edge tech, but you definitely need to grow. If you're not growing, your stagnating, and your time is limited.
The follow-on comments from other managers about how you're a dream IC really scare me; they present a mindset that developers are a problem that needs to be solved as easily as possible. Give me a demanding, passionate and yes, needy, developer over someone who's stopped progressing every time.
>> Any tips on how I can handle my 1:1s?
Don't share that you're perfectly content with the current status-quo and that you don't want any further growth or responsibility.
>> Also no, I'm perfectly happy maintaining our current codebase, not interested in new and shiny projects because my most interesting time is spent at home with my kiddo.
So as a manager my concern here is you're communicating I don't want to grow or add more value. I'm not sure if that's your intent. There are actually very few roles where I've needed someone to "just keep doing exactly what you're doing right now", and they are typically short-term bridges to more important projects or quickly devolve into lowest-cost commodity solutions.
You don't have to get promoted or work on bleeding-edge tech, but you definitely need to grow. If you're not growing, your stagnating, and your time is limited.
The follow-on comments from other managers about how you're a dream IC really scare me; they present a mindset that developers are a problem that needs to be solved as easily as possible. Give me a demanding, passionate and yes, needy, developer over someone who's stopped progressing every time.
>> Any tips on how I can handle my 1:1s?
Don't share that you're perfectly content with the current status-quo and that you don't want any further growth or responsibility.
I agree with not wanting a promotion, I’m perfectly fine with where I am compensation wise and job wise.
But yes, I keep up with the new shiny projects and keep my resume current. The tides are always shifting in tech. Managers change, companies get acquired, go under etc. It’s my responsibility to myself and my family to keep myself competitive in the market.
I’m not going to do that by not staying in sync with the market.
But yes, I keep up with the new shiny projects and keep my resume current. The tides are always shifting in tech. Managers change, companies get acquired, go under etc. It’s my responsibility to myself and my family to keep myself competitive in the market.
I’m not going to do that by not staying in sync with the market.
> I'm afraid to tell my manager that, because which manager wants an unambitious engineer?
the laying someone off for that is silly. But when I was managing a team for the first time I would have found it really helpful if one of them told me that! It was so far from my imagination that there would be an _unambitious engineer_ the thought never occurred to me. I wasn't a lot of my time and theirs working on this erroneous world-view.
the laying someone off for that is silly. But when I was managing a team for the first time I would have found it really helpful if one of them told me that! It was so far from my imagination that there would be an _unambitious engineer_ the thought never occurred to me. I wasn't a lot of my time and theirs working on this erroneous world-view.
There’s no problem with that as long as you don’t express it in a negative way.
At least, I manage people who say this and it is perfectly fine.
Also, this level of ambition has a tendency to change with people’s life circumstances.
The most important thing for me is making sure the work someone is doing is aligned with their goals, whether that is work life balance or expanding their role as fast as is feasible or something in between.
At least, I manage people who say this and it is perfectly fine.
Also, this level of ambition has a tendency to change with people’s life circumstances.
The most important thing for me is making sure the work someone is doing is aligned with their goals, whether that is work life balance or expanding their role as fast as is feasible or something in between.
I sympathize, before becoming a manager I was exactly you. Eventually, I realized I just don't want to be coding all day. I hate the endless chase to become good with some new technology.
Being a manager has its own challenges but overall I can say I am much happier than in my prior job where I was an individual contributor.
One thing to keep in mind is that "expert on team's codebase" is a form of career growth. Not always the best or most prestigious kind but it's enough that the company finds you valuable and worth paying more.
Agreed with the other comments here. I would love to hear this as an engineering manager. I fear the work becoming stale for my team and push growth opportunities to keep things interesting.
You’re a SWE. Point out how your growth is $$$ for the business. Once you’re through the first chunk of your career, it’s enough, and it’s what they really want.
My situation is as follows. I joined my current company 1 year ago; my team is composed of 5 people (data scientists, engineers, 1 product manager) and it is within an area (there are like 10 areas, and each area has around 2 to 3 teams). Alongside my team, there is another team in my area. There is only one engineer manager for the whole area (so, like 8 engineers to "manage").
I have 1:1s every 2 weeks with my engineer manager... and that's basically 99% of the contact I have with them. My eng. manager rarely attends my team's sprint plannings (or any other Scrum ceremony like retros, standups, etc.). We rarely (if any) discuss long-term technical planning/ideas/solutions. They know which products we maintain and in what we are working on, but not much more.
In the 1:1 we are very open, but it always feels like "this is something we have to do, let's carry on with it". They always recommend me some blogs, conferences, sometimes books... but to be honest I'm quite past that phase in my career: it's not that I don't appreciate recommendations, it's that I have been working for more than 10 years in the industry and I have pretty much clear what's my "career path", and it doesn't depend on engineer managers (my "career path" is to keep being an IC, doing a good job, not getting too attached to companies... and switch jobs every 3 years or so).
Seems to me that the job of the engineer manager is just too lightweight. We hire them people because they have two things: a) good people skills, and b) a good track of experience working on tech. We never get to "use" my engineer manager for point b, and point a is summarized as "let's have a good chat every 2 weeks".
I have 1:1s every 2 weeks with my engineer manager... and that's basically 99% of the contact I have with them. My eng. manager rarely attends my team's sprint plannings (or any other Scrum ceremony like retros, standups, etc.). We rarely (if any) discuss long-term technical planning/ideas/solutions. They know which products we maintain and in what we are working on, but not much more.
In the 1:1 we are very open, but it always feels like "this is something we have to do, let's carry on with it". They always recommend me some blogs, conferences, sometimes books... but to be honest I'm quite past that phase in my career: it's not that I don't appreciate recommendations, it's that I have been working for more than 10 years in the industry and I have pretty much clear what's my "career path", and it doesn't depend on engineer managers (my "career path" is to keep being an IC, doing a good job, not getting too attached to companies... and switch jobs every 3 years or so).
Seems to me that the job of the engineer manager is just too lightweight. We hire them people because they have two things: a) good people skills, and b) a good track of experience working on tech. We never get to "use" my engineer manager for point b, and point a is summarized as "let's have a good chat every 2 weeks".
Sounds like you need to change the intent of your 1:1s. I am senior at a big company (managing teams of teams) and my manager is a senior executive. I meet with him every other week and that is most of the contact I have with him. That works, as he trusts me to execute on his strategic objectives, and I like it like that. Our 1:1s are very purposeful. I inform him on things I think he should know, ask him for support where I need him, and remind him of my career aspirations to get opportunities that move me in that direction. That's it. It ends up as a nice conversation and gets us both what we need. It sounds like you could move your meetings in that general direction.
Well, my 1:1s go like that actually. My point is: if you suddenly remove your 1:1s, would the business or you get impacted? In my case the answer is: no.
The 1:1s are not terrible nor bad, I just feel that they are just superflous.
The 1:1s are not terrible nor bad, I just feel that they are just superflous.
As a manager, 1:1s are primarily for you. Not the manager. If you’re getting nothing out of them, suggest changes to cadence and/or frequency.
I won’t let my staff ditch them 100% as there’s also a component where I’m using them to spot problems I might not see otherwise. But for the most part, I treat it as their time
I won’t let my staff ditch them 100% as there’s also a component where I’m using them to spot problems I might not see otherwise. But for the most part, I treat it as their time
This is a recurring problem in hierarchical relationships. The subordinates have a good reason to assume that these tete-a-tetes can be used against them; they are acting in their own rational interest because of the power imbalance. So they hold back and give superficial feedback.
This is true and there's no easy way around it.
As an employee I took the tactic of saying fuck it and saying what's on my mind. If it'll be used against me, so be it. I think that's the optimal path but it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. At the end of the day it's on the employee to find their path out of this.
As a manager the best I can do is try to build a solid rapport with the person in hopes that they feel comfortable opening up. But there's no magic bullet to this and every person is different. That rapport also goes both ways. I struggle with newer employees as I have no connection with them and am much more likely to fall back on generic platitudes. As I get to know the person the questions I ask and suggestions I make can be more tailored to their personalities and comfort zones.
As an employee I took the tactic of saying fuck it and saying what's on my mind. If it'll be used against me, so be it. I think that's the optimal path but it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. At the end of the day it's on the employee to find their path out of this.
As a manager the best I can do is try to build a solid rapport with the person in hopes that they feel comfortable opening up. But there's no magic bullet to this and every person is different. That rapport also goes both ways. I struggle with newer employees as I have no connection with them and am much more likely to fall back on generic platitudes. As I get to know the person the questions I ask and suggestions I make can be more tailored to their personalities and comfort zones.
As a Doctor, giving my patient a placebo sugar pill once a month is primarily for you. Not the Doctor. I won't let my staff ditch them 100% as there's also a component where I use them to charge their insurance. But for the most part, I treat it as their time.
There is at least one valid reason to do what GP suggested regarding 1:1s in my experience:
If an employee is having an issue that they don't want to put in writing (or you sense this), oftentimes a one-on-one is the only way to coax it out. Particularly if they have an issue with leadership, HR, other managers, etc. Decent managers are also using 1:1s to make sure their employees are treated well in the org as a whole.
But I recognize the 'decent' is doing some very heavy lifting in that sentence.
If an employee is having an issue that they don't want to put in writing (or you sense this), oftentimes a one-on-one is the only way to coax it out. Particularly if they have an issue with leadership, HR, other managers, etc. Decent managers are also using 1:1s to make sure their employees are treated well in the org as a whole.
But I recognize the 'decent' is doing some very heavy lifting in that sentence.
Right. As a manager I'm invested in seeing the employee grow, develop, and have a fulfilling life. It's not 100% altruistic on my part, as a happy employee who is motivated to improve is better for the company. But I also care about them as people. Thus, the 1:1 is their time to drive that. My role is to help guide and coach, but they know themselves best.
However, another part of my job is to spot larger problems. That's an exercise in pattern matching. While you're talking I'm matching to keywords I've picked up in my travels. Other meetings, 1:1s, etc. Maybe there's a problem lurking down the road that's only visible if one assembles these disparate data. Sometimes those are problems for the employee that they themselves don't realize as you suggest, other times it has no direct connection to them but they're key to identifying the issue. That last part is why I don't agree with getting rid of 1:1s altogether.
However, another part of my job is to spot larger problems. That's an exercise in pattern matching. While you're talking I'm matching to keywords I've picked up in my travels. Other meetings, 1:1s, etc. Maybe there's a problem lurking down the road that's only visible if one assembles these disparate data. Sometimes those are problems for the employee that they themselves don't realize as you suggest, other times it has no direct connection to them but they're key to identifying the issue. That last part is why I don't agree with getting rid of 1:1s altogether.
> Seems to me that the job of the engineer manager is just too lightweight.
Maybe you don't see other things they do. Their work isn't only 1:1 with you. For instance, hiring, evaluating employees, redirecting team efforts if new priority arises, fostering collaboration with other teams if needed, unblocking things, reporting to high management about the team whereabout, making sure every IC has what they need for their job, taking the temperature of the team, informing people about opportunities, and so on...
Maybe you don't see other things they do. Their work isn't only 1:1 with you. For instance, hiring, evaluating employees, redirecting team efforts if new priority arises, fostering collaboration with other teams if needed, unblocking things, reporting to high management about the team whereabout, making sure every IC has what they need for their job, taking the temperature of the team, informing people about opportunities, and so on...
> For instance, hiring
Yes, they screen CVs and join tech interviews. I also join tech interviews.
> evaluating employees
True. They use the 1:1s to keep track of the evaluation afaik.
> redirecting team efforts if new priority arises
As I said, our eng. manager doesn't usually join our planning nor has ever said anything regarding "X has more prio than Y"... Redirecting the team effort is mostly on the team itself (PM + tech lead)
> fostering collaboration with other teams if needed
Again, this happens only if the teams decide to do so. Teams are quite self sub-stained.
> unblocking things
Never happen in our team. If there are any technical blockers, that's usually solved by the tech lead + infra team. If there any business blockers, that's solved by our PM + stakeholders.
> reporting to high management about the team whereabout
Eng. managers have private Slack channels, so can't say anything about this regard.
> making sure every IC has what they need for their job
Care to elaborate? If I need an IDE, I ask in the #it-support channel. If I need to take holiday/sick-leave I ask my team and PM. If I prefer Postgres instead of MySQL, I talk with the infra team; any business-related issue? I talk to my PM... what kind of stuff one asks to their eng. manager?
> taking the temperature of the team, informing people about opportunities, and so on
Lightweight job I would say. But yes, a job nonetheless.
Yes, they screen CVs and join tech interviews. I also join tech interviews.
> evaluating employees
True. They use the 1:1s to keep track of the evaluation afaik.
> redirecting team efforts if new priority arises
As I said, our eng. manager doesn't usually join our planning nor has ever said anything regarding "X has more prio than Y"... Redirecting the team effort is mostly on the team itself (PM + tech lead)
> fostering collaboration with other teams if needed
Again, this happens only if the teams decide to do so. Teams are quite self sub-stained.
> unblocking things
Never happen in our team. If there are any technical blockers, that's usually solved by the tech lead + infra team. If there any business blockers, that's solved by our PM + stakeholders.
> reporting to high management about the team whereabout
Eng. managers have private Slack channels, so can't say anything about this regard.
> making sure every IC has what they need for their job
Care to elaborate? If I need an IDE, I ask in the #it-support channel. If I need to take holiday/sick-leave I ask my team and PM. If I prefer Postgres instead of MySQL, I talk with the infra team; any business-related issue? I talk to my PM... what kind of stuff one asks to their eng. manager?
> taking the temperature of the team, informing people about opportunities, and so on
Lightweight job I would say. But yes, a job nonetheless.
Everything is pretty light weight as long as things are running smoothly. It's not completely unlike an IT department: You only really figure out their value, when things go poorly.
Sounds to me like you just have a bad manager.
> my "career path" is to keep being an IC, doing a good job, not getting too attached to companies... and switch jobs every 3 years or so
THIS is what the 1:1 is for. That is where you communicate to your manager what you need in order to keep from leaving in a few years. You might not get it and leave anyway, but then again, you might. Nothing lost in the trying.*
* I'm not suggesting you frame it as an ultimatum but let them know what you want.
THIS is what the 1:1 is for. That is where you communicate to your manager what you need in order to keep from leaving in a few years. You might not get it and leave anyway, but then again, you might. Nothing lost in the trying.*
* I'm not suggesting you frame it as an ultimatum but let them know what you want.
Sounds like your engineering manager isn’t doing a good job. I’ve actually learned how to be a better manager by learning what not to do from other crummy managers I’ve had or others had. Hope it doesn’t turn you off from management track or look at all managers like they don’t pull their weight
The thing is they are not a "bad manager" in the sense of: they do micromanaging, they never answer our questions, etc. What I think is that an engineer manager is not always needed... the only reason my company has them is to handle salary raises and promotions in a more ordered way (which is a win for the company, but not so much for the employees).
>I have 1:1s every 2 weeks with my engineer manager... and that's basically 99% of the contact I have with them.
that's terrible
that's terrible
Yeah, I’ve been finding my one on ones useless recently, and this article seems to have some more useless “wisdom” here summed up in a nice package. Kind of annoying to me that the writer implies the one on one is for me to fill his valuable time. I’m loving my work, don’t have any issues with my coworkers, and like my current position. I really don’t have critical feedback to bring to the table every one on one. To be honest, if everything is going smoothly, all I can do is talk about what I’m excited to work on next and how life is going. Which is a status update.
By the way, I found the “figure out my problems and solve them” line very rich. Every morning we have a standup where my manager tells me what his main concerns are and then I change my priority of work to keep his stress (and thus mine) low on whatever the new issue is. That’s generally how managers and employees work. You’re probably doing something very wrong or are very green if you don’t know what your managers chief stressors and concerns are, because I have no idea how you’d manage your work properly otherwise.
By the way, I found the “figure out my problems and solve them” line very rich. Every morning we have a standup where my manager tells me what his main concerns are and then I change my priority of work to keep his stress (and thus mine) low on whatever the new issue is. That’s generally how managers and employees work. You’re probably doing something very wrong or are very green if you don’t know what your managers chief stressors and concerns are, because I have no idea how you’d manage your work properly otherwise.
When I don't have anything work-related to report, there are no concerns on either side, and there are no situational changes, we just chat with my manager for the whole half-hour about various life topics.
Sometimes it may bring to memory something related to work, which we can discuss. Sometimes it will be completely unrelated to work for the whole meeting, but I think there is still value in that. It helps us build a better relationship and reveals more about who we are and how we think and helps just generally "tune" ourselves to each other.
Sometimes it may bring to memory something related to work, which we can discuss. Sometimes it will be completely unrelated to work for the whole meeting, but I think there is still value in that. It helps us build a better relationship and reveals more about who we are and how we think and helps just generally "tune" ourselves to each other.
I hate when this happens. It's been a recent revelation of mine that I'm happiest when my personal business remains personal. I hate having to scrape through my life sanitizing topics into conversational safe spaces just to get paid.
I personally like talking about life-stuff with certain people, but not with all. In practice there's a handful of people where we do share those things, and a bunch where we don't.
And imo that's totally fine.
We usually start 1:1's with a little smalltalk, then list the agenda points that both participants have prepared. We cover those, and if there's time left we either talk about life, freestyle into broad work topics or end the meeting early.
There are times when I feel like a meeting wasn't valuable, but by far most are valuable. Especially in a fully remote team (even pre-covid), it is a moment to talk and get to know one another (again, only if both parties want to)
And imo that's totally fine.
We usually start 1:1's with a little smalltalk, then list the agenda points that both participants have prepared. We cover those, and if there's time left we either talk about life, freestyle into broad work topics or end the meeting early.
There are times when I feel like a meeting wasn't valuable, but by far most are valuable. Especially in a fully remote team (even pre-covid), it is a moment to talk and get to know one another (again, only if both parties want to)
You're not a work robot, you're a human being with a life. It's only natural for people to want to discuss their lives with each other. It's hilarious when people on this forum complain about being treated as "faceless worker drones" and then leave comments like this.
You can talk about life topics which are professional in nature. You keep your personal out of it.
Very much agreed. Those personal anecdotes and stories shouldn't have any affect on the workplace. But often you'll find subtle biases coming from the other party, after sharing stuff they may not like or agree with. It's fine for everyone to have their own opinion and certainly feelings on things. I don't want to share anything personal, or not work related at any work function/meeting. I don't want someone else's opinion on my personal life affecting their opinions of my work.
It is unfortunate, innit?
That's just how it goes with most people - you have to adjust yourself, almost the way you do with children.
That's just how it goes with most people - you have to adjust yourself, almost the way you do with children.
> You’re probably doing something very wrong or are very green if you don’t know what your managers chief stressors and concerns are, because I have no idea how you’d manage your work properly otherwise.
I basically agree with nearly everything you said. I just wanted to widen the scope a bit on the quoted part. Working in an agency in a client facing role, my main focus is to reduce the stressors for my client and "arm" them with things that make them look good with their managers and leadership.
Else than that I can only agree that when everything is fine - why should I fill 30 - 45 minutes of my managers time (that could be used more efficiently).
Also: If not everything is well I feel it is important to see if this is something your manager can do anything about. Not because you should not tell them if they can't do anything about, but to adjust your expectations and state it as an information/request. Oftentimes I found myself talking to my manager about things that don't work well but they could not do anything about this. But we found ourselves nonetheless creating ideas how to mitigate this in other areas.
I basically agree with nearly everything you said. I just wanted to widen the scope a bit on the quoted part. Working in an agency in a client facing role, my main focus is to reduce the stressors for my client and "arm" them with things that make them look good with their managers and leadership.
Else than that I can only agree that when everything is fine - why should I fill 30 - 45 minutes of my managers time (that could be used more efficiently).
Also: If not everything is well I feel it is important to see if this is something your manager can do anything about. Not because you should not tell them if they can't do anything about, but to adjust your expectations and state it as an information/request. Oftentimes I found myself talking to my manager about things that don't work well but they could not do anything about this. But we found ourselves nonetheless creating ideas how to mitigate this in other areas.
> I’ve been finding my one on ones useless recently
It sounds like you have a good problem to have. Given your described state you have space for relationship building. Many humans enjoy different kinds of chitchat. If one is able to create a positive expected emotional outcome from interactions, it acts as a thumb on the scales in your favor in other areas.
Cialdini's book "Pre-suasion" has good information about different techniques to operationalize. Below is a podcast in which he discusses the ethical use of such.
https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/robert-cialdini/
It sounds like you have a good problem to have. Given your described state you have space for relationship building. Many humans enjoy different kinds of chitchat. If one is able to create a positive expected emotional outcome from interactions, it acts as a thumb on the scales in your favor in other areas.
Cialdini's book "Pre-suasion" has good information about different techniques to operationalize. Below is a podcast in which he discusses the ethical use of such.
https://fs.blog/knowledge-project-podcast/robert-cialdini/
Additionally I have seen multiple articles or heard managers talk about having an open document between themselves and the report that they "own" and can fill up with stuff and as an IC/report I just don't see where I'm supposed to find the time to do all that and additionally as the team manager who is responsible for reporting up what we're doing/etc why don't you do more tracking of my accomplishments/etc too? You're literally reporting up on those accomplishments to higher managers so why can't you also collate that info for me to present in 1:1s?
Generally agreed, but I’d say it’s easy to forget long standing issues because you mentioned it once and no one followed up. It’s a good idea to keep 1-1 meeting notes to follow up on things and keep a record. And honestly if people have nothing much to discuss or are not interested in chitchat you should just wrap the check in early and let everyone get back to work or life.
I also think the managers should come with conversation starters to these meetings. Be curious about what your reports do and proactively ask them about something specific they did last month and anything they can do to improve. Coming with a blank slate because you think you are doing someone a favor by giving them your time will always lead to status updates or awkward silences.
I have seen 1:1s used more strategically by employees who have 1on1 with managers outside their team. These employees often get promoted quickly. Note, at performance review time, employees are stacked against each other. If the other managers know you well and are giving you advice then chances are they won't push back if your manager ranks you highly. In addition, employees are ranked by how much they influence others so it helps to have a relationship with the other team leads and to know their goals. Furthermore, some managers don't care about their direct report's careers so having a 1on1 with another manager gives you a chance to get advice that your manager might not want you to know. For example, your manager most likely will not tell you how to be promoted above him/her; if you talk to another manager you can learn this.
Yes and
- You can catch new leaders and senior ICs on their way in the door and make yourself helpful to them, which makes a positive and memorable first impression
- You build relationships that make you more effective in your role
- You accelerate the dissemination of knowledge across silos
- You exercise control over the flow of information to help the organization meet its goals
- You learn how power flows through the organization
- You discover other teams that you may want to work more closely with, or take steps to avoid working with
- You become better able to empathize with other teams because you have a human connection
- You can catch new leaders and senior ICs on their way in the door and make yourself helpful to them, which makes a positive and memorable first impression
- You build relationships that make you more effective in your role
- You accelerate the dissemination of knowledge across silos
- You exercise control over the flow of information to help the organization meet its goals
- You learn how power flows through the organization
- You discover other teams that you may want to work more closely with, or take steps to avoid working with
- You become better able to empathize with other teams because you have a human connection
I used to have a boss who’d ask me to rate my company satisfaction with the company 1-10 at every 1:1. This always struck me as one of the laziest/misguided management moves I’ve encountered, and I’m sure he felt it was both accurate and clever. If you manage people, and don’t understand that basic power dynamics will always trump encouragements for “openness”, you are naive at best and willfully blind at worst.
One of things I always looked out for as manager (which I am not currently) was a change in feed-back I got. If it turned from open, direct and honest to tounge-in-cheek, carefully worded and limited, punctuated with various versions of "nothing to report" I took it as a sign something was wrong.
Obviously, this effect is much easier when you are not in a management position. Because of that I was usually borderline paranoid about these changes in 1:1s with my directs.
In small teams I found the way to have informal, spontaneous 1:1s very effective. The basis, so, always was regularly scheduled ones unless you just forget to have them.
EDIT: For sure every 1:1 is different, and every 1:1 with different people need to be run differently. Some people like to discuss private stuff, others want in-depth tech discussions. Sometimes 1:1s are over in 5 minutes, sometimes they take an hour. Be flexible, and never use anything said in a 1:1 "against" the other person.
Obviously, this effect is much easier when you are not in a management position. Because of that I was usually borderline paranoid about these changes in 1:1s with my directs.
In small teams I found the way to have informal, spontaneous 1:1s very effective. The basis, so, always was regularly scheduled ones unless you just forget to have them.
EDIT: For sure every 1:1 is different, and every 1:1 with different people need to be run differently. Some people like to discuss private stuff, others want in-depth tech discussions. Sometimes 1:1s are over in 5 minutes, sometimes they take an hour. Be flexible, and never use anything said in a 1:1 "against" the other person.
Exactly this. As an employee, in this situation, you are always one step away from saying something to the person who can make your life miserable if they take offence. At no point am I ever open in these things, always guarded and watchful of what I'm saying because of who I'm saying it to. It's a corporate pipe dream to think otherwise.
Heard one of the Warby Parker founders speak once, and he mentioned a similar process at their company. I believe once a week all employees anonymously rated their satisfaction 1-10. He was very bought into the thought that "happy employees = productive employees". He said the weekly ratings was a very powerful tool for the executive team to get a feel for how the team was feeling, and if they could push harder or needed to ease up. Compared with the alternative of waiting to see resignation numbers go up, seemed like a pretty brilliant idea to me.
This was many years ago so apologies if some details are a bit off, but the gist of the story has stuck with me over the years.
This was many years ago so apologies if some details are a bit off, but the gist of the story has stuck with me over the years.
A key difference though is that was anonymous (safe) and aggregated (large sample size).
Giving a 1-10 rating directly to your supervisor is a completely different thing and the number is tainted by all sorts of other dynamics.
Giving a 1-10 rating directly to your supervisor is a completely different thing and the number is tainted by all sorts of other dynamics.
Not to defend the constant ratings, but imagine managers are not in fact all stupid for a second, and that they realize the power dynamic is there. You still need to do the same job and fulfill the expectations of your own manager, as a manager. It's easy to assume stupidity, and I'm sure there's plenty dumb moves made, but what you find cringy another report finds cool and easy. I bet there are people who would love a no fluff rating and be done vs a bullshit 10 mins of talk where in the end the manager still makes a mental note of your face next to a 7/10. Anyone who manages people sees completely different reactions from different people to exactly the same thing, so that isn't surprising. But sometimes engineers adopt a cynical view of it all where because you don't like something it must mean nobody does.
Very few people can be fully open with their Managers; it is inbuilt into the hierarchy and nothing to do with stupidity. It is the Manager's job to be aware of it and then devise techniques for getting around it and/or make allowances for it.
100%, this is exactly where my head is at too.
> imagine managers are not in fact all stupid for a second
I don’t really see where the commenter implied this.
To support their stance, I have also had lots of managers at various-sized companies (FAANG incl), who didn’t understand the inherent 1:1 power dynamic. They would expect full honesty, while covering up anything above my pay-grade.
I don’t really see where the commenter implied this.
To support their stance, I have also had lots of managers at various-sized companies (FAANG incl), who didn’t understand the inherent 1:1 power dynamic. They would expect full honesty, while covering up anything above my pay-grade.
"Stupid" is a pretty accurate description for someone who thinks something lazy and misguided is accurate and clever.
I don't know. It would be bad to have that replace other real conversations, but i could see it being easier for some people to just answer a 6 instead of a 7 instead of the IC explicitly bringing up out of nowhere that they are slightly less happy thus week than last week for unclear reasons that they themselves don't understand.
> basic power dynamics
power dynamics vary. some developers can always easily get another job, so they have a lot of power. in a case like that, asking the developer to rate their satisfaction seems normal & good, like a customer satisfaction survey.
power dynamics vary. some developers can always easily get another job, so they have a lot of power. in a case like that, asking the developer to rate their satisfaction seems normal & good, like a customer satisfaction survey.
They’re basically kabuki nonsense like most of corporate America. No one benefits but everyone goes through the motions.
I disagree. I approach 1:1s as an opportunity to just shoot the shit if that person is interested, or if there is something on their mind they can choose to chat about it. As the article states, it's that person's chance to completely dictate the conversation.
I think the best is to personalize things as best you can (depending on your team size). Some personalities are less interested in talking, which is fine―I just try to make sure nothing is blocking them or they're not dissatisfied. Some people love to talk about their life, and I usually have to time-box that.
I genuinely care about how my team is doing and want to help them grow, so 1:1s are my main opportunity to figure out how I can help them... especially in the era of remote work.
I think the best is to personalize things as best you can (depending on your team size). Some personalities are less interested in talking, which is fine―I just try to make sure nothing is blocking them or they're not dissatisfied. Some people love to talk about their life, and I usually have to time-box that.
I genuinely care about how my team is doing and want to help them grow, so 1:1s are my main opportunity to figure out how I can help them... especially in the era of remote work.
I am glad for your team, that you genuinely care. There are enough people stuck in management positions that should sit locked in the basement instead of managing people and making their lives miserable. Currently my one-on-ones are 20 minutes meetings once a year where manager reads from paper what he thinks about my performance last year. I have no right to question his decision. I could open a case with HR to review my review, but it will not improve anything for sure. As long my reviews are good I am good.
I get it. I've had my share of bad managers.
What you described sounds like a performance review... I think 1:1s should be monthly or weekly, depending on the team.
What you described sounds like a performance review... I think 1:1s should be monthly or weekly, depending on the team.
I would disagree, but it comes down to what kind of manager you have. I have seen plenty of people here on HN say that their 1:1 are basically just a manager going through the motion but there are still many 1:1 who are highly effective.
1:1s between me and my manager are usually very productive. Our project had non existent tests and through 1:1s I was able to advocate for tests and TDD to my manager. 6 months later our entire team is all-in on TDD. There were other gaps that I noticed on my team too that I would bring up in our 1:1 and we have a discussion about it. Are all my suggestions going to be implemented? No, but it's still worth having a discussion.
1:1s between me and my manager are usually very productive. Our project had non existent tests and through 1:1s I was able to advocate for tests and TDD to my manager. 6 months later our entire team is all-in on TDD. There were other gaps that I noticed on my team too that I would bring up in our 1:1 and we have a discussion about it. Are all my suggestions going to be implemented? No, but it's still worth having a discussion.
> I would disagree, but it comes down to what kind of manager you have. I have seen plenty of people here on HN say that their 1:1 are basically just a manager going through the motion but there are still many 1:1 who are highly effective.
In my experience it's a bit of a mix; sometimes (even often, if things are just going well) 1:1 are just "going through the motions", but sometimes it's a good opportunity to raise concerns or issues that don't necessarily have a place otherwise. It partly depends on the manger, but also hugely depends if there's actually something to discus.
I personally wouldn't raise technical concerns in there though; these are the kind of things that fit in well in general technical meetings where the entire team can discus the issue, and the manager can then make a decision (assuming there isn't a broad consensus yes).
In my experience it's a bit of a mix; sometimes (even often, if things are just going well) 1:1 are just "going through the motions", but sometimes it's a good opportunity to raise concerns or issues that don't necessarily have a place otherwise. It partly depends on the manger, but also hugely depends if there's actually something to discus.
I personally wouldn't raise technical concerns in there though; these are the kind of things that fit in well in general technical meetings where the entire team can discus the issue, and the manager can then make a decision (assuming there isn't a broad consensus yes).
1-on-1s are one of my most valuable meetings. You have a direct line to your manager (and often "skip level" where you talking to their boss). That's phenomenal time to push your agenda, build consensus, stuff like that. But if you are just a Jira ticket finisher (and you like it, which is cool!) then I can see how it is less useful.
Poorly conducted 1:1s are a waste of time. When done right it is magic.
Most rituals boil down to forcing communication in superficial ways. Heaven forbid managers have to actually manage.
I’m in a similar position and have a more connected approach. I always have an idea of what my direct reports are up to, and a high level understanding of what their reports are up to. I always have 3-4 discussion items ready, these are usually about whatever is important for the business at the time that intersect with their line of work.
I start with their agenda. They would’ve seen me how I prepare mine before, so usually they would have a similar agenda. I listen to them, discuss, and create action items together. Then we talk through my agenda, and we end with their thoughts as well since they might have just remembered something or it might have come up during my items.
I also make sure the items contain their development and also try to understand if their reports are developing in the direction they want and how I can help.
For myself, I do not find it useful to offload the responsibility of a productive 1-1 to my reports. It is both of ours, and since I have more experience in this, I behave as such and they are usually encouraged by it and start doing the same.
I start with their agenda. They would’ve seen me how I prepare mine before, so usually they would have a similar agenda. I listen to them, discuss, and create action items together. Then we talk through my agenda, and we end with their thoughts as well since they might have just remembered something or it might have come up during my items.
I also make sure the items contain their development and also try to understand if their reports are developing in the direction they want and how I can help.
For myself, I do not find it useful to offload the responsibility of a productive 1-1 to my reports. It is both of ours, and since I have more experience in this, I behave as such and they are usually encouraged by it and start doing the same.
I've led large orgs and fucked it up a few times in the beginning.
My #1 best recommendation for those starting out is to always tell your direct reports that this is their time and you guys can talk about whatever is on your mind. Like the article says, make sure you verbalize this is not a status update meeting. What's obvious to you is not obvious to them.
If you guys run out of topics to chop up, I also recommend asking for advice from your direct report about any subject that's on your mind. It builds rapport.
My #1 best recommendation for those starting out is to always tell your direct reports that this is their time and you guys can talk about whatever is on your mind. Like the article says, make sure you verbalize this is not a status update meeting. What's obvious to you is not obvious to them.
If you guys run out of topics to chop up, I also recommend asking for advice from your direct report about any subject that's on your mind. It builds rapport.
It's strange how so many informal conversations have become formalized.
Phone call? Book a calendar invite. Talk to your manager? Schedule a one-on-one. Want to raise a technical comment? Issue a Jira ticket.
Not to say that this is all bad, but wondering if it's really helpful.
Phone call? Book a calendar invite. Talk to your manager? Schedule a one-on-one. Want to raise a technical comment? Issue a Jira ticket.
Not to say that this is all bad, but wondering if it's really helpful.
> Phone call? Book a calendar invite.
I hate unscheduled phone calls; I've asked recruiters to make an appointment first, so I can be mentally ready for a phone call. Else I'll be interrupted during focus time (headphones on, balancing seven things in my head simultaneously, you know the drill).
> Talk to your manager? Schedule a one-on-one.
For random day to day stuff, sure, scheduling something might be overboard. But for more serious business, you should put aside some time for both. This is also about respecting each other's time and schedule; you are not the center of your manager's attention.
> Want to raise a technical comment? Issue a Jira ticket.
I think this is an important step to take so that you sit down and think about the issue; it's like rubber ducking, if you can't explain it in e.g. a ticket, you don't understand the problem well enough. Second, task tracking software is documentation; in ten years' time you will thank yourself for making a ticket. (That said, I don't believe storing it in 3rd party software is good, ideally all documentation, including tickets, would be in your git repository. Commit volume and churn is a bit of an issue though).
I hate unscheduled phone calls; I've asked recruiters to make an appointment first, so I can be mentally ready for a phone call. Else I'll be interrupted during focus time (headphones on, balancing seven things in my head simultaneously, you know the drill).
> Talk to your manager? Schedule a one-on-one.
For random day to day stuff, sure, scheduling something might be overboard. But for more serious business, you should put aside some time for both. This is also about respecting each other's time and schedule; you are not the center of your manager's attention.
> Want to raise a technical comment? Issue a Jira ticket.
I think this is an important step to take so that you sit down and think about the issue; it's like rubber ducking, if you can't explain it in e.g. a ticket, you don't understand the problem well enough. Second, task tracking software is documentation; in ten years' time you will thank yourself for making a ticket. (That said, I don't believe storing it in 3rd party software is good, ideally all documentation, including tickets, would be in your git repository. Commit volume and churn is a bit of an issue though).
>but wondering if it's really helpful
No, it is not.
Too much formalization brings the power dynamic imbalance front-and-center and leads to people telling you what they think you want to hear.
No, it is not.
Too much formalization brings the power dynamic imbalance front-and-center and leads to people telling you what they think you want to hear.
The intention matters.
If you're scheduling because you've seen over time that predictable schedules is what other co-workers prefer, then you're using the tools to improve everyone's lives.
If you're scheduling because you're supposed to schedule and you never gave it second thought - you're in good company, you're simply among the 99%.
If you're scheduling because you've seen over time that predictable schedules is what other co-workers prefer, then you're using the tools to improve everyone's lives.
If you're scheduling because you're supposed to schedule and you never gave it second thought - you're in good company, you're simply among the 99%.
Just to offer a counterpoint:
I used to just ping my direct reports for 1:1s each week when it suited me, and then realised that that's pretty disrespectful of other people's time. I switched to asking people to schedule time with me in my calendar out of respect for their schedule.
I used to just ping my direct reports for 1:1s each week when it suited me, and then realised that that's pretty disrespectful of other people's time. I switched to asking people to schedule time with me in my calendar out of respect for their schedule.
Those are all just boxes with a shipping label on it, so that we can force a receipt.
Because we're past a point where if you don't have that shipping label on it, you can just ignore it and say you never got it.
It was inevitable.
Because we're past a point where if you don't have that shipping label on it, you can just ignore it and say you never got it.
It was inevitable.
The thing is, people don't do that. At least not everybody is so open to naturally take the initiative. So scheduling in something makes sure it actually happens.
Here's some tips to better 1:1s on-top of what the article mentions:
- If you're a direct manager in the 1:1, it is your job to take notes. Period.
- 1:1s are business meetings about results, and sometimes personal matters are discussed.
- If you have role power, you need to be cautious with what you say during a 1:1. People will take things literally.
- Agendas should be simple. 10 minutes you, 10 minutes me, 10 minutes for the future. Most important thing first, always.
- To start a 1:1, make a statement or a question, sometimes the small talk is not wanted or dreaded. "How's it going", "How are you", "How are things" are all valid.
- Don't come with an agenda to a 1:1. People hate not being able to contribute.
- If you setup 1:1s as a tool to get to know the team members you work with regularly, follow a simple 15 minutes you, 15 minutes me type of deal. (Especially if you're a PM, TPM, or EM working with another discipline)
- If you're a direct manager in the 1:1, it is your job to take notes. Period.
- 1:1s are business meetings about results, and sometimes personal matters are discussed.
- If you have role power, you need to be cautious with what you say during a 1:1. People will take things literally.
- Agendas should be simple. 10 minutes you, 10 minutes me, 10 minutes for the future. Most important thing first, always.
- To start a 1:1, make a statement or a question, sometimes the small talk is not wanted or dreaded. "How's it going", "How are you", "How are things" are all valid.
- Don't come with an agenda to a 1:1. People hate not being able to contribute.
- If you setup 1:1s as a tool to get to know the team members you work with regularly, follow a simple 15 minutes you, 15 minutes me type of deal. (Especially if you're a PM, TPM, or EM working with another discipline)
It's interesting to me how many people have diametrically opposed views of what a 1:1 should be. Business meetings / status updates vs. personal discussion. Structured agenda vs. no agenda. Weekly vs. biweekly vs. monthly. Etc.
Yeah, you can definitely go the Andy Grove approach or even try to become your direct's friend(don't really recommend). Personally I think 1:1s are being used wastefully and have become the industry norm so people put up with them.
Agendas should be simple, or should I not come with an agenda at all?
An agenda, either shared with the other person or not, is fine. I'd rather have a meeting with agenda / talking points rather than one without. It doesn't prevent people from being able to contribute, as long as you don't monopolize your part.
An agenda, either shared with the other person or not, is fine. I'd rather have a meeting with agenda / talking points rather than one without. It doesn't prevent people from being able to contribute, as long as you don't monopolize your part.
I meant that there should be no agenda set. Each person should come with their own topics. Sorry about that. It’s not fair when say a boss wants a status update when you want to talk about career growth for example.
Why even bother with a monthly 1:1, that's almost insulting to the employee. If I had major concerns a month is far too long to wait to see action and have them resolved. You're telling your employee that of the ~160 work-hours in a month they are worth less than one of them.
If you have major concerns, why not just schedule a meeting? Why are you waiting for a monthly catch-up to air them? I think this whole one to one thing is pointless - if there's a problem, organise a meeting to discuss it (or talk about it during one of the regular team meetings if it's not a private matter); if not, let's just get on with doing some actual work.
I think the same way you do but I’ve noticed that many people won’t bring up issues unless you take them aside and ask the right questions. No amount of openness and trust seems to work as well as gentle prompting.
Of course, you need to trust your manager. I’ve made the mistake of doing that more than once.
Of course, you need to trust your manager. I’ve made the mistake of doing that more than once.
That doesn't work.
In a department I worked in, there were no scheduled 1-to-1, just a weekly slot that was guaranteed to be available if requested. Nobody ever took it. The manager thought it meant that everything was fine, while in reality he had no idea about how people were doing or how they were feeling.
Nobody wants to come to the manager with problems when he's the one with the power and they don't have a trusty relationship with him. And you don't get trust if you don't communicate regularly.
In a department I worked in, there were no scheduled 1-to-1, just a weekly slot that was guaranteed to be available if requested. Nobody ever took it. The manager thought it meant that everything was fine, while in reality he had no idea about how people were doing or how they were feeling.
Nobody wants to come to the manager with problems when he's the one with the power and they don't have a trusty relationship with him. And you don't get trust if you don't communicate regularly.
I see what you're saying but it doesn't sound to me like the scenario you describe would be fixed by scheduling 1-to-1s. Sitting down to talk with someone you don't trust doesn't make you trust them - trust is earned through behaviour over time. If I don't trust my manager then our 1-to-1 is going to be pleasantly bland and provide no value for anyone.
Once the trust is there then the 1-to-1 is proven to be unnecessary because the employee will feel comfortable raising issues as needed.
Once the trust is there then the 1-to-1 is proven to be unnecessary because the employee will feel comfortable raising issues as needed.
How to get the most out of your 1:1s: cancel them. ;) You almost never need a recurring one and talking about something if/when it's relevant and in context is always better.
I agree, I find those "strategies" on how to talk to your manager , incredibly cringe. What I have worked out for me in 2 FAANGs and 2 regular unknown companies, is working hard, getting things done, when I achieve something that can be shown to other people, I do show it and talk to my manager about compensation, and if I want to move up, I let him know that, I tell him what I think is my timeline for that; if he disagrees, his problem , I find a better place to work, the market for engineers is very competitive. I don't need to be simp-ing to my manager. I think if you keep your relationship with your manager honest and always use a clear, bs free, communication channel with him, you will achieve great things. Managers are just people like you, don't be afraid to leave a bad manager.
Except that's not how it works for a lot of people. If you are social and outspoken, your higher ups can mayyybe rely on you to communicate your wishes clearly, but think about it, would you really regularly signal even small but pestering problem to them? Lots of people are shy to speak, especially when not in private. Relevancy can be increased by making them weekly, in 15m.
One-to-ones seem like yet another of these cargo-culted management trends that add needless ceremony and develop into an end-in-themselves. At least anywhere that I've been that's tried to implement them.
We chew up an amazing amount of time on this kind of theater.
We chew up an amazing amount of time on this kind of theater.
The idea of a monthly one on one scheduled meeting is rediculous.
If you are not talking to all your people every day as a matter of course, they are basically unmanaged. For the love of god don't schedule any meetings. You shouldn't need to since you are just part of your employees flow of work.
The employee / manager relationship should be one in which either party can feel free to just raise any concern the moment that it comes up. Meetings are not how that occurs.
If you are not talking to all your people every day as a matter of course, they are basically unmanaged. For the love of god don't schedule any meetings. You shouldn't need to since you are just part of your employees flow of work.
The employee / manager relationship should be one in which either party can feel free to just raise any concern the moment that it comes up. Meetings are not how that occurs.
> The employee / manager relationship should be one in which either party can feel free to just raise any concern the moment that it comes up.
This is true in an ideal world, but not everyone is comfortable being direct with superiors. Regular 1-1s establish a baseline and a foundation that can be built on. Plenty of people will delay raising concern until damage has already been done. Regular, private communication lets the manager get ahead of these issues and handle morale problems before they surface.
This is true in an ideal world, but not everyone is comfortable being direct with superiors. Regular 1-1s establish a baseline and a foundation that can be built on. Plenty of people will delay raising concern until damage has already been done. Regular, private communication lets the manager get ahead of these issues and handle morale problems before they surface.
Here's a better idea: stop fostering cultures where saving face is more important than trying to get things done. These 1:1s supposedly help working to it, but there are limits to what a manager can do, on top of who a manager is themselves.
These 1:1s are becoming what every process inevitably becomes. A strict panacea which turns out to not be a panacea at all.
These 1:1s are becoming what every process inevitably becomes. A strict panacea which turns out to not be a panacea at all.
Agreed regarding culture. This should always be the goal. Unfortunately it is rarely the end result as humans aren't perfect, so some pieces still need tending to.
It's not that 1-1s are a panacea. They are more a mitigation strategy to catch human issues early and address them before they surface and roll into a bigger problem.
It's not that 1-1s are a panacea. They are more a mitigation strategy to catch human issues early and address them before they surface and roll into a bigger problem.
Day to day operations are mostly focussed on the daily routine or issues suddenly appearing. However there is a set of things which doesn't come up in such discussions and in my experience it is good to have somewhat regular moments of "let's take about anything outside the routine, not related to the next release" and having those scheduled helps some folks to collect notes. I'm fine with such a meeting being five minutes, but sometimes it brings up topics which fly under the radar otherwise.
This forced 1:1 is the worst..
Agreed.
If I have an issue, I’ll go speak to who I need to when I have an issue.
Maybe it’s because I’m introverted, a person of few words and no nonsense but I’ve always found 1:1s to be corporate lip service. I’m in a place I’m happy, my employer happy with my work and I have no interest in career paths etc. That doesn’t mean I’ve no interest in being better/doing better work, which I’m constantly doing, I just have no interest playing the game going through different org chart paths as happy where I am and certainly don’t want to do management.
1:1’s are offical company time so if you share your being stressed or other issues I’ve seen that used against people before, it’s not a private confidential chat, it’s a manager/employee chat.
I find it’s best for me to smile, nod my head and ask the other person how they are.
Experiences outside of corporate I found it more genuine the ceo randomly saying hey do you want to get a coffee/lunch instead of a prescribed scheduled 1:1.
If I have an issue, I’ll go speak to who I need to when I have an issue.
Maybe it’s because I’m introverted, a person of few words and no nonsense but I’ve always found 1:1s to be corporate lip service. I’m in a place I’m happy, my employer happy with my work and I have no interest in career paths etc. That doesn’t mean I’ve no interest in being better/doing better work, which I’m constantly doing, I just have no interest playing the game going through different org chart paths as happy where I am and certainly don’t want to do management.
1:1’s are offical company time so if you share your being stressed or other issues I’ve seen that used against people before, it’s not a private confidential chat, it’s a manager/employee chat.
I find it’s best for me to smile, nod my head and ask the other person how they are.
Experiences outside of corporate I found it more genuine the ceo randomly saying hey do you want to get a coffee/lunch instead of a prescribed scheduled 1:1.
Is it really forced tho?
People are busy, you some times don't get the chance to sit down and just talk about anything on your mind. Something else than the current backlog or whatever.
By scheduling regular meetings, it doesn't mean you _have to_ spend an hour talking about whatever, it's a block in your calendar where _you can_. In my experience, these are never forced, but rather an opportunity any party can use to chat, if none get the chance outside of it.
People are busy, you some times don't get the chance to sit down and just talk about anything on your mind. Something else than the current backlog or whatever.
By scheduling regular meetings, it doesn't mean you _have to_ spend an hour talking about whatever, it's a block in your calendar where _you can_. In my experience, these are never forced, but rather an opportunity any party can use to chat, if none get the chance outside of it.
Agreed, it shouldn't feel forced.
Some people really don't like 1:1s and that's down to individual personalities. Also company culture can make 1:1s feel meaningless if the conversation that happens is never actionable.
I try to see where the person is coming from and adjust my approach. If their concern is not in my power to change, I escalate to my lead when appropriate.
A sibling comment mentioned that chatting about how you're stressed or frustrated can be used against you... I've had that experience and it was terrible. I think it all comes down to having a good manager, and unfortunately you can't always choose.
Some people really don't like 1:1s and that's down to individual personalities. Also company culture can make 1:1s feel meaningless if the conversation that happens is never actionable.
I try to see where the person is coming from and adjust my approach. If their concern is not in my power to change, I escalate to my lead when appropriate.
A sibling comment mentioned that chatting about how you're stressed or frustrated can be used against you... I've had that experience and it was terrible. I think it all comes down to having a good manager, and unfortunately you can't always choose.
If there's time to schedule a regular one to one, why isn't there time to instead schedule a meeting when a team member has something on their mind to discuss?
How often do you all have 1:1’s with manager. I’ve been in industry 15+ years and meet with my manager once or maybe twice a month, which seems reasonable. I’m fairly self sufficient and don’t need a lot assistance. Some of my peers at the same company and are also quite experienced have to meet with their manager weekly for 1:1’s. They remark to me that they don’t get a lot of value out of them being that frequent.
My manager technically has a "one on one" (30 mins) meeting every week with me. But the type/purpose of this meeting alternates.
One week its an "Alignment" meeting between me and my manager. This is a time where the manager can talk to me about my current tasks and if I need any assistance from him. We also go over our yearly goals on a regular basis here, just so we can make sure that I am on the right track.
The next week we have our 1:1 meeting. These are lead by me and gives me dedicated time to discuss anything I would like.
What I described above is the only structure to the meetings. If manager doesn't have much to discuss in our alignment meetings he opens the floor for any 1:1 type of discussion and on the flip side, if I wanted to talk about my current blockers during my 1:1 meeting that is also fine.
So to answer your question, our 1:1 are biweekly.
One week its an "Alignment" meeting between me and my manager. This is a time where the manager can talk to me about my current tasks and if I need any assistance from him. We also go over our yearly goals on a regular basis here, just so we can make sure that I am on the right track.
The next week we have our 1:1 meeting. These are lead by me and gives me dedicated time to discuss anything I would like.
What I described above is the only structure to the meetings. If manager doesn't have much to discuss in our alignment meetings he opens the floor for any 1:1 type of discussion and on the flip side, if I wanted to talk about my current blockers during my 1:1 meeting that is also fine.
So to answer your question, our 1:1 are biweekly.
I've had regularly scheduled biweekly meetings for the last several years. If we miss a meeting due to PTO or something, we don't reschedule, so meetings are sometimes a month apart.
One of my previous managers would just drop by my office on Friday afternoon to check in. This was shorter and shallower, more of a status update. My 1:1s tend to have a longer term focus: handing off responsibility for a project, and discussing which upcoming projects sound interesting.
As a soon-to-be manager myself, I will probably start with weekly 1:1s until I get to know the team well enough, then drop back to biweekly.
One of my previous managers would just drop by my office on Friday afternoon to check in. This was shorter and shallower, more of a status update. My 1:1s tend to have a longer term focus: handing off responsibility for a project, and discussing which upcoming projects sound interesting.
As a soon-to-be manager myself, I will probably start with weekly 1:1s until I get to know the team well enough, then drop back to biweekly.
Once a month, and he often reschedules or cancels it the day before. They are scheduled for 30 minutes.
A couple years ago, I asked him to meet weekly and he obliged. It felt like he wasn't willing to actually engage in the discussion. I walked back that request to two weeks and then monthly.
I've been trying to talk less as well, since I realize that it's a one-sided conversation. It's difficult for me though, since I feel like we should be talking more.
A couple years ago, I asked him to meet weekly and he obliged. It felt like he wasn't willing to actually engage in the discussion. I walked back that request to two weeks and then monthly.
I've been trying to talk less as well, since I realize that it's a one-sided conversation. It's difficult for me though, since I feel like we should be talking more.
every week, but i think it's too much on both my schedule and on my manager's schedule.
i would say every other week should be perfect.
i would say every other week should be perfect.
I have 1 on 1s too and we talk about anything at all, including status updates if the employee wants too. Because it all builds a connection. It's like a coffee chat.
I think it works the best when it's completely open to anything at all.
I think it works the best when it's completely open to anything at all.
I agree with you that if the worker wants to turn it into a status update, they should be allowed to.
However... why do they feel like turning it into a status update? Is it because the manager isn't sufficiently looped in to what's happening on a daily basis?
However... why do they feel like turning it into a status update? Is it because the manager isn't sufficiently looped in to what's happening on a daily basis?
because we have nothing else to say.
we don't need any help from you, the manager. the project is going fine, but you're our least helpful resource. I'll go to the subject matter expert if i need specific things answered.
I'm not fighting with any teammates. I'm not blocked. i was perfectly productive before this meeting, but now I'm interrupted.
we already talked about career development. we don't need to go over that every week.
really, I've got nothing.
maybe once in awhile I'll get miffed at a teammate that doesn't see my point of view but even then i don't expect a manager to do much. they're not keen on taking sides.
that's not to say i think my manager is useless. they're great, and i was much happier once i realized they basically work for me than i do for them. they're here to help and that's lovely, but aside from escalating cross team requests here and there, i really don't need much.
Bingo! This is the best i have read all week.
You will love this HBR article : https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers
You will love this HBR article : https://hbr.org/2011/12/first-lets-fire-all-the-managers
Great article, the intro captures the core reasons why I recently quit as an engineering manager at a multi-national aerospace company. It also rather succinctly underlines how Boeing end up with the 737 Max situation.
The author of the article Gary Hamel, has written a book elaborating on the theme named, Humanocracy: Creating Organizations as Amazing as the People Inside Them which you may find useful.
Also see Management: A Political Activity by Ted Stephenson.
Also see Management: A Political Activity by Ted Stephenson.
If I were your manager, I'd then be using the time to try to get to know you on a personal level. Hobbies, weekends, family, etc. I'm sure this comes off as prying in an internet comment, but that's because I don't know you. It's completely natural to want to get to know the people around you in person. Sometimes that might mean I need to start telling you about myself to signal that it's ok to get personal.
If you don't do this, it becomes a transactional relationship, which is OK, but to me holds less potential than one based on mutual trust and understanding.
If you don't do this, it becomes a transactional relationship, which is OK, but to me holds less potential than one based on mutual trust and understanding.
Pretty much this!
I have 30 minute 1:1’s every week with my team (8 engineers). I’m in weekly backlog grooming sessions, semi-weekly demos, retros and sprint planning and of course daily standups. I’m in weekly status calls with two separate customers and weekly prioritization calls with product. I’m in constant dozer mode trying to clear a path for my team to eliminate blockers, execute bullshit corp process and help them resolve issues hands-on. I have a team member in my ear 80% of the week and half of them still prefer to regurgitate status than have any kind of other conversation.
At times I’ll interrupt them and say ’this isnt a status call, this is your time to complain, vent, suggest, ask whatever you like and find a way for me to help you’. I always try to keep them upbeat and ask about the weekend, hobbies, etc. Not everybody wants that conversation i think.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
At times I’ll interrupt them and say ’this isnt a status call, this is your time to complain, vent, suggest, ask whatever you like and find a way for me to help you’. I always try to keep them upbeat and ask about the weekend, hobbies, etc. Not everybody wants that conversation i think.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Have you tried building trust? The tone of your comment here makes me think you haven’t. If you build trust with people, they’ll just tell you things. If you just say they can tell you things, no rational employee will believe that. And pushing people to talk about their weekend or other aspects of their personal life is downright toxic IMO. Again, if you build trust and rapport, you won’t have to ask these rote, off-the-shelf questions that can put people into a wary state of mind.
Trust is the centerpiece of my job, I’m certain that I’m not perfect but it’s something I can use to contextualize every decision and steer towards the best answer.
I’m sure my words could evoke a notion of some bully creeping on employees but I am just trying to break habits. I don’t force anything and as others have mentioned sometimes a status update is exactly what folks want to discuss.
I’m sure my words could evoke a notion of some bully creeping on employees but I am just trying to break habits. I don’t force anything and as others have mentioned sometimes a status update is exactly what folks want to discuss.
+1. I'm certainly not keen on sharing anything personal with a manager. we're not friends. I'm not going to tell you how i got drunk and puked or whatever, that's not appropriate and it's not doing me any favors career wise.
I would venture to suggest that they give you status updates instead of what you're really looking for because you have these meetings every week - how much is happening in the space of four and a half days since the last 1:1 that they can't deal with themselves or raise in the stand ups? Probably not a lot. And if you're looking for complaints, suggestions, etc., in 1:1s, then what are the retrospectives for? A former manager once asked me how frequently I wanted to have 1:1s with him, and my reply was never, but he insisted so I offered once a month and we ended up doing it fortnightly. I never felt like it was helpful.
Not to mention that as engineers, they probably value extended blocks of uninterrupted time to focus on being productive;
> 30 minute 1:1’s every week with my team (8 engineers). I’m in weekly backlog grooming sessions, semi-weekly demos, retros and sprint planning and of course daily standups
With respect, this sounds like hell to me. The only thing I would be complaining about is that you were tying me up in meetings so much that I couldn't get any actual work done.
And however friendly you are with your team members, you're still their manager and they probably don't feel close enough to freely share much of their personal lives with you - that's generally the nature of the relationship and there's nothing wrong with that.
Not to mention that as engineers, they probably value extended blocks of uninterrupted time to focus on being productive;
> 30 minute 1:1’s every week with my team (8 engineers). I’m in weekly backlog grooming sessions, semi-weekly demos, retros and sprint planning and of course daily standups
With respect, this sounds like hell to me. The only thing I would be complaining about is that you were tying me up in meetings so much that I couldn't get any actual work done.
And however friendly you are with your team members, you're still their manager and they probably don't feel close enough to freely share much of their personal lives with you - that's generally the nature of the relationship and there's nothing wrong with that.
In 1:1s with my managers I was always happy to get the undivided attention of my manager to discuss status updates.
That’s 100% perfectly fine for me as well if we’re starting from a baseline of you talking about what’s important to you. It’s unfortunate that we have to ration time like this but it ensures that folks who normally wouldn’t initiate a conversation have one initiated for them.
A significant fraction of engineers, often the ones who are most deep into their work, have a tendency to just do a brain dump of what they're working on, just because that's what they've currently assembled in their heads. It isn't necessarily useful in a 1:1 but it seems almost involuntary, so I'm not sure it's good to stop them before they've gone through it. May just have to allocate more time to allow them to get through it to any other issues they might have.
ya.. if i was productive until 10 seconds before this meeting, then that's whats on my mind. im still solving things in my head and now im being pulled away from that.. for what?
i feel like managers are in a different world, jumping from meeting to meeting they don't get deep into things. as a SWE.. I'm balancing 100 little things in my head, deep in thought, solving away.
Honestly, I never know what to talk about on 1:1, so that's mostly what I do. I'm not having any particular issues and I'm communicating with the other team members if there is anything I need from them to do my work.
So what am I supposed to do in a situation like that? Nothing is really broken, so I don't have much of constructive points to bring up.
So what am I supposed to do in a situation like that? Nothing is really broken, so I don't have much of constructive points to bring up.
Right. Set a time limit but not an agenda. Let them be free to tell you anything even if you think it is unnecessary. They key is to build psychological rapport so that gradually he/she feels more comfortable to open up and start Trusting you.
This is often the case. Gotta get credit and feedback on your work.
[deleted]
Sometimes, because a status update is less awkward than sitting there in silence.
Completely unimportant, but anyone else call them one to ones?
Where did this one on one thing come from? A one on one is a boxing match or a schoolyard fight, not an open chat.
8:2:1 is a ratio of cocktail ingredients. 16:9 is an aspect ratio. 1:7 is a steep hill to climb. To, by, and in respectively. The latter two would be weird choices but at least they’d be consistent with the syntax of x:y. “on” though?! Where did that come from?
Don’t say “Japanese poetry” :)
Where did this one on one thing come from? A one on one is a boxing match or a schoolyard fight, not an open chat.
8:2:1 is a ratio of cocktail ingredients. 16:9 is an aspect ratio. 1:7 is a steep hill to climb. To, by, and in respectively. The latter two would be weird choices but at least they’d be consistent with the syntax of x:y. “on” though?! Where did that come from?
Don’t say “Japanese poetry” :)
My random etymology guess here is one on one is from the origin of one vs one. One coming out ON top of the other. So one on one becoming simpler slang implying the same as versus.
Now one to one implies an equal relationship and especially in our field it feels weird imo to call them one to ones. Typical, you aren't equal levels in a 1:1 meeting. So maybe the one on one caught on because of the subtlety of one being on top of or above the other.
Face to face sounds too literal and agressive.
1:1 is an easy clear way to represent one on one. Although, we are forcing a double meaning on it. But hey that's the great thing about language. It's ever evolving.
Personally, in meeting titles I write PersonA/PersonB but I do type 1:1 over one on one when referring to the meeting type.
Now one to one implies an equal relationship and especially in our field it feels weird imo to call them one to ones. Typical, you aren't equal levels in a 1:1 meeting. So maybe the one on one caught on because of the subtlety of one being on top of or above the other.
Face to face sounds too literal and agressive.
1:1 is an easy clear way to represent one on one. Although, we are forcing a double meaning on it. But hey that's the great thing about language. It's ever evolving.
Personally, in meeting titles I write PersonA/PersonB but I do type 1:1 over one on one when referring to the meeting type.
The following is all opinion.
The whole point of a 1:1 is an opportunity to see your direct as a person and not as a direct. It puts you on equal playing ground for the moment, and as a manager, it is your responsibility to make sure your direct feels that way. When they trust you, they'll tell you how they really feel. That means being open about what they want out of their career, when they are thinking about leaving, when there's an uncomfortable problem on the team. That is what 1:1 is for, and that's why I always refer to them as a one-to-one and not a one-on-one.
The whole point of a 1:1 is an opportunity to see your direct as a person and not as a direct. It puts you on equal playing ground for the moment, and as a manager, it is your responsibility to make sure your direct feels that way. When they trust you, they'll tell you how they really feel. That means being open about what they want out of their career, when they are thinking about leaving, when there's an uncomfortable problem on the team. That is what 1:1 is for, and that's why I always refer to them as a one-to-one and not a one-on-one.
I always write 1on1. It makes it clear what it is. 1:1 seems like a scale indication.
I'm no etymology professor, but if I had to guess it's related to the phrase tête-à-tête (literally head to head) in French. Kinda makes sense to me that it went from tête-à-tête -> head to head -> face to face -> one on one. Why it's written as "1:1", I haven't the faintest.
This isn’t very satisfying, but I would suspect simple language drift to explain it. Someone came up with one-on-one or one-to-one to describe this particular type of meeting and popularized its use. Eventually someone decided 1:1 was a good shorthand.
[deleted]
No.
I try to run these as casually as possible on no specific timeline. I find regular, standardized 1:1s to be a dystopian experience.
The way most of my 1:1 calls initiate usually starts with someone else on the team expressing a bad mood about something and me doing a quick check in on teams.
I find that happy or otherwise productive employees will either reach out actively on their own, or not require this sort of interaction in the first place.
The way most of my 1:1 calls initiate usually starts with someone else on the team expressing a bad mood about something and me doing a quick check in on teams.
I find that happy or otherwise productive employees will either reach out actively on their own, or not require this sort of interaction in the first place.
A meeting that's mainly designed to let the employee give a pulse check, speak freely about annoyances and career path, and provide feedback to their manager, is a dystopian experience?
Also what you are describing on your second sentence is not a 1:1 meeting.
Also what you are describing on your second sentence is not a 1:1 meeting.
I used to be an inexperienced manager as I expect many managers are these days and my 1:1s were a waste of time. I didn't really know what to do, constructive criticism and suggestions are really hard to do - I found it really hard to say what I really thought. However as an employee you should be asking about how to stand out in the team and "make a difference".
I enjoy my 1:1s with my manager. It's pretty relaxed, open ended conversation. Recently she asked us all to just do a summary in OneNote of what we did for the week, so that kind of gives us things to talk about. Typically we talk about personal life, family things for about half of the meeting and work the other half.
Found this useful 1:1 template a while back: https://giddy-amusement-c74.notion.site/Manage-your-manager-...
The problem I have with 1:1s is that I don't trust my manager so I never have them. Previous attempts to get things resolved with management have always gone poorly for me so I don't even bother to try anymore.
This sounds like a problem you have with your manager (probably a justified one!), not with 1:1s.
As an English person in Silicon Valley, I considered them an unpleasant 'cost of doing business' as I went about bagging the absurd paycheck. The trip lasted rather longer than I expected, to be honest!
You guys get to have 1:1s? This reminds me of a site I've found a few years ago that mapped out all the universities in the area and listed the contact info of the on campus psychologist.
Ours redirected to a big fat 404.
Ours redirected to a big fat 404.
one good way to 'get the conversation going', as well as provide invaluable feedback, is to reverse roles and start the session with the employee review of your own performance as their manager. You can even say 'hey, this 1:1 is for me rather than you!'. It's fun and serious at the same time, and if you do it without ego you can learn a lot about how you are impacting your employees work, what you need to do to make a more conducive environment for them to thrive.
I like to make jokes. As a manager, I realize that there are certain jokes I can't make anymore, and this is one of them.
As the employee this is fraught with danger. If my manager proposed this during a one to one I'd stop the meeting right there.
Don't quite understand this. Bolstering yourself would seem awakward for the other person, while criticizing yourself would just be a bad look in front of the person who decides promotions.
As the employee I can't imagine I would ever tell any true criticism of my manager to his face, even if he asks for it and says he puts his ego inside.
He's the one with the power, he's deciding the raises, he's in the room his HR when they're discussing promotions.
He's the one with the power, he's deciding the raises, he's in the room his HR when they're discussing promotions.
As the peer comments attest, this approach will only be successful where you have a solid psychological safety between manager and reports.
I hate this because it's completely transparent. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence bucks this.
I'm starting a new EM role at a new company later this month. I've been a team lead for several years, at different companies and different teams, but this is my first "traditional" management role. I have my own thoughts, but I'd love to hear from others about what the better managers they've had in the past have [not] done.
If it matters, it sounds like I am backfilling a position for someone who took a director position in a different part of the organization.
If it matters, it sounds like I am backfilling a position for someone who took a director position in a different part of the organization.
There is a great community driven list [0] of 1 on 1 questions that I like to pick a couple questions as conversation starters or as backup when the conversation goes stale.
It is also available as JSON so you can script the random selection.
[0] https://github.com/VGraupera/1on1-questions
[0] https://github.com/VGraupera/1on1-questions
[deleted]
> At Devetry, we run pretty flat, so I have a lot of direct reports, and we only meet once a month.
Aside from the elsewhere-mentioned “once a month is basically being unmanaged”, the idea that a lot of direct reports is “flat” and not “managers stretched way too thin” is kind of glaring.
Aside from the elsewhere-mentioned “once a month is basically being unmanaged”, the idea that a lot of direct reports is “flat” and not “managers stretched way too thin” is kind of glaring.
Obligatory Roger Sterling quote [1]:
> I don't know if anyone's ever told you that half the time this business comes down to 'I don't like that guy.'
What articles like these fail to realize or fail to point to is that a lot of your work outcomes come down to whether your manager likes you, their manager likes you and your coworkers like you. This isn't universal of course. There are some people who are disliked but clearly brilliant enough for it to matter. These people are the exception not th enorm.
At Google, there was a meme in performance review that goes something like:
> This project would've failed without this person. It failed anyway but it definitely would've without them.
You can take the same set of circumstances and interpret them differently based on who you like and who you don't. Project fails? Someone you like did what they could for the team. Someone you don't didn't contribute enough. Project succeeds? Person you like was a key reason why. Person you don't wasn't.
So when it comes to 1:1s, if your manager likes you you're more likely to be someone they advocate for, extol the virtues of your accomplishments and so on. If your manager is liked the more likely their opinions are to carry weight.
So how to get the most value of your 1:1s? Figure out if your manager likes you and figure out if their managers likes them.
[1]: https://twitter.com/madmenqts/status/783648743690231808?lang...
> I don't know if anyone's ever told you that half the time this business comes down to 'I don't like that guy.'
What articles like these fail to realize or fail to point to is that a lot of your work outcomes come down to whether your manager likes you, their manager likes you and your coworkers like you. This isn't universal of course. There are some people who are disliked but clearly brilliant enough for it to matter. These people are the exception not th enorm.
At Google, there was a meme in performance review that goes something like:
> This project would've failed without this person. It failed anyway but it definitely would've without them.
You can take the same set of circumstances and interpret them differently based on who you like and who you don't. Project fails? Someone you like did what they could for the team. Someone you don't didn't contribute enough. Project succeeds? Person you like was a key reason why. Person you don't wasn't.
So when it comes to 1:1s, if your manager likes you you're more likely to be someone they advocate for, extol the virtues of your accomplishments and so on. If your manager is liked the more likely their opinions are to carry weight.
So how to get the most value of your 1:1s? Figure out if your manager likes you and figure out if their managers likes them.
[1]: https://twitter.com/madmenqts/status/783648743690231808?lang...
You're assuming this is unrelated to performance. Managers like people who do good work and get shit done without a lot of handholding. It really helps if you're respectful and not irritating. What you describe is totally rational and fair as long as the manager is regularly updating their opinions.
I know this article and comments here are mostly related to 1:1s with your boss. But I also use them in a not boss related situation, like scheduled 1:1s with an architect or ux designer if they are not fully assigned to a team.
I would love to not have 1on1s. They are awkward, and I don't see a point, besides ticking some box in manager sheet.
I'm introvert (probably like large part of soft eng).
I'm introvert (probably like large part of soft eng).
A good barometer for when a meeting is likely ineffective is when it’s given a catchy name. 1:1, f2f, all hands, etc.
That and when it’s a recurring meeting that has no end-date.
That and when it’s a recurring meeting that has no end-date.
What I don't like is when I as the employer need to take the initiative to do the 1 on 1 and then do it with the feeling like I'm wasting my bosses time.
Have you tried asking your boss what they want out of the meeting?
Yeah, usually says it's for me and I can talk about whatever.
Maybe try a Five Why's approach to getting him to tell you what he is looking to get out of it. If there's nothing in it for him, then you are literally wasting his time.
He may be a new manager, in which case, maybe point him to building trust with you, understanding your interests and career goals, and learning about others on the team. Those are all valuable for him, even if he doesn't know if yet.
Just realized I assumed gender so apologies to her if I was wrong.
He may be a new manager, in which case, maybe point him to building trust with you, understanding your interests and career goals, and learning about others on the team. Those are all valuable for him, even if he doesn't know if yet.
Just realized I assumed gender so apologies to her if I was wrong.
I take notes throughout the week of what I want to discuss during the 1:1 and pretty much every other upcoming meeting.
I also do this. I have a 1:1 document for each of my reports and also each ongoing meeting that I run. The top title is always “Next meeting”. I note down discussion items there and during the meeting the title is converted to a date and under each item, I summarise decisions, reasons, actions and owners.
Yet another manager not knowing what being a manager is. It is your responsibility to know what your reports are doing and making sure their efforts are recognised and their flaws corrected (or ultimately fired). If you don't remember unless someone keeps sending you self promotional messages, you are the problem, not your reports.
Who is "you" in this article? Is this written for his employees?
I've seen it all. From hobbies to marital problems.
That comes with the territory.
The OP seems largely inline with what I wrote about some of my thoughts on 1:1s here:
https://www.codeleadmanage.com/articles/20210118-how_to_effe...
My TL;DR is every manager needs to develop their own strategy. The best way to do this is to start, experiment and iterate, but hopefully there's some conventions and ideas that can help.
https://www.codeleadmanage.com/articles/20210118-how_to_effe...
My TL;DR is every manager needs to develop their own strategy. The best way to do this is to start, experiment and iterate, but hopefully there's some conventions and ideas that can help.
Our company policy about 1:1 is pretty similar to what is outlined in this article.
The fact that the 1:1s are monthly makes me question how much the author really knows about managing people.
1. Do you want career growth?
No, and its hard to tell that to my manager. More growth leads to more responsibility, which is more stress. I'm happy where I am and I don't want promotions.
I'm afraid to tell my manager that, because which manager wants an unambitious engineer? There was someone like that on our team and he was laid off in the last layoff round, so I have to "pretend" I'm working towards the next level.
2. Do you want more interesting work?
Also no, I'm perfectly happy maintaining our current codebase, not interested in new and shiny projects because my most interesting time is spent at home with my kiddo.
Any tips on how I can handle my 1:1s?