Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephc_int13 | Hacker News Reader

Wow, this is amazing. I can't help but think of all the sarcastic answers I would give the so-called manager with a slight grin on my face.

Seriously, I think this list is a potent illustration of modern management bullcrap.

Come on guys, don't do this to your team, they are not children...

View on HN

As a manager as well as a human being I am interested in my co-workers and how they feel, their family, etc. so I don't really 'get' your negativity. Can you point some of the bullcrap on the list. There might be a way to rephrase some of the questions to make them not bullcrap.

I think 1on1 is great. I was at the receiving end and now at giving end. When I did 1on1 with my manager I always felt good afterwards but I was always 100% honest in my answers. The issues I see are if one of the two is not completely honest and that is a completely different issue not solvable by 1on1 but needs to be addressed within orgazination.

As a manager as well as a human being, you shouldn't have to ask those questions during a 1:1, the well being of your team should be something you're observing from the inside.

And, more importantly, you should not delegate the responsibility of flagging it when something is wrong. You should know without asking.

No as an employee the last thing I want is to constantly having to read between the lines. Just be up front and tell me about issues.

Early on as a manager I made the mistake of assuming I knew what was going on in someone’s head just by working closely with them. I was wrong. You can’t even just directly ask because of the complicated dynamics. The best way I have found is frequent conversations that challenge people to dig down into their values and perspectives. Lists like this one are a good starting point, but as others have said genuine empathy is required.

The very idea that there are two ends is your fallacy bro you are already putting yourself in the magnanimous role of giving something

A 1:1 is inherently a meeting of minds where there is no power imbalance and genuine trust can develop

The way you make it sound is like the CIA giving mandatory lie detector tests where one person is strapped to a chair and the other is taking notes

I'm calling false corporate bullshit as a human being

There is always a power imbalance between a subordinate and a manager. There is no “genuine trust” with a manager. If your manager was told that their were imminent layoffs and they were told not to tell you, do you think they would?

Would you tell your manager that you are hoping to learn all you can to get a better paying job in a year?

Of course there is no trust, and this lack of trust is pouring from all these questions. Personally I encourage the people who report to me to always come to me with any issues they may have and never wait until a 1 on 1.

You can’t come to your manager at anytime when you have an issue. It’s not always because of lack of trust. They are busy managing. I sometimes need to schedule a meeting with my manager to go over a technical proposal and his schedule is busy all day with meetings. That’s not meant to be negative.

Also, I’m at a level now that I need to come to a manager with both problems and proposed solutions.

Of course, but in my case it's as simple as sending an e-mail "Could we talk at your earliest convenience?" Unless of course the issue is not really important - in that case it can wait for 1:1.

You have to distinguish between yourself as Mr. Nice Guy Manager™ and management culture as a whole where incentives are so ass backwards that people are cutting off their noses to spite their face and kowtowing to a bunch of geriatric co conspirators rather than advocating for the needs of the client relationship and their own so called subordinates this kind of behaviour is nothing more than a pyramid scheme where the prize is coronavirus for everyone

Actually this whole 1:1 thing is nothing but a prisoners dilemma played out over and over in various ways by people who claim to be experts in game theory but fail to recognize the game is playing them

Or if you've ever read about the cooperation dilemma which is a variation of this conundrum

Yes! There's an imbalance no call it what it is 1 > 1

Sarcasm and cynicism are signs of burnout. If ones arrives there, change to a job which actually is satisfying for you. No need to spend yourself and others on unhappy job.

lol, they are a sign of experience, not burnout

Apathy is a sign of burnout.

Do you not like the substance of the questions, or do you not like the delivery of the questions in this list? After reading through a small sample, I agree with you that if you asked these questions verbatim it would be ridiculous. And this list is kinda massive, so there are probably some that truly are not useful.

The substance behind some of the questions could be useful IMO. One would need some rapport and context to use them. If they were reworded and delivered in ways that made more sense for those people, it could be helpful.

Wow, you are either a troll or clueless.

There is no more powerful form of ensuring manager/employee alignment than 1:1 meetings.

I've co-founded companies, I've led teams and been CEO of a small video game studio.

As a manager, I never felt the need to bother anyone with 1:1 meetings.

I think it is very easy to shoot yourself in the foot with feedback, this is a difficult art.

And I think the best strategy is to use feedback only to deal with outliers, ie exceptional or catastrophic achievements.

> As a manager, I never felt the need to bother anyone with 1:1 meetings.

How do you collect feedback then?

Talking with people in an informal way, over lunch, work meetings (brainstorm) and direct day-to-day conversations.

So you make an effort to take time out of your day for informal, one on one conversations with members of your team? Over lunch, and directly in passing?

I think it's important to give feedback to employees that behave like you'd expect, too. Otherwise they might wonder if they are doing something wrong and change their behavior.

I've worked for managers that did and didn't do 1:1 meetings. At some places I've missed them - because the managers were out of touch with the team.

In other places where there were no 1:1 but a lot of 'hallway conversations' that seemed to replace them. So they had an 'finger on the pulse' of the team. That was pretty great - because of how informal it was and it worked.

I've also had great 1:1s though. So YMMV I guess, but it's hard to generalize. I think a lot depends on the company culture - some companies might benefit from them while others don't. There's no golden rule.

The issue I see with hallway conversations on their own is that some people don't convey much information in such a short informal setting. Other do but it can leave a blind spot for some individuals and for problems too large (or sensitive) to articulate in such a setting. Some people just aren't comfortable forcing a meeting with their boss to discuss a large or sensitive issue.

I agree, I'd reiterate my point about the company culture here though. And the team - but I think that figuring out what works for your team would be part of the managers' job.

Just to be clear, I've never been in the manager position here. Always the engineering position, so I can't really speak for a broad set of people.

As a employee 1:1s give me a low barrier meeting to bring up topics which neither fit in regular working meetings, nor fit to "water cooler talk", nor warrant calling an extra meeting. Often there's not much, but it's a nice thing to have scheduled.

In my experience, the importance of the 1:1 is correlated with the size of the organization. At a 1000+ person company with teammates spread across 10 time zones, the meeting is a must because I have no physical cues. This only works, now, because of the ubiquity of video conferencing.

That is just your opinion. To offer an anecdotal counterbalance, I was a cog in a 100k+ employee fortune-20 company. Nothing was more demoralizing, soul-sucking and useless than an 1:1 meeting. I always felt like crying out and quitting. This in a career with 10 different managers, 5 different nationalities.

Was that the only bad part of the job? Or merely a symptom of the larger problem. Perhaps the motivation to quit was a positive outcome. Why did you end up leaving?

It was not the only reason of course. I was fired in a downsizing. It is a bad idea to be a loner who has 0 political skills in a big company.

Your manager asking is a sign they're trying to help you and understand you. You can rebuff that but then you shouldn't wonder in the future why your job isn't going the way you want it to (and why your coworkers aren't having the same issues).

it's like talking to a superior who poses as a psychologist without any training in it. lots of power to the manager and an invitation for abuse. pretty much the reason why I'd never slave as an employee. sorry you're being downvoted. it seems there are many here who have underlings and therefore benefit from such a farce.

You’re always answerable to someone - clients, investors, the board.

But even barring that, “just don’t work for anyone else” is not actionable.

What question in particular do you find not appropriate?

“What did you want to be when you grow up” feels a bit out of touch.

Yes might be, and I would agree. Although it could be a great opener for finding out what the person wants. I have often found it the hardest thing to help find out what the person I had 1on1s with wanted to become (or not, e.g. a manager). Sometimes people have a clear vision, sometimes it took a year. Everyone was happier though.

I guess it depends on what kind of connection you have with your manager. I saw managers who would rather fire people if they feel they would be happier ion another place.

The list would be way too long.

In my opinion, the so-called 1 on 1 meeting should only be used when an employee is clearly on the wrong trajectory and a course correction is needed.

Good feedback is difficult, what I've seen was very often high noise and low signal. Forcing feedback when not necessary will not lead to added value for the company, only mildly boring and stressful waste of time, in the best case.

Ha! But you can prevent the wrong trajectory by acting before. And, one of the ways to do that is honest conversation with your co-worker.

As soon as a wrong trajectory is detected, yes, feedback is needed.

But not before.

How often is someone on the perfect trajectory without ever discussing their concerns or desires?

You don’t ask all of them at once - one or two of them may get used in a week.

Feedback comes because you’re talking on a regular (weekly or bi-weekly) basis. If the employee is on the wrong trajectory, you’ve waited far too long to talk!

I'm with you 1000% I hate one on ones they're for the manager caste to wash their hands of the blood from the front lines and find ways to sharpen their knives while you confess all your sins

I'd like to see an organization where the manager role consists of whipping boys for leadership who can be pummeled gladiator style for fun or profit

What kind of questions would you ask?

I especially like these 2: - what we as a company doing wrong? - name 10 things which can kill our business?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com