[_moof]

> I'll put it this way: the 1:1 for you, but it's also too valuable to skip just because you don't want it. We will have a 1:1 on a regular cadence, whether you like it or not. I don't want a meeting for the sake of having a meeting, but 1:1s are the single best way for managers to connect to team members. If you want to cancel all of the time because you have nothing to talk about, then that indicates a number of different possibilities, very few of which are good.

So what I'm hearing, it's not actually for me, it's for you.

[nostrademons]

I give my reports the option of canceling 1:1s if they want to, or have other priorities. Sometimes they just have a pressing deadline and would rather be coding so they can go home. Sometimes their kid is sick and their boss is the last person they would rather be talking to.

I try to avoid canceling 1:1s myself if possible, since it really sends the message that your boss doesn't care about you or your work, and if the boss doesn't care, why do the work?

[kledru]

Many people in specialist roles are not motivated by management attention to their work and prefer minimal involvement unless it's to remove obstacles or provide resources. Intrinsic motivation does not care if boss cares about the work...

[mitthrowaway2]

That's like saying high school is for the teacher's benefit rather than the student's, because attendance is mandatory.

[stefan_]

At least teachers come with a lesson plan. This reads like a vibe manager.

[_DeadFred_]

1 on 1's are entirely for the report, not the manager. They are useless if the manager takes control. The manager can explain the concept and give examples, but they shouldn't be giving direction. It's totally up to the 'vibe' of the report, that's the whole point.

That said, if you are checked out of one on ones it's legitimate for your manager to wonder 'what else are you checked out on'.

[Hamuko]

This still sounds a 1:1 is for the manager to make judgement calls about you based on the fact that you're not into hanging out with him on a schedule that he sets, and not for the report.

[_DeadFred_]

Dude, scheduling things in a business makes them useless is honestly the point you are trying to make?

[Hamuko]

No? How'd you get to that interpretation?

[nostrademons]

(Public) High school is for the politician's benefit. Public education was first and foremost a way to assimilate immigrant groups so that they would adopt a uniform culture; second a way to provide day care so the parents could work at the factories; third a way to get students used to factory work like following directions and showing up on a schedule; and only last a way to provide valuable skills and education to the student.

You can see that by observing the conditions under which a state is willing to not have students go to school. If the schools are not teaching the ideology that the state wants, their funding gets axed entirely; you can see that with current MAGA efforts to defund the DoE and various public schools, with the DEI efforts in California, and with the anti-DEI efforts in Texas and much of the South. Likewise, if the students are being subversive and talking about getting rid of the capitalist system entirely, you shut down their schools and arrest them. If the adults no longer need to go to work, you see states entertain the possibility of students no longer going to school; you saw that in COVID. But if the students aren't actually learning anything, as is the case in much of the U.S, it's not a big deal.

Education that is actually for the student's benefit rather than the teacher's usually tends to be private schools or tutors, or occasionally charter/magnet schools. In rare cases, you'll have a public school where the surrounding community really values education. But notably, attendance is not mandatory in most of these scenarios.

[Jemaclus]

OP here. Yeah, the basic answer is "it's for you," but there's certainly value for me.

Consider it this way: if I schedule a 1:1, and you cancel it every week, then that tells me that you don't find time with me to be valuable. How do I fix that? Is that a signal about you hating meetings, or is it a signal that I'm a bad manager?

If I schedule 1:1s, and you join them, and then you give me one word answers to everything I ask, then you clearly don't want to be there. That gives me signals about our relationship: if we had a good relationship, we'd have more comfortablec conversations.

If I schedule 1:1s, and you join them, and you are apathetic or antagonistic, then that also tells me that there's a problem.

The 1:1 is an incredibly valuable period of time for us to have candid conversations, exchange feedback, and develop our relationship. That kind of thing requires two people to tango. I can't force you to do those things. But if you don't want to do those things, and you don't want to ensure that we work well together and can exchange feedback freely, then maybe we don't work well together, and we should re-evaluate our working relationship.

So is it for me? Sort of. The goal is for you to be involved with me in a private but accessible way. You and I having a relationship where we can build on fundamentals and create a safe, welcoming, innovative environment is the single most valuable thing a manager can do and that a report can accelerate and encourage.

But if you don't want to participate in that, then that doesn't bode well for your career at my company.

If you want to take that as "it's for you, not me," then that's fair, but I don't think you and I would work well together.

[Clubber]

>So what I'm hearing, it's not actually for me, it's for you.

It's totally for the manager, they gotta fill their calendars to look like they're doing stuff. I hate when they want me to rank myself from 1-5 on various things just to tell me, "I don't think you're a 5, you're performing as expected. COL raise." I just put 3's on everything and wait for it to be over. Our company (whose application I built from scratch) just started doing this with a new manager after 6 years and I put in my notice on the first one.

My buddy put's all 1s. It's a stupid business culture bullshit thing like mandatory after hours "team building" exercises and stupid infantilization things they love to do now. The best managers on the best teams I worked with never did this.

[486sx33]

I’m sorry you’ve had managers that make you feel that way.

I can assure you that not every manager needs to book 1:1’s to fill their calendar.

[jmye]

> It's totally for the manager, they gotta fill their calendars to look like they're doing stuff.

I can’t imagine a sillier take.

No one gives a shit what’s on my calendar. They didn’t when I was a manager, director, VP or when I had a C in my title.

The 1:1 is to help you figure out why you’re an average dev and aren’t getting fives. It’s unfortunate you haven’t quite grokked that and instead just spend your time imagining how everyone around you is incompetent and out to do you wrong.

[Clubber]

You don't know anything about me. How can you even make that assessment? See, this is another example of modern manager bullshit. I certainly hope you don't lackadaisically asses your team in the same flippant, emotional manner. Here's another thing, you probably aren't even allowed to answer the important questions. When are layoffs? Is there an M&A going on? What projects are going to be tanked in the coming year? Who are all those new people walking around? It's all fluff and you know it. Do you make them sit in the little uncomfortable chairs in your office across from you after you ask them to shut the door? If you do, you probably should rethink the environment you're setting up. Do you even shake their hand when they come in? Managers today are so bad at building team unity and trust. I've been on both sides of this table and I know exactly what this is.

Want to have more interaction with your team? Try taking them out to lunch once in a while. It works wonders for team unity. If the boss doesn't let you use the corporate card, use your own.

[jmye]

> You don't know anything about me. How can you even make that assessment?

I used only the words you actively wrote. Do you not see the irony in the rest of what you wrote, though?

Immediately suggesting I’m being “emotional”? What is this, 4chan?

Uncomfortable chairs? What?

It’s just, a whole mess of “you’re going to do me wrong, so I’m going to hate you first.” It seems like it should be unsurprising that you got low ratings when you approach things this antagonistically right off the bat.

I don’t want “more” interaction - I want interaction that helps them get fives/bonuses/equity grants, helps them get promoted (yearly raises will never be anything but useless), and helps them move forward with whatever their goals are.

You’ve made a lot of weird assumptions that simultaneously assume I’m a moron, and that no one could possibly ever want to help you. Why?

[Clubber]

>The 1:1 is to help you figure out why you’re an average dev and aren’t getting fives.

>It’s unfortunate you haven’t quite grokked that and instead just spend your time imagining how everyone around you is incompetent and out to do you wrong.

Where did I write that I don't get 5s? That seems like a knee-jerk (emotional) response to a take you didn't like.

Have you ever given anyone all 5s? Are you one of those "no one is perfect," people?

Sorry, but 1:1's are bullshit. It's a power move that managers use to keep costs down by making excuses to not give more than COL raises (if that). It's typically based on emotion at the time of the review and not looking at performance or output or anything. People the manager likes (ass kissers, yes men) gets higher numbers, people who the manager doesn't like (gets pushback on bad ideas) gets lower numbers. They fool themselves that because they're writing down a number that it's data driven. You might not do it, but to deny that's quite commonplace is just not facing reality. I've watched good IT departments fall apart and the enjoyment of building software degrade over 30 years because of process bullshit. Good teams that had minimal turnover start to vanish as soon as things like this start getting implemented.

If this isn't you, sorry I ripped your head off. I've spent most of my career getting startups over the finish line in M&A situations on the technical side. The number of really good, dedicated, happy, low turnover teams that fall apart after the acquisition because of things like this is pretty close to 100%.

>Uncomfortable chairs? What?

In business school in the 90s, one of the things that came up is the layout of the interview room when interviewing a candidate. You don't want all of the company interviewers on one side of the table and the interviewee by themselves on the other side because it gives them a feel of being outnumbered and is a generally confrontational positioning. Rather you should have the interviewers spread out at different positions at the table, some sitting next to the candidate to make them feel included, etc. This is to prevent false negatives for a company in desperate need for talent.

Long explanation short, when people do 1:1s, the layout is typically the manager in their chair, behind their desk with the subordinate in an uncomfortable chair on the other side with the door shut. This is also a dominant/subordinate layout. This stuff matters and is one of the things that make 1:1s so bad. The "grade yourself on this and that," is also a really bad idea that is now commonplace. When the manager essentially says, "you aren't that good," it's a real kick in the teeth. Psychologically, one of the worst things a manager can do in terms of motivation is unnecessarily criticize someone after they worked really hard for their approval.

I could go on and on, but at the risk of rambling, I'll leave it at that.

[jmye]

> Where did I write that I don't get 5s? That seems like a knee-jerk (emotional) response to a take you didn't like.

Your words were:

> I hate when they want me to rank myself from 1-5 on various things just to tell me, "I don't think you're a 5, you're performing as expected. COL raise."

Performing as expected implies a 3. Again, why do you want to frame this as emotional on my part? Why project that on me when again, I’m literally responding to the words you wrote?

> Have you ever given anyone all 5s? Are you one of those "no one is perfect," people?

Absolutely, though most people have at least some opportunity for improvement in their current role, so there’s often a four in there. That said, a stray four for an overall five is still an overall five, and should have no real effect on anything.

> Sorry, but 1:1's are bullshit. It's a power move that managers use to keep costs down by making excuses to not give more than COL raises (if that).

I mean, that’s ridiculous. Why would I want to not give appropriate raises to people? I don’t get to pocket leftover budget, and I have no incentive at all to avoid giving someone a 4% raise instead of a 3% raise.

> Long explanation short, when people do 1:1s, the layout is typically the manager in their chair, behind their desk with the subordinate in an uncomfortable chair on the other side with the door shut. This is also a dominant/subordinate layout.

It feels like you’ve worked at some deeply dysfunctional places. This has never been true anywhere I’ve worked. The door is closed if we’re having a conversation the other person wants private - I don’t close it or request it be closed. The chairs are just the chairs - I don’t want my team uncomfortable any more than I’d want a potential partner, another part of the team or company, or my boss uncomfortable.

[johntitorjr]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the manager-report relationship.

It being for the report means it is also for the manager. The success of the report is the success of the manager.