[JohnFen]

> If you want to cancel all of the time because you have nothing to talk about, then that indicates a number of different possibilities, very few of which are good.

But all of your examples are things I would have already discussed with my manager outside of any kind of formal 1:1s, so that doesn't leave anything for the 1:1.

That makes a 1:1 basically a performative exercise: I have to perform in it well enough that my manager won't be left thinking as you do in the quote.

[theshrike79]

If you and your manager have frequent contact so that you can talk to them at any time, then 1:1's aren't needed.

Some of us don't have matching calendars so having a regular 1:1 cadence is easier. I know that I'll have a meeting with my supervisor every 2 weeks and if I have something I can tell them then. And if there's nothing to say we end it early and get back to work.

[JohnFen]

> If you and your manager have frequent contact so that you can talk to them at any time

I've never had a manager where this wasn't possible, even when my manager has been in a different country than me. It does typically require me to reach out to them, though.

[seanthemon]

Honestly I feel like this is what I do, fill it with what they want to hear so I can progress versus actually discussing anything worthwhile because those things I bring uo at the time when it matters. 1-1 feels so pointless..

[Jemaclus]

Like someone else said, a good manager doesn't want you to tell us what you think they want to hear; they want to hear the truth. If you can't trust your manager with work-related support, then that indicates other problems! Maybe it means your manager sucks, maybe it means you have past trauma with managers who couldn't support you, maybe it means that your company culture is toxic. But I view my 1:1 with my boss and my 1:1s with my reports to be some of the most valuable time at my job. I learn so much and it removes a lot of obstacles.

I've had bad bosses who don't know how to use 1:1s, and that means I have to do more work to make it valuable. I usually don't last long at those jobs, because I want bosses that make my job easier, not harder.

I've had reports that don't know how to use 1:1s, and it's incumbent upon me to teach them and ensure that they're getting maximum value out of it. If they aren't, then either I'm failing and I need to fix that, or they aren't interested, and I also need to fix that.

If you think your boss isn't hearing you or isn't someone you can trust and build a bond with and level up your career with, then but you either need to do some self-reflection or find a new boss.

There are other options, of course. You can keep your boss that you don't trust and get guidance elsewhere. Places like Rand's Leadership Slack or other tech hubs can be good places to get advice on how to level up in your career. There's a lot out there that you don't need to be chained to a boss whose 1:1s feel pointless.

I wish you the best of luck. Let me know if there's any way I can help.

[mytailorisrich]

That's the fault of your manager who hasn't framed it correctly, or who is not keen to do it themself (perhaps it is required for them as well!)

For me the key to good 1:1s is to build trust and to make clear that there is no such thing as "what I want to hear". I want to hear what you think and how things are going generally. And if there is not much to discuss them let's have a coffee and chat about the weather and holiday plans, that's good as well.

[Jemaclus]

I think that's a totally fair take! (Mostly. I don't think 1:1s are necessarily about performance evaluations -- if you think they are, I hope you can learn to think of them differently, but I understand the perspective, I really do. I'll leave that alone for now and talk to your other points.)

I have one or two reports that fit pretty well into a group like you, who talk about "all of those things" outside of 1:1s. Totally a valid position! We still do a 1:1, but those turn into sort of work-tangential conversations, things like new tech that we're experimenting with on the side, or ideas for features that might be fun, or ways that we can incorporate the things they want to do into future roadmaps. Maybe it's not the most productive thing, but it can be fun, and sometimes you can be surprised by what comes out of a really good 1:1.

As sort of an example, I had a guy on my team that was super smart, highly productive, and he didn't need much hand-holding. We'd schedule 1:1s, and they would go well, but we'd also talk almost every day about the kinds of things that would normally come up in 1:1s. Just like you're describing.

We shared direct feedback regularly (he got distracted easily), we talked about the way he interacted with team members (which wasn't always great), the projects that he worked on (which were not necessarily the ones he wanted to work on). It was, on the surface, a good relationship, but obviously not a great one.

Then one day he mentioned off-hand something about his immigration status. My ears perked up, and I said "Tell me more." So in our 1:1, for probably 2-3 sessions, we talked about nothing but immigration and how it works, what his concerns were, and how much energy he spent thinking about his immigration status. Then he taught me about how the H1-B priority levels worked, and in the midst of that conversation, something clicked.

The reason this guy was easily distracted and the reason he was unhappy with the projects that he was working on wasn't because he had ADHD or thought the work sucked. The reason was because the projects he was working on were not things he could show to Immigration and say "See, I deserve a higher priority."

Once I had that realization, I was able to zoom out a bit and find projects that would give him a leg up on the prioritization scheduling. I was able to find time to let him work on white papers and formal, published research. He was able to patent something that we worked on. I helped him find conferences to give speeches at. All of these things he tackled with gusto and enthusiasm and, incidentally, fit into our company's roadmap.

Without that 1:1 that was seemingly unnecessary, I never would've made this connection, and he would still be miserable. Now he has his green card, just 18 months after that conversation, in part because he was able to demonstrate that he met certain criteria to the immigration authorities.

I understand the perspective of "I checked all the boxes outside of the meeting, why do I need this meeting?" but I encourage you to consider some of the softer values of the meeting. Even things as simple as getting to know your manager and finding out you have things in common will help.

It kind of sucks, but the more people can view you as a PERSON and not as a RESOURCE, the happier you both will be. And part of that involves spending lots of time with someone offline.

[JohnFen]

> I don't think 1:1s are necessarily about performance evaluations -- if you think they are, I hope you can learn to think of them differently

I don't think this. When I said it become "performative", I didn't mean that in terms of my work performance, I mean it in terms of having to perform well enough in the 1:1 so they don't leave a bad impression in my manager's mind.

I understand what you're saying here, and I'm certainly not of the mind that 1:1s are bad for everybody in every circumstance. I have just never been able to find any value in them myself. 1:1s are not a great forum for all people.

> Even things as simple as getting to know your manager and finding out you have things in common will help.

We do that, though, in less formalized interactions. Small talk before meetings, that sort of thing. Meaningful human interaction comes from normal social interaction, not from formal, scheduled meetings.

[Jemaclus]

Re: "performance", I was responding to this sentence

> I have to perform in it well enough that my manager won't be left thinking as you do in the quote.

although I admit I may have just misinterpreted this. A good manager expects honesty, not a performance. Have you spoken with your manager about what they expect from these 1:1s? Like OOP, you could just ask. Maybe you've done that.

Look, I hear you. I know exactly what you're saying. My stance is that if you rely on ad-hoc meetings, you can't reliably get these interactions. A regularly scheduled cadence provides peace of mind for everyone.

But also, that doesn't work for everyone. I've had some managers where 1:1s were not regularly scheduled, but kind of random. The key that i want to get across is that we can't just stop having these conversations, scheduled or not.

I think we can agree on that part?

[JohnFen]

Oh, sure!

I'm not saying that you're wrong, by the way (and I don't think we disagree on the fundamentals you're talking about). I'm just expressing what it is about the 1:1 format specifically that makes me dislike them.

For perspective, I have a weekly meeting with my manager where we touch base to discuss team direction and whatnot (I'm the lead of my team). That's not in a 1:1 format at all and isn't about me, my professional development, any of that.

However, those meetings result in most of the benefits that you're talking about nonetheless and work for me precisely because they're not about me.

My point is that the 1:1 format itself is not one that works well for everyone. If you're the sort of personality that doesn't mesh with the whole 1:1 thing, then 1:1s are just things you have to do because the company requires them.

You could argue that our weekly meetings are, in fact, 1:1s in disguise. I wouldn't say that you're wrong, even though the focus is a bit different. But they are very useful to me because of that, where I find it extremely difficult to find value in actual 1:1s.