[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.