|
|
|
|
|
by win311fwg
51 days ago
|
|
The meeting isn't for you. If it were, you'd have been the one scheduling it. First place to start is to determine what value the other party is deriving from the meeting. Zero in on exactly why they want to have the meeting. From there, you can put your problem solving skills in action to determine if there is a better way to deliver equivalent value. However, keep in mind that it is likely that the value you are delivering is your company during that time. A lot of hiring happens because the people involved want to have 'friends' around them. |
|
Wild how many different definitions of a 1:1 are in this thread.
Most of the other commenters are emphatically saying that the 1:1 is for the employee, not the manager.
The fact that nobody can agree on what the 1:1 is supposed to be is emblematic of all the problems that have been rolled up into the way that 1:1s are being cargo culted in modern business enivronments.
Employees talking to managers is good. The way we've turned it into a cargo cult performance where nobody can agree on what it's supposed to be but people will attack you for suggesting alternatives (see some of the weird comments shaming people in this thread) is why they've become so hated.
It's starting to remind me of the way Agile went from a human-first light touch philosophy to becoming a heavy, process-first ideology that starts replacing good planning with a bunch of rituals.