|
|
|
|
|
|
by Aurornis
6 days ago
|
|
|
> The meeting isn't for you. 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. |
|
|
There is no disagreement about that. The only difference in your case, as opposed to experiences others have had, is the dynamic between those two people. You are not seeking a meeting or want to have a meeting, thus the meeting is being called only for the benefit of the other person.
Let's simplify this: Nobody calls a meeting they don't find any value in. If someone is asking you to join a meeting, it is for them. It might also be for you if you both can see value, but that was said to not be the case in your case. When only the other party finds value, you are going to struggle to cut them off without some pushback, but this is where you can determine what value they are trying to get out of the meeting and see if there is a better way to deliver it.