My company seems to think that Scrum stand-ups are a replacement for one-on-one meetings. They're very, very wrong. Coordinating work and keeping the project moving forward is one thing, but like Alex points out here, there's far more to management.<p>Agile methodologies/slack channels/etc. are simply <i>not</i> a replacement for people management. In many companies, the people manager and project manager are the same person, and they generally default to managing the project first. (Squeaky wheel gets the grease, right? And what's squeakier than an executive breathing down your neck?) But when your culture starts dissolving and employees start leaving... well by then it might be too late to get interested in people management.<p>In my group, morale is a big issue, and retention is about to become one--I know of several people with one foot out the door already. I'm not sure management is even aware.
One on ones are one of those things which don't terminate with satisfaction from both sides. They are necessary but they are unfair. (necessary because of imperfect information).<p>This lack of resolution stems from the power dynamics. The one on ones don't go through a drone (powerless) proxy. They are lower level employee to higher level manager, if not manager, influencer, lead, etc., not someone equal or on a lower rung, so they are inherently asymmetric therefore most employees always (if they care) have to wear a mask and couch things and pretend.<p>On the other hand employees should be flexible enough that things should not become problematic. For the most part people working together should be able to resolve internal team issues. If something needs external influence bring it up for resolution using the channels available.<p>To add, the employee for the most part has to subvert themselves to the manager's style else risk being interpreted incorrectly. To be redundant, one on ones are useful, if the constraints are understood, till trouble arises at which point one on ones become useless vehicles for resolution.
I loved my one-on-one calls, and I'm someone who really hates phone calls & meetings.<p>For me it was 30 minutes each week where I could bounce ideas about work, my own side projects, life in general, and chat about their work / projects / life too. It was like two friends with a mutual interest in business having a catchup & occasional rant & a laugh. It was fun & left me energized & motivated - hopefully they felt the same.<p>Perhaps one difference is that I was working remote. In the article, they also say "We’re a remote team [...] and we don’t spend all day with each other." If I was on-site & seeing people every day, I probably wouldn't want a 1-on-1 each week either. A 1-on-1 in a manager's office sounds awful. If it must be in person then you should go to a cafe, get a burger or a bubble tea, make it enjoyable!<p>If you feel the conversations have to be politically correct, that it's all about "professional development" (eww), or you sense asymmetric power dynamics... maybe that's a red flag that it's not a job you want to stay in or people you want to work with. It shouldn't feel like that. Life is too short to put up with office politics.
I've had really good bosses, but every time a one-on-one comes up, I get nervous. I've been laid off in one-on-one meetings in the past. I've also had to make split decisions without properly evalutating it, like tell my manager who to lay off, before.<p>I'm also not perfect, so every time one of those meetings comes up I start wondering if something I did that wasn't perfect is going to come up and I'm about to get a stern talking to, even though more often than not the one-on-ones go well.<p>If I really had a problem that I wanted a resolution on, I'd knock on my managers door and talk to him when I was ready to talk to him about it. I usually don't bring those things up in one-on-ones, so they haven't been terribly useful to me.<p>So generally, I get really nervous before the meeting, and relax again afterwards. I don't know if I'd get rid of them entirely, but I wish they were less frequent.
One on ones can also screw over employees if they say the wrong thing. Ever notice how management usually wants regular one on ones, but employees don't? They damage the quality of life for the employee because they must have a risky conversation every two weeks. Reputations can take months or years to create, but only minutes to destroy. Many engineers just want to get work done instead of having politically correct conversations to prevent the loss of future bonuses or promotions.
i'd play along, but i wouldn't provide more information than is absolutely necessary to someone who, by definition of their role and mine, does not have my best interests in mind.
The best places I've worked had 1-on-1 meetings that were only rarely useful, and no daily standups, no scrum, and weekly team meetings where people mostly were trying to stay awake.<p>Those also happened the most productive places I've worked, by far, because we had a ton of on-the-ground collaboration. We were all on the same floor, and we talked all day, looked at each other's code, worked hard, and had fun.<p>The 1-on-1s were a distraction. Every once in a while it was useful, but it could have easily been a monthly thing.
Before you become honest, make sure you understand the politics of your team. I worked with a 40 something obese, single, just plain miserable neckbeard who got off on hazing new employees. I mentioned this in the one on one to our manager and the day after, both manager and neckbeard conspired to make my life hell. And they won, I resigned.
This seems so obvious, but then I was surprised when I inherited a team that this wasn't happening on.<p>As companies grow, they need to provide regular cadences for communicating. Some of it is group meetings or emails. Some of it is one on one. This is especially true for coaching.