One on One(bhorowitz.com)
bhorowitz.com
One on One
http://bhorowitz.com/2012/08/30/one-on-one/
12 comments
I don't understand, isn't an employee supposed to take direction from a manager? (So they can fulfill expectations rather than being surprised when the company is not happy with whatever they've done?) You won't see me shying away from saying things that are skeptical about managerial privilege, I just don't understand what you meant here.
> isn't an employee supposed to take direction from a manager?
Well, yes. But the relationship should also benefit the employee.
I'm not a great fan of managers in general, but I do recognise that they can play an important role in shielding you from a lot of the political nonsense that can float around in a large organisations.
On top of this they also have a role to play in providing HR guidance, pastoral support, and also as someone to bounce ideas off - I sometimes use my manager as my rubber duck [1]
However, if your relationship with your manager is all one way then there's almost certainly something wrong there. The best managers (IMHO) clear the path to allow their staff to achieve what needs to be done, rather that micromanaging and cracking the whip.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging
Well, yes. But the relationship should also benefit the employee.
I'm not a great fan of managers in general, but I do recognise that they can play an important role in shielding you from a lot of the political nonsense that can float around in a large organisations.
On top of this they also have a role to play in providing HR guidance, pastoral support, and also as someone to bounce ideas off - I sometimes use my manager as my rubber duck [1]
However, if your relationship with your manager is all one way then there's almost certainly something wrong there. The best managers (IMHO) clear the path to allow their staff to achieve what needs to be done, rather that micromanaging and cracking the whip.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging
Confirming expectations is useful for larger, more established organizations with established operations.
This text is written by an investor in startups, who typically rely on hiring motivated and autonomous individuals with the expectation that employee will be self-directed, so the purpose of those meetings is to broadcast and remove the obstacles for such employee.
This text is written by an investor in startups, who typically rely on hiring motivated and autonomous individuals with the expectation that employee will be self-directed, so the purpose of those meetings is to broadcast and remove the obstacles for such employee.
I don't know what it looks like to investors, but I am familiar with startups. And I am afraid that even in that context, it is still usually necessary for employees to understand what their managers want. Is the problem that a one on one feels like an insulting way of communicating?
There is a line between communicating strategic and tactical goals to an employee, and micromanagement nitpicking of irrelevant trivia.
Sure, the boss is always the most important client - but nitpicking shows a lack of trust and respect to the employee and is very harmful to morale and productivity (IME).
As with all things, it's about finding the right balance.
Sure, the boss is always the most important client - but nitpicking shows a lack of trust and respect to the employee and is very harmful to morale and productivity (IME).
As with all things, it's about finding the right balance.
There's a podcast for that:
http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/the-single-most-effecti...
One on one is not a working session and it is not an all-hands.
One on one is not a working session and it is not an all-hands.
That is not the point of the one-on-one. The one-on-one is a time for the employee to speak his/her mind, express concerns, etc. Read the link to Rands' post somewhere else on this thread. The entire book is great, and I think every manager should read it.
>isn't an employee supposed to take direction from a manager?
No,
The manager manages the direction[reviews, tracks, corrects course], but doesn't necessarily set it. Its not like the manager is a father and the employee is a day care kid. Who needs to do his homework, eat vegetables and drink milk at the fathers command.
Essentially the manager acts like a intelligent information router which can improvise decision making based on information he/she is routing.
The job of a manager is to make himself redundant to build great teams that can manage themselves. So that he can himself grow up to the next level and manage the managers and so on..
No,
The manager manages the direction[reviews, tracks, corrects course], but doesn't necessarily set it. Its not like the manager is a father and the employee is a day care kid. Who needs to do his homework, eat vegetables and drink milk at the fathers command.
Essentially the manager acts like a intelligent information router which can improvise decision making based on information he/she is routing.
The job of a manager is to make himself redundant to build great teams that can manage themselves. So that he can himself grow up to the next level and manage the managers and so on..
Rands did it better: http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2010/09/22/the_update_...
He did a great job, and I definitely recommend the book: http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software-Engi...
I hate to see 1-on-1's get abused because they really are a valuable tool.
A 1-on-1 is a designated time for an employee to direct an entire conversation with their manager. They can choose to talk about interests, grievances, concerns, ideas, hobbies, problems, successes or NOTHING AT ALL. This is for a manager to sit back and absorb, to give answers when asked. That's it.
A good manager will take 1-on-1s as a way to make sure their employees are happy, healthy and not at risk of leaving the company. This isn't a bi-weekly-performance-review.
A 1-on-1 is a designated time for an employee to direct an entire conversation with their manager. They can choose to talk about interests, grievances, concerns, ideas, hobbies, problems, successes or NOTHING AT ALL. This is for a manager to sit back and absorb, to give answers when asked. That's it.
A good manager will take 1-on-1s as a way to make sure their employees are happy, healthy and not at risk of leaving the company. This isn't a bi-weekly-performance-review.
[deleted]
I am having one-on-one's currently and this is how I do it.
1. Talk to your manager about your career aspirations. That include promotion, raise and other learning opportunities.
2. Discuss what will get you there- Write on the white board clearly defined tasks you need to do to get there.
3. Put down a plan to execute and track them. And record it- I generally take a picture of the whiteboard.
4. Ask him for feed back on how you did from last one-on-one to this one.
5. Give him feed back about project, technology, company and things in general.
6. Have him sign off and agree that you are doing well which he agrees and acknowledges it.
7. Repeat 1-6 in every one-on-one scheduled to happen every 2 two weeks.
A good appraisal, evaluation at the end of year is something that doesn't have any surprises between you and your manager.
[EDIT: Even if your company doesn't have 1:1 - Ensure you take personal initiative to have discussion of this kind with your manager it helps a lot in the longer run]
1. Talk to your manager about your career aspirations. That include promotion, raise and other learning opportunities.
2. Discuss what will get you there- Write on the white board clearly defined tasks you need to do to get there.
3. Put down a plan to execute and track them. And record it- I generally take a picture of the whiteboard.
4. Ask him for feed back on how you did from last one-on-one to this one.
5. Give him feed back about project, technology, company and things in general.
6. Have him sign off and agree that you are doing well which he agrees and acknowledges it.
7. Repeat 1-6 in every one-on-one scheduled to happen every 2 two weeks.
A good appraisal, evaluation at the end of year is something that doesn't have any surprises between you and your manager.
[EDIT: Even if your company doesn't have 1:1 - Ensure you take personal initiative to have discussion of this kind with your manager it helps a lot in the longer run]
If you make a one-on-one into a periodic meeting like ben is suggesting, it will invariably end up as yet another pointless formality.
Ideally, in a well-run company, an employee should be able to easily walk to the CEO and talk about any problem/grievance/suggestion/new idea. But it is much more efficient to keep such meetings adhoc/need-based and not periodic, since, more often than not, the employee will either have nothing to talk about or will have a lot of pressing things to talk about and not like to wait till the next one-on-one.
Ideally, in a well-run company, an employee should be able to easily walk to the CEO and talk about any problem/grievance/suggestion/new idea. But it is much more efficient to keep such meetings adhoc/need-based and not periodic, since, more often than not, the employee will either have nothing to talk about or will have a lot of pressing things to talk about and not like to wait till the next one-on-one.
"If you make a one-on-one into a periodic meeting like ben is suggesting, it will invariably end up as yet another pointless formality." --> No, that's not true when the manager is competent.
"Ideally, in a well-run company, an employee should be able to easily walk to the CEO and talk about any problem/grievance/suggestion/new idea." --> Ideally, maybe, but what every new manager learns very quickly is that most employees simply will not proactively volunteer most of the things that you are going to need to know about what they (the employees) are thinking and feeling. Therefore, the one on one.
One of the really entertaining things that happens in startups is that a half dozen people are quite capable of sitting in the same room together for a year and never actually saying most of the things that need to be said for the company to work. I've seen many situations like that where the manager finally starts 1:1's and is stunned at the number of important things that were being left unsaid.
"Ideally, in a well-run company, an employee should be able to easily walk to the CEO and talk about any problem/grievance/suggestion/new idea." --> Ideally, maybe, but what every new manager learns very quickly is that most employees simply will not proactively volunteer most of the things that you are going to need to know about what they (the employees) are thinking and feeling. Therefore, the one on one.
One of the really entertaining things that happens in startups is that a half dozen people are quite capable of sitting in the same room together for a year and never actually saying most of the things that need to be said for the company to work. I've seen many situations like that where the manager finally starts 1:1's and is stunned at the number of important things that were being left unsaid.
For introverted or shy employees, the issue is not that it isn't easy to talk to the CEO/manager, it's just that they're unlikely to voice their opinions unless they're specifically asked about it. Which is what this meeting is about.
But yeah, for some employees it will be extremely useful, for others, not so much.
But yeah, for some employees it will be extremely useful, for others, not so much.
I completely agree, I don't even think it is limited to a stereotypical introvert. In an environment where the management is very hands off I have worked with unhappy people who are paranoid enough to worry that if they ask or challenge the boss they think it would be a kind of insubordination.
I used to think that it was a sign of weakness that people need management, and in a way you could claim that to be the case. However, I have become convinced that there are many people who real do need 'good' regular managerial assistance to help them with their job. Ideally it's up to you to establish whether you need this support.
I used to think that it was a sign of weakness that people need management, and in a way you could claim that to be the case. However, I have become convinced that there are many people who real do need 'good' regular managerial assistance to help them with their job. Ideally it's up to you to establish whether you need this support.
My preference has been to have them periodically but spaced out, say every 3-4 months. It's also something I like to make less formal and outside the office, say over lunch. This turns it from a chore to a perk, and even if you have nothing work related to discuss, you get to know them better.
I would go for scheduled but cancellable by the employee meetings.
If it's completely ad-hoc, how will the manager deal with the person who grabs him to complain about random stuff all the time? How will anyone know how often is too often?
If it's completely ad-hoc, how will the manager deal with the person who grabs him to complain about random stuff all the time? How will anyone know how often is too often?
Dead on point about scheduled one-on-one turning into a useless formality.
I would really like to have another 1:1 with my boss, but I am an introverted contractor with little-to-no experience communicating in a corporate environment. I'm stuck for fear of how much control they have over my life at the moment. How can I be honest with someone like that?
One second, you lost me. You're the introverted contractor, or your boss? What is your boss like that is preventing honesty?
And sometimes, the best thing you can do is get to the next paycheck. Don't be sad to admit there are things you can not change. Good luck on your job hunting and I hope you find a better place (and boss) soon!
And sometimes, the best thing you can do is get to the next paycheck. Don't be sad to admit there are things you can not change. Good luck on your job hunting and I hope you find a better place (and boss) soon!
I've already got an offer by a startup and am currently weighing my options of staying vs leaving. The problem is that I'm not in California, so it's a bigger move than anything I've done before. But to answer your question, my boss is not preventing honesty. I don't have much experience with this but it appears to me that the corporate environment prevents it unless you are too valuable to lose or are respected there. The first time I made a mistake that annoyed our project manager we had a team meeting specifically to complain about my work, yet everyone was there and the statements were generalized. I was shocked that this is how it was handled instead of simply asking me why that had happened. I don't understand how to communicate without honesty because I've never attempted to do it before. I can't bring up issues like this without doing a private 1:1 and made the mistake of attempting that at the wrong time with depressing results.
You're too late to effectively communicate in a 1-on-1. You've got to begin the relationship with trust and respect the time to share grievances, successes, etc. Consider it a lesson learned for your next employment.
This is a good point. The power asymmetry is problematic for trust.
Trust is exactly the issue I am having. I can't trust someone that I cannot communicate honestly with. Why risk telling my manager any of my problems with the job when it is their job to potentially use that information against me? I wouldn't even know if they did. My brain starts overthinking the situation and I end up waiting until the only option is the worst one.
[ok, slightly (very?) off-topic]
..not hating, but quoting a Rick Ross verse on a track that features Three Stacks?? that's like hip-hop blasphemy!
i expect better Mr. Horowitz
..not hating, but quoting a Rick Ross verse on a track that features Three Stacks?? that's like hip-hop blasphemy!
i expect better Mr. Horowitz
..though, in the context of the post, that verse makes total sense as a lead-in
[deleted]
Regardless - You are still an (place derogatory terms here) for threatening your employees like they are little children.
And you are still being naive for thinking that companies can be run purely by happy-talk.
The case for one-on-ones in the follow-up is better. I would have found your colleague's first post on the subject satirical if I didn't know any better. The overall topic was about what it takes to make a company a good place to work and includes a conversation that makes Ben sound like an asshole (does he think he sounds like a badass?) and ends this way:
“In summary, you and Tim are preventing me from achieving my one and only goal. You have become a barrier blocking me from achieving my most important goal. As a result, if Tim doesn’t meet with each one of his employees in the next 24 hours, I will have no choice but to fire him and to fire you. Are we clear?”
Now really, just imagine the conversation with Tim and his boss later that day... Then the quality of all the one-on-ones with Tim and his reports...
Maybe you should get someone to review some of these posts because Ben just embarrassed himself with that previous one.
“In summary, you and Tim are preventing me from achieving my one and only goal. You have become a barrier blocking me from achieving my most important goal. As a result, if Tim doesn’t meet with each one of his employees in the next 24 hours, I will have no choice but to fire him and to fire you. Are we clear?”
Now really, just imagine the conversation with Tim and his boss later that day... Then the quality of all the one-on-ones with Tim and his reports...
Maybe you should get someone to review some of these posts because Ben just embarrassed himself with that previous one.
There is a right way and a wrong way to chastise someone (or keep them on task). The previous blog post:
http://bhorowitz.com/2012/08/18/a-good-place-to-work/
demonstrates the absolute wrong way.
I started to realize in about 5th grade (by watching a threatening, playground bully that everyone hated and a popular friendly kid that everyone liked) that there are ways to get people to do things you want them to do without pissing them off (Those you can't you just cast off and replace). Perhaps the author was the bully, or he missed the lesson.
Threatened, disgruntled employees will leave or worse (cause dissension, loss of productivity, they will take their frustration out on their peers and underlings, They will conspire against the threatening, abusive boss, poor morale will spread). I have witnessed this more than once already thus far in my 10 year career.
If warning them in a human adult-to-adult civilized manner does not work, and they continually demonstrates incompetence or insubordination, then replace them... no need to threaten them in such a harsh manner and blog about it like you just won a fistfight against a little kid (smacked em down good). You are not doing anyone any favors - trust me.
Your Abusive Ego may feel good, but your company will certainly suffer. Funny that your very claims for doing what you did are to make your company the best place to work - but in reality you just made it worse with your approach and choice of words.
This approach may sound new-age, feminine, soft, or touchy feely to you - but (in some ways) unfortunately it is the reality of today's tech worker's generation and how they expect to be treated (with some respect and consideration). Those who do not understand this, will repeatedly fail.
I say in some ways unfortunate - because it is taken way too far in way too many cases by today's young generation and they are simply lazy, unmotivated and have an entitlement attitude. Their expectation of respect and consideration is taken way too far (they expect to be coddled and never reprimanded). I am not changing my earlier viewpoints, I am simply establishing a foundation by which my statements should be based on.
I started to realize in about 5th grade (by watching a threatening, playground bully that everyone hated and a popular friendly kid that everyone liked) that there are ways to get people to do things you want them to do without pissing them off (Those you can't you just cast off and replace). Perhaps the author was the bully, or he missed the lesson.
Threatened, disgruntled employees will leave or worse (cause dissension, loss of productivity, they will take their frustration out on their peers and underlings, They will conspire against the threatening, abusive boss, poor morale will spread). I have witnessed this more than once already thus far in my 10 year career.
If warning them in a human adult-to-adult civilized manner does not work, and they continually demonstrates incompetence or insubordination, then replace them... no need to threaten them in such a harsh manner and blog about it like you just won a fistfight against a little kid (smacked em down good). You are not doing anyone any favors - trust me.
Your Abusive Ego may feel good, but your company will certainly suffer. Funny that your very claims for doing what you did are to make your company the best place to work - but in reality you just made it worse with your approach and choice of words.
This approach may sound new-age, feminine, soft, or touchy feely to you - but (in some ways) unfortunately it is the reality of today's tech worker's generation and how they expect to be treated (with some respect and consideration). Those who do not understand this, will repeatedly fail.
I say in some ways unfortunate - because it is taken way too far in way too many cases by today's young generation and they are simply lazy, unmotivated and have an entitlement attitude. Their expectation of respect and consideration is taken way too far (they expect to be coddled and never reprimanded). I am not changing my earlier viewpoints, I am simply establishing a foundation by which my statements should be based on.
I too read Ben's earlier post and did some head-scratching. Honestly, I think that earlier post was a bit off. But 1-on-1 meetings happen in many contexts. We all need to beware of overgeneralizing our own experiences.
This post perhaps hinted at something, there. Not all 1-on-1s are MSFT force/rank performance reviews. There are, alternative uses of meetings. Think about an MFA student who want some feedback on her portfolio?[1] She wants office hours. She's junior. Different dynamic. Sr Prof has to be there. 1:1. Thats part of the job. Obvious. Everyone know it. Is it possible for an eccentric genius to be lost in the studio/lab all semester? yes, it happens. Has a Dean ever had to call in a department chair to politely remind everyone involved (who is tenured, respected etc) that if they don't get an office hour and portfolio review for this poor girl by the end of Term they'd look like fools? It would be a bit of a scandal? That of the very few things one might actually get fired for, The abject neglect of a protege might be one? "Does this need to be said any clearer?" he might ask. "No. Got it" might be the reply. [2]
Is that how it went down at opsware? I've no idea. But, there are certain contexts in which folks remind themselves in a way overfomally that they have jobs to do. No one should feel threatened per se, unless something is truly wrong or someone is completely out of their depth. [3]
[1] For an example of MFA style portfolio critique: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4440345
[2] (...Commence drinking booz, etc - optional- remember this is academia ;D)
[3] In which case, it wouldn't be the 1 on 1 that is the subject of a chat.
Edit: link/typos.
This post perhaps hinted at something, there. Not all 1-on-1s are MSFT force/rank performance reviews. There are, alternative uses of meetings. Think about an MFA student who want some feedback on her portfolio?[1] She wants office hours. She's junior. Different dynamic. Sr Prof has to be there. 1:1. Thats part of the job. Obvious. Everyone know it. Is it possible for an eccentric genius to be lost in the studio/lab all semester? yes, it happens. Has a Dean ever had to call in a department chair to politely remind everyone involved (who is tenured, respected etc) that if they don't get an office hour and portfolio review for this poor girl by the end of Term they'd look like fools? It would be a bit of a scandal? That of the very few things one might actually get fired for, The abject neglect of a protege might be one? "Does this need to be said any clearer?" he might ask. "No. Got it" might be the reply. [2]
Is that how it went down at opsware? I've no idea. But, there are certain contexts in which folks remind themselves in a way overfomally that they have jobs to do. No one should feel threatened per se, unless something is truly wrong or someone is completely out of their depth. [3]
[1] For an example of MFA style portfolio critique: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4440345
[2] (...Commence drinking booz, etc - optional- remember this is academia ;D)
[3] In which case, it wouldn't be the 1 on 1 that is the subject of a chat.
Edit: link/typos.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Now, as a manager, I've tried to learn from my experiences and make the one-on-one more about the employee. Some of the best one-on-ones I've done have nothing to do with work -- they are more about the employee's personal concerns and making sure the company is doing whatever it can to mitigate them.