So what I'm hearing, it's not actually for me, it's for you.

I try to avoid canceling 1:1s myself if possible, since it really sends the message that your boss doesn't care about you or your work, and if the boss doesn't care, why do the work?

That said, if you are checked out of one on ones it's legitimate for your manager to wonder 'what else are you checked out on'.

You can see that by observing the conditions under which a state is willing to not have students go to school. If the schools are not teaching the ideology that the state wants, their funding gets axed entirely; you can see that with current MAGA efforts to defund the DoE and various public schools, with the DEI efforts in California, and with the anti-DEI efforts in Texas and much of the South. Likewise, if the students are being subversive and talking about getting rid of the capitalist system entirely, you shut down their schools and arrest them. If the adults no longer need to go to work, you see states entertain the possibility of students no longer going to school; you saw that in COVID. But if the students aren't actually learning anything, as is the case in much of the U.S, it's not a big deal.

Education that is actually for the student's benefit rather than the teacher's usually tends to be private schools or tutors, or occasionally charter/magnet schools. In rare cases, you'll have a public school where the surrounding community really values education. But notably, attendance is not mandatory in most of these scenarios.

Consider it this way: if I schedule a 1:1, and you cancel it every week, then that tells me that you don't find time with me to be valuable. How do I fix that? Is that a signal about you hating meetings, or is it a signal that I'm a bad manager?

If I schedule 1:1s, and you join them, and then you give me one word answers to everything I ask, then you clearly don't want to be there. That gives me signals about our relationship: if we had a good relationship, we'd have more comfortablec conversations.

If I schedule 1:1s, and you join them, and you are apathetic or antagonistic, then that also tells me that there's a problem.

The 1:1 is an incredibly valuable period of time for us to have candid conversations, exchange feedback, and develop our relationship. That kind of thing requires two people to tango. I can't force you to do those things. But if you don't want to do those things, and you don't want to ensure that we work well together and can exchange feedback freely, then maybe we don't work well together, and we should re-evaluate our working relationship.

So is it for me? Sort of. The goal is for you to be involved with me in a private but accessible way. You and I having a relationship where we can build on fundamentals and create a safe, welcoming, innovative environment is the single most valuable thing a manager can do and that a report can accelerate and encourage.

But if you don't want to participate in that, then that doesn't bode well for your career at my company.

If you want to take that as "it's for you, not me," then that's fair, but I don't think you and I would work well together.

It's totally for the manager, they gotta fill their calendars to look like they're doing stuff. 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." I just put 3's on everything and wait for it to be over. Our company (whose application I built from scratch) just started doing this with a new manager after 6 years and I put in my notice on the first one.

My buddy put's all 1s. It's a stupid business culture bullshit thing like mandatory after hours "team building" exercises and stupid infantilization things they love to do now. The best managers on the best teams I worked with never did this.

I can assure you that not every manager needs to book 1:1’s to fill their calendar.

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.

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?

>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.

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.

It being for the report means it is also for the manager. The success of the report is the success of the manager.

But all of your examples are things I would have already discussed with my manager outside of any kind of formal 1:1s, so that doesn't leave anything for the 1:1.

That makes a 1:1 basically a performative exercise: I have to perform in it well enough that my manager won't be left thinking as you do in the quote.

Some of us don't have matching calendars so having a regular 1:1 cadence is easier. I know that I'll have a meeting with my supervisor every 2 weeks and if I have something I can tell them then. And if there's nothing to say we end it early and get back to work.

I've never had a manager where this wasn't possible, even when my manager has been in a different country than me. It does typically require me to reach out to them, though.

I've had bad bosses who don't know how to use 1:1s, and that means I have to do more work to make it valuable. I usually don't last long at those jobs, because I want bosses that make my job easier, not harder.

I've had reports that don't know how to use 1:1s, and it's incumbent upon me to teach them and ensure that they're getting maximum value out of it. If they aren't, then either I'm failing and I need to fix that, or they aren't interested, and I also need to fix that.

If you think your boss isn't hearing you or isn't someone you can trust and build a bond with and level up your career with, then but you either need to do some self-reflection or find a new boss.

There are other options, of course. You can keep your boss that you don't trust and get guidance elsewhere. Places like Rand's Leadership Slack or other tech hubs can be good places to get advice on how to level up in your career. There's a lot out there that you don't need to be chained to a boss whose 1:1s feel pointless.

I wish you the best of luck. Let me know if there's any way I can help.

For me the key to good 1:1s is to build trust and to make clear that there is no such thing as "what I want to hear". I want to hear what you think and how things are going generally. And if there is not much to discuss them let's have a coffee and chat about the weather and holiday plans, that's good as well.

I have one or two reports that fit pretty well into a group like you, who talk about "all of those things" outside of 1:1s. Totally a valid position! We still do a 1:1, but those turn into sort of work-tangential conversations, things like new tech that we're experimenting with on the side, or ideas for features that might be fun, or ways that we can incorporate the things they want to do into future roadmaps. Maybe it's not the most productive thing, but it can be fun, and sometimes you can be surprised by what comes out of a really good 1:1.

As sort of an example, I had a guy on my team that was super smart, highly productive, and he didn't need much hand-holding. We'd schedule 1:1s, and they would go well, but we'd also talk almost every day about the kinds of things that would normally come up in 1:1s. Just like you're describing.

We shared direct feedback regularly (he got distracted easily), we talked about the way he interacted with team members (which wasn't always great), the projects that he worked on (which were not necessarily the ones he wanted to work on). It was, on the surface, a good relationship, but obviously not a great one.

Then one day he mentioned off-hand something about his immigration status. My ears perked up, and I said "Tell me more." So in our 1:1, for probably 2-3 sessions, we talked about nothing but immigration and how it works, what his concerns were, and how much energy he spent thinking about his immigration status. Then he taught me about how the H1-B priority levels worked, and in the midst of that conversation, something clicked.

The reason this guy was easily distracted and the reason he was unhappy with the projects that he was working on wasn't because he had ADHD or thought the work sucked. The reason was because the projects he was working on were not things he could show to Immigration and say "See, I deserve a higher priority."

Once I had that realization, I was able to zoom out a bit and find projects that would give him a leg up on the prioritization scheduling. I was able to find time to let him work on white papers and formal, published research. He was able to patent something that we worked on. I helped him find conferences to give speeches at. All of these things he tackled with gusto and enthusiasm and, incidentally, fit into our company's roadmap.

Without that 1:1 that was seemingly unnecessary, I never would've made this connection, and he would still be miserable. Now he has his green card, just 18 months after that conversation, in part because he was able to demonstrate that he met certain criteria to the immigration authorities.

I understand the perspective of "I checked all the boxes outside of the meeting, why do I need this meeting?" but I encourage you to consider some of the softer values of the meeting. Even things as simple as getting to know your manager and finding out you have things in common will help.

It kind of sucks, but the more people can view you as a PERSON and not as a RESOURCE, the happier you both will be. And part of that involves spending lots of time with someone offline.

I don't think this. When I said it become "performative", I didn't mean that in terms of my work performance, I mean it in terms of having to perform well enough in the 1:1 so they don't leave a bad impression in my manager's mind.

I understand what you're saying here, and I'm certainly not of the mind that 1:1s are bad for everybody in every circumstance. I have just never been able to find any value in them myself. 1:1s are not a great forum for all people.

> Even things as simple as getting to know your manager and finding out you have things in common will help.

We do that, though, in less formalized interactions. Small talk before meetings, that sort of thing. Meaningful human interaction comes from normal social interaction, not from formal, scheduled meetings.

> I have to perform in it well enough that my manager won't be left thinking as you do in the quote.

although I admit I may have just misinterpreted this. A good manager expects honesty, not a performance. Have you spoken with your manager about what they expect from these 1:1s? Like OOP, you could just ask. Maybe you've done that.

Look, I hear you. I know exactly what you're saying. My stance is that if you rely on ad-hoc meetings, you can't reliably get these interactions. A regularly scheduled cadence provides peace of mind for everyone.

But also, that doesn't work for everyone. I've had some managers where 1:1s were not regularly scheduled, but kind of random. The key that i want to get across is that we can't just stop having these conversations, scheduled or not.

I think we can agree on that part?

I'm not saying that you're wrong, by the way (and I don't think we disagree on the fundamentals you're talking about). I'm just expressing what it is about the 1:1 format specifically that makes me dislike them.

For perspective, I have a weekly meeting with my manager where we touch base to discuss team direction and whatnot (I'm the lead of my team). That's not in a 1:1 format at all and isn't about me, my professional development, any of that.

However, those meetings result in most of the benefits that you're talking about nonetheless and work for me precisely because they're not about me.

My point is that the 1:1 format itself is not one that works well for everyone. If you're the sort of personality that doesn't mesh with the whole 1:1 thing, then 1:1s are just things you have to do because the company requires them.

You could argue that our weekly meetings are, in fact, 1:1s in disguise. I wouldn't say that you're wrong, even though the focus is a bit different. But they are very useful to me because of that, where I find it extremely difficult to find value in actual 1:1s.

1. OP didn't say what they wanted to achieve, except for generally improving their career. It's worth trying to make that specific. OP's idea of that will be different from yours, and different from mine. Each person has different objectives.

2. In most situations, your manager is trying to make you successful, for some definition of successful. This is a joint endeavour. It's worth trying to understand what your manager sees as success, even if there is not 100% overlap with what you see as success. 'High Output Management' has good sections on both effective 1:1s and delegation. They are only a couple of pages each. Worth reading and re-reading.

3. Good 1:1s require some effort (including preparation and follow up) but the investment should be worthwhile. (Of course, it's possible that the majority of people have regular 1:1s that are close to useless. But this doesn't have to be you.)

It's for both.

It allows the manager to build rapport and trust, to find out things that might not be said in a public or formal setting, and to mentor and coach in a safe environment.

You, as manager should also be asking plenty of questions, including to seek feedback.

I don't do it in every 1:1, but probably every 3rd or 4th 1:1, I ask for feedback about my own performance and about how they feel about other parts of the organization. I've found it incredibly valuable.

But the primary agenda is your agenda, not mine. Mine is often supplemental and periodic, but the more important and more immediately relevant agenda is yours.

If I need to talk to you about something else, it would be in something other than a regularly-scheduled 1:1, typically.

My team are welcome to come up with other ways to do it besides a 30 minute chat in a sterile room or over Zoom, but we need to keep a regular cadence of feedback, or our working relationships will deteriorate.

I have one guy who just wants to go for walks, so instead of getting in a room, we'll both walk 15 minutes to a Starbucks, grab some coffee, and walk back, and that gives us 30 minutes to chat. Only occasionally will I insist on doing it with a whiteboard or a laptop, but those are usually when there's something more "formal" about it. I'd say we only do it in an office room about once a quarter.

For some of my team, it's a 15 minute chat, for at least two of them, they turn into 60+ minutes of discussion. There's no one-size-fits-all here, but there has to be _something_, IMO.