I disagree. I approach 1:1s as an opportunity to just shoot the shit if that person is interested, or if there is something on their mind they can choose to chat about it. As the article states, it's that person's chance to completely dictate the conversation.
I think the best is to personalize things as best you can (depending on your team size). Some personalities are less interested in talking, which is fine―I just try to make sure nothing is blocking them or they're not dissatisfied. Some people love to talk about their life, and I usually have to time-box that.
I genuinely care about how my team is doing and want to help them grow, so 1:1s are my main opportunity to figure out how I can help them... especially in the era of remote work.
I am glad for your team, that you genuinely care. There are enough people stuck in management positions that should sit locked in the basement instead of managing people and making their lives miserable. Currently my one-on-ones are 20 minutes meetings once a year where manager reads from paper what he thinks about my performance last year. I have no right to question his decision. I could open a case with HR to review my review, but it will not improve anything for sure. As long my reviews are good I am good.
I would disagree, but it comes down to what kind of manager you have. I have seen plenty of people here on HN say that their 1:1 are basically just a manager going through the motion but there are still many 1:1 who are highly effective.
1:1s between me and my manager are usually very productive. Our project had non existent tests and through 1:1s I was able to advocate for tests and TDD to my manager. 6 months later our entire team is all-in on TDD. There were other gaps that I noticed on my team too that I would bring up in our 1:1 and we have a discussion about it. Are all my suggestions going to be implemented? No, but it's still worth having a discussion.
> I would disagree, but it comes down to what kind of manager you have. I have seen plenty of people here on HN say that their 1:1 are basically just a manager going through the motion but there are still many 1:1 who are highly effective.
In my experience it's a bit of a mix; sometimes (even often, if things are just going well) 1:1 are just "going through the motions", but sometimes it's a good opportunity to raise concerns or issues that don't necessarily have a place otherwise. It partly depends on the manger, but also hugely depends if there's actually something to discus.
I personally wouldn't raise technical concerns in there though; these are the kind of things that fit in well in general technical meetings where the entire team can discus the issue, and the manager can then make a decision (assuming there isn't a broad consensus yes).
1-on-1s are one of my most valuable meetings. You have a direct line to your manager (and often "skip level" where you talking to their boss). That's phenomenal time to push your agenda, build consensus, stuff like that. But if you are just a Jira ticket finisher (and you like it, which is cool!) then I can see how it is less useful.
