Solid article. When you get new managers, 1:1 structure is always a great indicator of the leadership style and very often a tell-tell sign of the working relationship/partnership
Pro Tip - Try doing walking 121s every now and then. People feel more comfortable sharing without the eye contact 😉 anyone who's raised teenagers will understand where I'm coming from 💙
I’ve worked with managers who saw 1:1s as a nuisance to be avoided at all costs. Interestingly, they’ve been stripped of their managerial responsibilities.
This is a sensible approach to start taking control of these crucial conversations.
This is a really sharp breakdown of manager‑ vs report‑owned 1:1s, but I’m curious if the framing might be a bit too binary?
In practice, some of the most effective 1:1s I’ve seen are intentionally “unstructured,” where the lack of a rigid agenda is actually the signal that there’s psychological safety and real trust.
Do you think there’s a risk that over‑systematizing 1:1s (clear owner, explicit agenda, recurring templates) optimizes for consistency at the expense of those messy but high‑value conversations where neither side is quite sure what needs to surface yet?
As I say above: "Think of this flow as a reference flow, not a checklist."
My personal take is that unstructured 1:1s miss out on full potential of the conversations. Good 1:1s between managers and employees can accelerate careers, that is how important I think they are.
Solid article. When you get new managers, 1:1 structure is always a great indicator of the leadership style and very often a tell-tell sign of the working relationship/partnership
Pro Tip - Try doing walking 121s every now and then. People feel more comfortable sharing without the eye contact 😉 anyone who's raised teenagers will understand where I'm coming from 💙
Great tip - I will try it soon
The best 1:1s are shared ownership, not manager-led or passive check-ins.
The best 1:1s aren’t owned by either side, they’re co-created.
I’ve worked with managers who saw 1:1s as a nuisance to be avoided at all costs. Interestingly, they’ve been stripped of their managerial responsibilities.
This is a sensible approach to start taking control of these crucial conversations.
This is a really sharp breakdown of manager‑ vs report‑owned 1:1s, but I’m curious if the framing might be a bit too binary?
In practice, some of the most effective 1:1s I’ve seen are intentionally “unstructured,” where the lack of a rigid agenda is actually the signal that there’s psychological safety and real trust.
Do you think there’s a risk that over‑systematizing 1:1s (clear owner, explicit agenda, recurring templates) optimizes for consistency at the expense of those messy but high‑value conversations where neither side is quite sure what needs to surface yet?
As I say above: "Think of this flow as a reference flow, not a checklist."
My personal take is that unstructured 1:1s miss out on full potential of the conversations. Good 1:1s between managers and employees can accelerate careers, that is how important I think they are.