A response to Forbes Magazine "Deciding whether to cancel or keep your one-to-one meetings"
In a recent article “Deciding whether to cancel or keep your one-to-one meetings” (Forbes, Nov 17, 2024) I was sad to read several things presented in the article. First off, was the question as to whether managers should keep or cancel their one-to-one meetings with team members. Their rational: productivity is impacted by having to many one-to-ones. My initial reaction: there is so much more to our organizational effectiveness than simply productivity.
We have failed terribly at valuing the importance of professional relationships within our organizations. In business, one of the first things we learn is that we buy from those we know, like, and trust. Going into business didn’t mean getting clients from day one. It has taken a few years to cultivate relationships that translate into referrals and clients. The corporate sector is no different and the lack of good, professional relationships often derails teams and therefore productivity – ironically, all accomplished through one-to-ones. The lack of effective one-to-ones actually impedes productivity while eroding engagement.
Consider Phillip’s experience. Phillip’s new manager eagerly scheduled weekly one-to-one meetings with him only to quickly cancel the first one, followed by one after another until they were removed all together from the calendar. Over the course of two years, there is a complete lack of any employee-supervisor relationship. Conversations in meetings are tense at best (among the entire team), but worse, the lack of one-to-ones has had significant impacts on operational goals. Emails go unanswered, deadlines are not met, projects are not re-prioritized all because there is a lack of the valuable communication that one-to-ones provide, resulting in a direct and negative impact on productivity.
The article also suggested that managers omit one-to-one’s in favor of group settings or team meetings. This really doesn’t make good sense, especially for those who report they’re overly concerned for time. No one likes to attend meetings that they deem meaningless and unproductive. In addition, lengthy meetings take away actual productive time. I recall my corporate days when I spent countless hours in meetings only to wonder when I was going to get to the work generated from said countless hours of meetings. Furthermore, no one wants to sit through time spent listening to their colleagues go through their own operational need. In addition, its actually demoralizing for employees to have these types of conversations in front of their peers, which there may be tension between members due to a lack of team building. Of course there are times when a variety of perspectives and/or team members are needed to make effective decisions, then a larger meeting is of course needed.
One of the chief complaints is that they lack structure. The lack of structure with a one-to-one is intentional. One-to-ones should be employee, not manager driven. I often run across ridged agendas for leaders to use to “improve” their one-to-ones. This actually has the opposite effect by putting the team member on the offensive. I’ve heard for years that team members often fear the ridged one-to-one confessing that feel like entrapment, a “gotcha” session, or just an opportunity to pile on yet more work. And, in a state of anxiety, your team members are not going to be at their best. If you feel the need to have some input into the agenda, the consent agenda (in which both parties build the agenda together) is a great alternative. Developing a consent agenda really does not take that much time as both parties already have a pretty good idea of their needs.
Weekly one-to-ones are not necessary. Consider applying the Situational (leadership) approach to scheduling and conducting one-to-ones. New or less effective team members will likely need a weekly one-to-one, more experienced and motivated team members may only need you once a month. Team members are in a varying state of development, using the situational approach meets the needs of everyone.
We’re forgetting why leaders exist. Yes, leaders do need to have a good handle on operations, but they also exist to excite and engage team members in the work, keep them engaged in the mission and vision, share insights and updates from the executive team, and ensure good working relationships across the team. Have we become so focused on productivity that we’ve lost sight of the many additional reasons our organizations function? We still need to work together effectively. We still need to innovate. We still need to provide valuable services to customers. We need engaged team members who can function at their best. Alleviating everything in the name of productivity is simply short sighted.
Download our 12 things: strategies to engage your team members that cost nothing!
Comments