Ask HN: What do you do in your 1-on-1s with your direct reports?

409 points by ankurvjy ↗ HN
Specifically in the context of engineering management, how frequently do you have 1-on-1s with your direct reports, how do you structure them, and what have you found to work and not work well?

154 comments

[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 183 ms ] thread
Not a manager, but I meet with my engineering manager once a week.

We set the ground rules early on that we'd avoid the two extremes of the topic spectrum: project status updates and venting about issues that neither of us can take action on to address.

I'm given free reign to choose a topic and drive the meeting. Unless there's some pressing matter, I fallback to reviewing the work I did the past week and how I feel it helps (or doesn't) my career goals.

I try to give good examples of gaps I'd like to address so he can look for such opportunities in future projects, conferences, or in-house training.

My goal is that my manager will have a good understanding of the type of specific tasks I like to do and/or that will better help my future.

Once a week for 30 mins, and I never, ever reschedule them.

I treat these meetings as untouchable because I want my direct reports to know that I value them. I don't want to reschedule and make them feel like I don't care, so I will never reschedule them.

We don't discuss their weekly work or tasks, we discuss their careers, their career path, how they can get to the next level, any problems they are encountering, etc. I dedicate this time to them and their career and their time at the company.

Do you think it's possible that reports may think this is a waste of their time?
I've seen very few peers feel this way occassionally, and it's insane to me. If you can't find a way to get value from 30m with your manager, there's something obstinate about you, not wise.
@refulgentis Can you give me examples of value you got from your manager in a 1-on-1?
I can get value from 30m with my manager if he’s not otherwise available. If I sit next to him on a daily basis, not so much.
I have even more than 30 minutes. When there's a need. Then I go to him, speak with him, share the problem or revelation I have, he advises or take an advice, we check on it later if needed and off we go. None of my colleagues values wasting their time (we've got a discussion about it already,) so if you'd like to show us you care, you'd reduce number of meetings greatly.
> If you can't find a way ... there's something obstinate about you

Blaming the employee when the manager is responsible.

I'm surprised to see lots of comments with managers meeting their direct reports for 30 minutes per week...assuming 10 reports, thats 5 hours a week... Or basically 1 hour per day just to talk about someone's career.

My manager blocks off 2 hours per week. If you have something to talk about, put a meeting on his calendar. The only obligation is the semi annual 1:1.

I talk to my manager on a daily basis so any 1:1 is really for career path, no project status, gripes about people, etc.

Of course if they want to skip their 1:1 that's up to them. I am actively telling them that I'm making 30 mins a week available for them strictly for them, but if they feel like they would rather do something else, that's perfectly fine for me.
What could transpire within a week _outside of_ weekly work or tasks that could influence your reports' career trajectory or force them to re-evaluate it? To put this in context, I'm attending such meetings but really see them as a noblesse oblige type of ritual that serves to reinforce our rapport (we don't see each other much otherwise), but otherwise a waste of my time from my standpoint.
Agreed. I find 1:1s to be rather useless along with engineering managers in general if I may be honest, they are simply paper pushers and approve expense reports here and there. You are the one in control of your career and you have to put in work yourself to make it to the next level, the EM is there just to submit your promotion packet and act like they provide value to the company (they don't do any real "work" per say, and at the end of the week if you ask them what have they accomplished, pretty much all they can say is attended a bunch of meetings).

*maybe I am being a bit harsh, they do provide some value in that they would be trying to guide me and provide feedback about how I can make it to the next level, but usually that is spelled out in a eng career ladder, and you would know what skills you need to work on from peer feedback, not your EM since your EM does not work with you everyday nor review your code.

I think maybe consider one of the following could be true

1) You have worked with bad managers

2) You don't appreciate what a manager has to deal with. I have often felt that one of my roles as a manager is to protect the team from the board. The board waste a lot of my time while the team get to keep working. Equally the board prefer to deal with me because I have learned how to put things in their terms.

Maybe you should use your one on one to ask what they have been doing recently.

I have a good friend who is a senior engineer who is always complaining about managers, but hates dealing with other stakeholders in the business. Maybe you are under-appreciating them because you don't like what they have to do.

In terms of career progression, yes a manager can't do that for you. However a manager can recognise that you are driven and allocate work that gives you the experience they want.

I spend a lot of time doing PR for my team. The board don't really understand what they do and it is hard for them to tell who is good and who is not. I'm currently moving out of a position, and my best direct report is replacing me (in a reorganised role, doing more tech and less management). They got the job because of my advocacy, and because I allocated them work that would prepare them for the role over the past couple of years. They have been nervously learning the ropes whilst constantly commenting that, 'I remember this!'.

Not sure what are you talking about. The best moment to speak about anything is ASAP. I am not going to wait until next 1-on-1 meeting day because that's the procedure. I am not going to track the bullets of interesting topic throughout a week and wait either because I have many better ways to spend my time at office, like contributing to the project. If I have anything that needs a discussion I go to manager and talk, or I go out for a lunch with him. It works both ways. A 1-on-1, to me, is an artificial construct created so the organization can mark a goal completed "we are trying to foster a better culture and growth environment, blah blah blah." What are you talking about when there is nothing to talk about? Not because of hostility - just everything has been already discussed. Don't get me wrong here. I am on very good terms with my manager and we have not always easy but honest communication channel for few years, now. We just cancelled our 1-on-1 and I couldn't be more happy about it. None of us lost anything.
> Not sure what are you talking about. The best moment to speak about anything is ASAP. I am not going to wait until next 1-on-1 meeting day because that's the procedure.

But then all of your conversations are about operational matters.

When can you talk about careers? When should I talk to my employees about the 'boiling a frog' stuff? A steady increase in workload, the new x is causing anxiety with y. Or even that person x is concerned about person y's welfare. All huddled in our open plan office, it is hard to have those conversations. The 1 to 1 allows that.

As I said - ASAP. I come to my manager and ask "hey, can you spare N minutes for me?" If he can't, which obviously may happen, then I ask for convenient but close enough time when he's available. The form is up to me and him - we're having lunch quite often. For you a separate room might work better. Case by case, I guess. But again, it doesn't change anything I said - I am talking with him because there is a reason, so the meeting actually is meaningful, not because it's scheduled or because other companies doing it.
AS someone that recently transitioned from engineer to engineering manager, I don't feel like I'm doing less. Quite the opposite. Is the work as worthwhile? It is mandated by the company. So no real engineering would happen without it. Is the work as rewarding? Not yet and that makes it feel more like "work" than my previous job. I hope that changes as time goes on.
As a subordinate, I would think once a month is more than adequate. How often do things change in your career path where you would need that much time to discuss it. Obviously there are times you may need to meet more frequently but shouldn't that be on the subordinate to schedule if they are interested in their future?
There's a great description of how to run a 1-on-1 in High Output Management by Andy Grove.

I like to have them every 2 weeks with a new hire, and every month thereafter. Sometimes, if something comes up midweek that feels like it needs to be addressed, I'll schedule one before that.

Structure--

Location: take a walk or go to a non-work but private space

Ask questions about their general feelings: - How are you doing? - How are things in the office? With co-workers? - Are you enjoying your work? What could make it better?

Ask them for feedback: - Is there anything that's been on your mind? Any issues either with me or other staff? - Is there something that we could be doing better in their eyes? What would they change?

Do they have a career goal they are progressing towards? - What position would you like to be in 1-2 years? - What can I do to help you get there? - How do you feel your recent projects have helped in that regard?

Only after I exhaust them and their feelings will I bring up feedback I have for them -- again, with exceptions, if the 1-on-1 was called to handle a specific issue, that will be addressed pretty fast.

I am loathe to take advice from Andy Grove, only because I feel that employment rules of engagement have changed drastically when he was a manager.

In the last 5 years, I've seen the minimum time in Silicon Valley to stay at a job drop precipitously from 2 years (the norm that I'm used to going back 20 years) down to 1 year. I see a lot of jumping around, especially at the more junior end of the spectrum, where total comp can jump by 30-50k in the first 3-5 years of experience.

And young people know this, because everyone shares their salaries and total comp openly. This is a big change from my generation. So they're aggressively leaving after the first year, moving a couple of times and earning a lot more than they would have if they simply stayed at their job for 2-4 years.

One thing young people want is to be mentored aggressively, and for them to get their careers on track immediately. I try to cater to this by meeting with them once a week, to show them that I actually do care about their career path, and also selfishly, in hopes that they don't want to leave within a year and I'm left trying to fill another headcount. If I left the 1:1 to once a month, then I would only see them less than half a dozen times before they've decided they're going to leave.

But if they know that I'm working with them to further their experience, that they're not stuck in a rut and if they stay with me, that they can trust me and they won't get screwed doing all the boring grunt work, then I have a hope they will stay 2+ years with me before they leave.

It is not clear though that the OP is from SV, or indeed what % of people reading this are from SV.

I am not, and although I have hopped a few jobs recently (not due to chasing salary) and it has been 'forgiven' by the market, the usual is still >2yr where I am based.

I second the Manager Tools podcast, it has been great for getting started with engineering management. Here's what's distilled down from a lot of their intro casts:

1. Have a 1x1 once a week with each direct for 30 min

2. If you can have your 1x1 walking (go for coffee, head outside) try and do that; conversation flows easier when it's not in a confined space like a meeting room.

3. Loosely allocate the meeting in 1/2: 15 min for them to talk about whatever they want. 15 min for you to talk about what you need to talk about (usually top->down information), and at least leave a few min at the end for career development or tactics.

4. Throw out rule #3 if they want to talk more than 15 min. Always cut your portion down to accommodate them. The point of the meeting is to build trust. Building trust means listening to your directs and getting to know them and what makes them tick. You'll always learn more by listening than instructing.

And that's basically it, that will get you a long way for now!

My only caveat on (2) is when you have coffee make time to stop and listen to your direct report and stop in a place they feel comfortable and can talk open and freely.

I had a manager once that stomped his way around a mall. Spent the whole time keeping up with him (taller) while avoiding colleagues also getting coffee. Didn't feel I could focus on what I wanted to say while walking and felt rushed. Wasn't even convinced he was focused on our activity either. Not very good and not very productive for me (manager was fine, he'd got his coffee).

I would go absolutely insane if I had to have a 1-on-1 with my manager every week. I’m sure some people love it, but it’s not for everyone.
I thought so too. Then i joined Google, where it’s mandatory. After some time I learned to see the value. Ever since i left Google i tried to have them, but managers dont seem to buy into this idea, and i miss it dearly
Why didn't you like them and what changed your mind?
completely agree. 1 on 1s in my experience (25 years with lots of managers) is they have no value for me.
How few directs does one usually have?

My last office had 30 people under one manager, and my current have 15.

I don't see how weekly 30 minutes 1-1's are feasible.

Prevailing thought in this context is that a single person cannot reasonably manage more than 10 people, and a good number is 6 or 7.

I agree with that, I have no idea how I'd keep the interests and issues and projects and goals and whatnot of 15 people in my head, let alone 30.

I do weekly half-hour 1:1’s with all my direct reports. Each one is pre-scheduled for the same time every week. I almost never cancel, although I do reschedule sometimes.

The first half is for whatever they want to talk about (work status, planning, career guidance, personal stuff, anything they want). The second half is for my list: usually tactical work stuff, but I step back and ask about their overall feelings and professional goals about once per month.

It’s a useful tool for coordinating work, and it has the nice side effect of redicing interruptions because most things can wait a few days until our 1:1. But the primary reason I do them so often is to build stronger relationships. I know my people very well, and they know me. Spending so much time together builds a lot of trust, which is extremely valuable.

My direct report is a fairly novice developer. We are both Americans at a Japanese start-up, so the dynamic is a little different. We tend toward frequent, shorter meetings rather than infrequent, longer meetings as we've found that works better for us in this particular environment.

Every morning I take a couple of minutes to talk to him, make sure he knows where he's going and that he has the tools (technological and social) to get there.

About once a week, we have a wrap-up meeting to cover what we've accomplished, what's blocking us, and where we're going. This usually doesn't take more than 10 minutes and we'll skip it by mutual agreement if we both feel we're up to date and don't have anything in particular to talk about.

About once a month or so we have a 30-60 minute session over tea or coffee to just discuss communication at work, strategies, his morale, and how he feels he's doing in terms of happiness and making progress toward his personal goals.

Sometimes special situations come up through the course of work and we'll have impromptu sessions to talk about them as necessary.

Hi,

Completely off topic, but I am looking for a job in Japan - I will be moving there tomorrow actually for family reason. Could I have your details (or could you send me an email - my email is in my HN profile.) I am a senior data scientist. Thanks in advance

(comment deleted)
I do fortnightly 1/1s with my team members (individually) for half an hour. The time is set but this can be in a room or a walk or over coffee. I had given them a choice of weekly or fortnightly and most chose the latter (those wanted it more frequent still get it). However my policy is that we do not wait till the 1/1 to discuss things that can be discussed sooner (especially things like feedback).

What worked for me (through experimentation and error) is I try hard to get folks to not talk about project status in the 1/1 (we have standups and planning for that). It is after all their time and unless I have direct feedback on behaviours I prefer to make it all about them. Their problems, Their goals, their dreams, their ambitions, interests and so on. After all if they are not most inspired being in my team I want to make sure I can find them work/projects/teams that they would be more aligned with (and knit that around timeframes).

At first the things that would not go well would be running out things to say. Either due to shyness or introversion or general fear of a new manager. The other side was me accepting it and moving on. While deciding when to dive deep and when not to is subtle, often zooming out on their future and then coming back to skillset often kicks off a good discussion (and some fine action items for both of us).

This is almost exactly how I do my 1/1s with my team members. Except the frequency for folks who have been in the team for more than 6 months is 3 weeks and for newer members its 2 weeks. Also, I make it a point to ask them to provide feedback for their peers - positive and constructive. I make notes and I use the 1/1s to also give regular, informal peer feedback to the team members. I ask them what's going well for the team and how we can improve the processes, the productivity etc
+1 on the getting feedback from them. Especially around team and productivity had been great in even getting to the bottom of some subtle conflict brewing around. Very nice call-out mate.
Another +1 on soliciting feedback from teammates on a regular basis. As long as the manager is impartial, doesn't take sides, respects privacy, etc this can benefit both the subordinates and team. Grievances get aired and steps can be taken immediately instead of hearing about issues in the subordinates' peer reviews at the end of the year.
Listen, that's the number one thing. The second is be honest about whether or not you're willing to take action on a certain action. The third is follow through 100% everything you promise. In a way, it's the same principles that make good parents.
I'm not actively a manager at this point in time, given I'm only 1 of 3 in a still young startup. However, I managed teams for years prior, with upwards of 25 direct & indirect reports when I was a director.

Frequency was 45 minutes every two weeks, but I'm receptive to the idea this should be weekly or monthly, depending on your team structure. Always find the cadence that helps you accomplish the goals of your 1:1s as a manager (so be flexible!).

I always walked during my 1:1s. When I managed people remote, we'd talk on the phone while I'd walk around. I find I actively listen far better when I'm moving. Obviously this comes down to preference, and I always deferred my preferences to that of my report. If they wanted to sit in an office or do a video call, we would do that.

Content varied. I strongly discourage pure status updates, but I'm not dogmatic about not talking about day-to-day work during these meetings. Utilizing the context of WHAT they are doing to discuss HOW they can improve is very useful, so you can still leverage "status-update" style conversations towards the improvement of your report.

Genuinely try to build an understanding of the human being you're having a 1:1 with. What makes them tick? What are their passions? How do they like to work? Who do they like to work with? What makes them feel insecure? Beyond just connecting with them as a human being, all of this information can help you to anticipate their needs and be proactive, rather than reactive.

Don't allow the meetings to be cut short (this is a general rule of thumb I have for team meetings & 1:1s). By making it clear that we were ALWAYS going to use the 45 minutes, I found my colleagues always came more well prepared with their own topics. If you allow it to cut short, people who are more introverted, or find 1:1s challenging, may use silence as a way to cut it short.

If you're a manager looking to groom a first time manager, have them run 1:1s with their peers. Make it clear to their colleagues that this person is interested in becoming a manager, and is looking to practice this skill. It gives them some time to hone this skill in a low-risk situation, and I've found everyone to be willing to be a team-player with this sort of setup.

Most managers I know take notes. I think the general rule is, be an active listener. Do whatever you need to do to retain all the information you need to retain.

Honestly, there's way more to 1:1s than I could write in a single HN post. Lots of info all around in these comments. No one size fits all, so seek to find the size that works for you and your team!

Weekly, unless if the report asks for less.

The actual structure of the 1x1 varies on the personality and the state of my relationship with the report. Some engineers are good at talking about how they feel and how things are going, some need some prompting. Sometimes there can be a lot of really uncomfortable silence, which is hard to get used to.

I’ve found that the one real rule is to not let one side or another talk 100% of the time. Plenty of people will use constant chatter as a way to avoid talking about important matters at hand. Sometimes this takes the form of random banter and general ADD things (guilty), but some people will fill the time with a status report to avoid talking about how they’re unhappy with how things are going. If one party tries to run their mouth the entire time, chances are somethings up.

This includes if you, the manager, is the one doing all the talking.

This seems to work for me:

1. This is your time to talk about whatever is on your mind. If you want to talk about the footy over the weekend, that's fine. If you want to talk about work or issues at home or career progression, that's fine.

2. Sometimes there is not much to talk about - and that's fine too. If they do not have much to say on a particular day and I don't have much to say, it's a short meeting.

3. As said previously, try never to reschedule and never, never forget.

4. It's a really good time as a manager to practice listening. For that reason, I never have an agenda (i.e. things I want to say) at these meetings. Also, I try to contain the impulse to give advice unless they specifically ask for it.

5. I make it quite clear that as far as legally possible, I will maintain confidentiality. The only time that something may be relayed upward is if there is requirement for me to do so (e.g. an employee reporting harassment).

Good advice - now we need a catchy rename to get the point across - "listening meeting", "listen:1"?
Does anyone have tips or resources on how to improve their listening skill? I know I'm a terrible listener because I'm always looking for solutions but I know that 80% of the time, they just want to be heard.

I can barely turn off my thoughts when I'm meditating, how can you give your undivided attention without any internal distractions? What do you do when the conversation feels boring or tedious?

Instead of thinking about what they're saying, study their emotional cues. Its a skill and it takes attention and practice, and distracts from thinking about solutions.
I am not an expert but I think it's impossible for someone to turn off thoughts. One school of thought is to distract your mind from thoughts by focusing on breathing. Another way is to just observe the thoughts without trying to suppress it. Yet another way is to discover the source of the thought (search for "who am I" by Ramana Maharshi)
I think it's more about "Wanting to say something and acting" rather than not listening. You want to act and provide solution because maybe you are an engineer at heart.

Try to count to 3 in your mind before saying something.

I would also invest in hobbies where there is a lot of thinking and less action.

Good: - Chess - Yoga - Anything where you need to wait/think before acting

Bad: - Quick quiz apps - Anything that require you to act quickly

Unfortunately some cultures cherish and reward "quick thinking" and action over real thinking.
I could see some jobs prioritizing quick, reasonable reactions over long-term optimal solutions, so the culture might be understandably aligned. Maybe site reliability or release eng.
Take notes. That forces you to process what they are saying instead of thinking about your response. You’ll have plenty of time to talk when they stop.
Practice, practice, practice. I find it hard as all heck not to be in problem solving mode. That's essentially what we do in the tech industry in our jobs. Take a problem, break it down to manageable chunks and fix the them.

Do some digging around and read up on "Active Listening". The bare bones of it are just to hear what the person is saying, and reflect it back. "It sounds like you're frustrated because <paraphrase>." If you're attempting to accurately paraphrase, it will take quite some concentration on what someone is saying. The devil is in the details, and so is a lot of subtleties.

It might be worth seeing a counsellor, they're trained in, and can help you to develop, these kinds of skills.

Reading works of literature, it sort of helps me to understand the people around me. Sometimes it helps to understand people and their motives, sometimes you get to be more compassionate, it depends.
I keep a notebook and open a new page every time I walk into a meeting. I take down all salient points. If I have trouble putting something down, that's usually an indication I need to ask more questions.
In my 1-1s (as the subordinate) this note taking sometimes makes me nervous. It begins to feel like a therapy session. “Did I say something wrong? Was I just being weird? Is he gonna hold me to some offhand, throwaway comment I just made???”

If you’re taking notes it helps if you communicate what you’re doing with them, and what exactly you wrote down. I have adjusted my 1-1 conversation to avoid anything that might be considered a commitment or otherwise official. So that I speak very vaguely now. And often avoid issues that are related to my current role or work. In the past not doing so has bit me. Even though I’ve been told the 1-1 time is not about status updates.

In my case, I jot things down at every meeting so everyone in my team is used to it (or at least I think so).
Instead of trying to come up with solutions focus on being able to repeat back what you just heard, in fact, it might be helpful to the person if you summarize what they said so they know they've been understood. Just stop there, don't offer any advice unless you really believe they're asking for it.
>Does anyone have tips or resources on how to improve their listening skill?

Get married?

It isn't about you providing the answer. It is about you asking questions and later providing options to help them find the answer. And often with this approach they may find a better answer than you were initially thinking.

If the server's on fire and you have a fire extinguisher, use it. Times are rarely so urgent, and in such an occasion you need to debrief and get input anyway.

I follow this too. I try to meet 1:1 biweekly with my direct reports. Here are some ideas on management that I believe will make this effective

1. Try to meet with every one of you direct reports consistently.

2. I believe you should have less than 8 direct reports. The number is not important. Its that you have the time to meet with each one on a consistent basis.

3. If you have a large team then you need to delegate managerial duties. Work with HR if you can't do it directly. At least set up team leads.

Why only biweekly?
I want my report to focus on work. I don't want them in too many meetings.
do reports, in general, want 1 on 1s? i certainly don't. They hold no value to me. They are largely constructed to inform managers as to what's going on, which is something I already know.
Great list. I agree listening is primary, but I think a manager should work to make sure particular topics get discussed. For some people it's enough just to say "what's on your mind?" But for others I find I need to be more specific.

One thing I make sure we don't talk about is status reports. A lot of people have been trained to do that in a 1:1 and I think that's a waste of time. As a manager it's my job to know what's going on; if I don't I should adjust systems so that I do. So that everybody does.

But the things I really want to dig in on are deeper issues. It's my job to make sure my people are happy at the company and are growing in their careers. So if they don't bring it up on their own I'll ask questions about emotional state and emotional reactions to situations. E.g., "How did you feel about that?" "Are you feeling sufficiently challenged?" "What have you learned this week?"

I also think it's valuable to have a list of ongoing themes and to keep returning to them. Otherwise it's easy for an issue to drop into the background. E.g., somebody has an issue with a coworker, or is feeling bored, or thinks we have too many meetings, or thinks we don't take tech debt seriously enough. People mentioning that even once is a gift: I can't fix systemic problems if I don't know about them. And even if the system is fine, I don't want my people just putting up with their jobs. I want them happy.

So it is definitely their time. But I'm also the person with more experience both in the industry and specifically doing 1:1 meetings. I'm also the person with more power to fix many problems. So if they have anything they want to talk about, I'll honor that for sure. But if they don't, I think it's my job to ask good questions.

> So if they don't bring it up on their own I'll ask questions about emotional state and emotional reactions to situations

This! All too often management thinks the "Tell me what's on your mind" covers them with the ol' "Well I asked and they didn't say anything" excuse. It absolutely does not.

As a newer hire on my team, sure I feel able to discuss deeper things with my manager. But for better or worse, that doesn't mean I always will. It's leadership's job to get the ball running with these types of deeper questions, rather than just asking "Tell me what's on your mind". Just asking for someone to tell you whatever is on your mind is much too ambiguous and needs to be narrowed in scope.

> 4. Never give advice unless specifically asked for it.

As an employee, I’ve quit a job notably because my team lead didn’t give me much advice. I didn’t know you had to “unlock it” by asking first “please give me advice”.

Seriously you’re in 1-1 as a specific help for communication. If you refrain from communicating because a specific keyword wasn’t said, then it’s culture enforcement at its best.

This is a great list. I strictly adhered to them all. I also did the following:

1. Created a Google Doc for the direct to enter an agenda ahead of time. They were not required to fill it out. Many did anyway. It helped me prepare to listen, knowing the topics.

2. Scheduled time in a meeting room. I know lots of people like to do the walking 1-on-1s. I don't. I think it's hard to have face-to-face communication when you're standing next to each other, and it's nigh impossible to take any kind of notes. That said, if my direct said: "can we just go for a walk?", I released the meeting room and we went for a walk.

3. Blocked my calendar for 15-30 minutes on either side of the meetings. This ensured I had time to move from one meeting to the next and allowed for a bit of spillover time if necessary (say the previous meeting room occupants were slow in vacating, a common occurrence).

My manager does it mostly like this:

Scheduled every two weeks, but we're both quite busy, so we often let it slide unless one of us has something that we've been wanting to talk about, but we're both available at that time if either of us does. We're both easygoing with rescheduling or canceling.

First chunk is the "how's it going" bit to gauge general mood. Then a bit of feedback (he's been hearing good things about me, or maybe that I've been too quiet lately and need to communicate more, etc.) Then a prompt for me to talk about whatever. Finally, sometimes there might be a bit where I bring up scheduling vacation or he brings up a side task/project that he wants to ask me to work on.

I usually ask about big-picture and long-term stuff - where we're going as a company, how some big initiative that I haven't heard about recently is going, how it's going to affect our plans that we're behind schedule on some things after having had to re-prioritize others to the front, etc.

My former managers never did 1-on-1s, so I'm still not really sure what sorts of things I'm supposed to talk/ask about. I'm learning a bit from this thread. Maybe useful to use one of the meetings to hash that out - what do you want to get from it, what you want them to get from it, and vice-versa.

I've seen, head and read quite a bit about engineering 1-1s.

After doing engineering management for a decade and trying many ideas, I ended up with the following.

Have weekly 1 hour 1-1s if you have 5 direct reports or less.

Have weekly 30 minute 1-1s if you have between 5 and 10 direct reports.

If you have more than 10 direct reports, hopefully there is some plan. With 10 direct reports, many best practices do not apply.

My primary rule for 1-1s is not to waste time. I do not walk for 1-1s, because it is a waste of time. I do not cut 1-1s short when my direct reports have nothing to talk about, because it is a waste of time. I thoroughly prepare for 1-1s.

I have a shared document with every direct report where I write a summary of the 1-1s. My direct reports can add anything they want at any time (e.g. include topics they want to cover in the next 1-1 so that I can prepare ahead of time).

I start with a quick review of the previous 1-1 and close the loop on all outstanding topics from the previous 1-1.

Next, I give my direct reports an opportunity to raise any topics they want to discuss. I listen to what they have to say. I give answers when I have them. When I do not have answers I write down the question and try to find answers before the next 1-1.

Small-talk topics are fine and sometimes necessary. As my relationships with direct reports evolve, so do 1-1s. The more mature the relationship, the more efficient the 1-1. I don't expect to start at peak efficiency, but I'd like to see forward progress with every 1-1. The purpose of my 1-1 is to develop professional relationships with my direct reports (aka alignment), mentor my direct reports, learn and improve myself.

I try to leave enough time for myself to talk about my topics. I expect my direct reports to give me straight answers when they have them. When my direct reports do not have answers, I ask them to follow up with me in writing (my personal preference - I am more effective reading). Usually, for my topics I focus on communication, career development, culture and alignment.

Lastly, I recite the list of topics we covered.

In my first 1-1 with a new direct report I explain my take on 1-1 meeting structure and my expectations.

don't do 1-on-1's unless there is an acute problem. I do however, walk and talk a lot i.e. keep on top of things.

way way better.

most of the time, 1-on-1 is personal issue (death, scheduling conflict, injury), or personality-clash.

not a big fan of endless meetings. much prefer management, to be out and about (checking on the state of things, resolving problems).

I don't normally favor firing people (unless there is something seriously wrong with their behavior). There is always a way to work things out.

A light touch, at the right time, goes way further than "constant meetings". Also being able to work to accommodate people (remembering them as people, first and foremost).

Please don’t take away from this that you shouldn’t do 1-on-1s, because the parent post doesn’t.

If you’re on top of your game, this is totally a valid way to do it.

...but I’ve worked with people who use ‘light touch’ as an excuse for ‘don’t want to do people things, so I’ll just get on with my work’.

That’s a failure at everything you’re supposed to be doing.

The take away here is talk to people. ...how you do that, though, can vary and still be successful.

I would say, suit it to the person you're managing.

me I just trained my reports to use their judgement where appropriate, and bring things to my attention when it looked like it was going to be a problem that needed to be addressed long-term (and was above their paygrade/resources).

for exceptional workers (blessed with danger sense, good judgement, aptitude), they had full autonomy (fill me in on your touch points but otherwise, handle your business).

you could think of it as an "evented" style of management. with direct monitoring as the core. I've always been a fan of go and see; relative to wait and read report.

to be frank, when it was just about the work, things went swimmingly. I made sure the right people had the right styles of work (worked to their strengths) and never assigned work to someone who wasn't capable of it. most importantly, I always took into account a persons limitations (physical, social, mental, personal).

day-to-day stuff they manage their own time.

... plus a 5 minute discuss/debrief on long-running projects works well with capable workers.

same with the general group dynamics (unless there is an objective problem, I let them run their own thing). and yes, that meant sometimes they had disagreements; but as long as they were adult about it, they usually sorted it out on their own.

--

same way I run my direct reports up the chain to my bosses, btw.

I tend to alter the corporate culture under my "umbrella" of responsibility.

"Talking a lot" = distracting a lot.

Only interrupt developers if it is urgent. For a developer, resuming a task after an interruption can take time and effort.

Using an issue trackers and building discipline around keeping it updated is preferable to polling people for updates constantly.

"How is this task going?" -> go to the ticket for that task in your issue tracker and read the status field.

If you feel like "talking a lot", don't do it in the areas where developers do their work. It is distracting for developers.

Status fields aren’t much help when you’re 8 days in on “in progress” for a ticket that was originally estimated to take 2. Often that’s exactly when you need to have a conversation. Scope is creeping; or the engineer is taking a poor approach and needs to talk it through with someone; or there’s some tech debt that warrants investing in refactoring; or the engineer just plain misunderstood the goals. And they’re almost certainly demoralized by now and need encouragement or help seeing a way out of the swamp.
I'm a developer and completely disagree with your advice.
a status field, does not a person or a persons work effort make ;)

...and if my workers were under the gun, they understood I was there strictly to offer assistance. shit sometimes I pull up a chair and code right next to them (now fangled as "pair programming"). sometimes people need a little help.

--

true story, I had a dick client-side manager, whose project was about 2 years overdue, getting raked by the consulting company I worked for (body shop). they put me on the project, I tuned that shit up. johnny on the spot, and six steps ahead of the project/clientside managers.

... about two months in, I'm 20 minutes from closing out the entire project (I took some dev shortcuts to speed shit up - I was always a "high velocity" developer), I'm undoing the hacks (finalizing) to turn in the project, when the clientside manager decides he's going to come in to "motivate" me. if you are a developer, whose ever worked with a cunt of a manager who doesn't know tech/their ass from their elbow.... you know what that means.

... literally minutes away from closing out his entire project, and I quit the project (then got fired from the company).

took'em a month to close it out after I left. if the work had been less quality, it would have taken them six months. ;)

Now if he'ld shut the fuck up and let me handle my business, would have taken exactly 10 more minutes. and this was after I saved his ass on the project, and saved both of their asses with a direct product demo (pieced one together in under 4 minutes with 10 minutes notice) with the client-side ceo.

--

I know who can get shit done, and who is having problems. because I know, whats going on in the projects/devs. and that comes from talking to people. not looking at status fields.

if you learn nothing else, go and see. codebase ain't always the codebase/trouble-ticket. its the people writing it.

As an individual contributor, I despise weekly one-on-ones. It’s yet another meeting that disrupts my day. I rarely get anything out of them and am always grateful when it is canceled or postponed for whatever reason.
If there’s nothing to say during my one-on-one’s the meeting just ends in a minute.
Is a disruption for nothing better than a disruption with an illusion of productivity, or that maybe one person got something out of?

On the other hand though, I do think it lowers the barrier if you actually do have something to say - since you know the meeting's happening anyway and isn't something you have to request or say Yes actually I do have something to say today.

That’s still a distraction if you are working on something not trivial. Useless meeting like this gets you out of the zone and cancels your mapping of the problem in the brain. You then need to go back to your computer and spend some time getting back to where you were.
If there's nothing to say in mine, I just cancel it in advance. Organization of the meeting can be done asynchronously and in advance.
It sounds like you need to talk to your boss about all the disruptions during your 1:1.
If the higher-ups wanted to listen they'd have done so long ago.
the 1 on 1 IS the disruption.
What a great topic of discussion for your next 1:1 :)

Talk about the frequency of your 1:1 which seem to happen too often, and about all the other disruptions you experience. Your manager will surely find a way to help with these if possible.

I wonder if they aren't valuable for you because you aren't trying to make them valuable? One-on-ones can be a pointless waste of time if the report does not bring questions and topics and concerns to discuss, even if there are plenty of those things available for discussion.
As a manager, I give my reports the choice of when to have our one on ones. Most choose times just before or after lunch or our daily standup or another standing meeting precisely because at those times you’ll already be disrupted. Maybe your manager would be amenable to scheduling a different time that’s less disruptive to you?
I agree. But you should go for monthly one on ones at the minimum.
Ask them to write down the topics they want to discuss beforehand. Try to structure the meeting a bit so you don't waste time on pointless discussions.
I schedule mine for a weekly 45 minutes which effectively blocks out an hour in both of our calendars. An hour is too intimidating though. If there isn't much to talk about that week we'll end at 30 minutes which is fine, but sometimes we'll need the full hour.

I try to do a walking 1:1 around the neighbourhood or go to a nearby cafe, never in a meeting room. The temptation to have laptops and Slack is too great. Actually my secret weapon for 1:1s was to get an analogue watch so I can keep track of time without getting out my phone and seeing a notification and pulling myself mentally out of the 1:1. I do keep an Evernote checklist for each person so if I think of something during the week that I need to discuss I'll add it there, and if they assign me something during the 1:1 I can quickly jot it down.

Most engineers' initial instincts towards 1:1s is to use them as status reports and tell me about all the great things they've done over the past week but I try and stop that habit from meeting one. I have other means of getting that info and I'd much rather get them to talk about the future than the past.

I'm not a manager, I'm a victim of 1:1s. 1 on 1 are a waste of time. Maybe ask your reports if they want them at all. If you have information for them you can always just email them.
This is the sentiment I see a lot and fits my experience as well. At best 1v1 are a good outlet for managers to look busy and feel important, at worst they are a trap.

Anything you say can and will be used against you.

Various FAANG companies are known for 1-on-1 where every employee is regularly praised and then told to be more productive.
As a direct report who sits near his manager I agree that weekly 1:1 is a waste of time. My manager took a middle road.

He has two hours scheduled per week for a team of 15. He reserves those for 1:1. Anyone is free to put a 1:1 slot on his calendar if you have something to discuss. Otherwise you go about your week.

As mentioned already by a lot of people in other comments:

1) It's about them, not me. No agenda. If there is nothing to say or discuss, fine everybidy gained 30 minutes.

2) Make it quality time, if you have to many directs reduce frequency to bi-weekly.

3) Keep it confidential.

For me, scheduled 1-on-1s served as a reminder to talk at least once per week (or every two weeks) with people. I tried to have multiple conversations any how as often as possible. But at least once.

I also realized that I was horrible in the begining with keeping them, I simply rescheduled too often. So my message to my directs was "force me to stick to them, if one had to be cancelled force mw to get one by end of the week".

Sometimes they became project / work related discussions, sometimes general ranting (also necessary sometimes), sometimes personal and sometimes we were done within less than a minute.

Ehat I aslo tried to do was to be open about myself, always a little bit more than my dorects. Trust is important, and for me trusting my directs first (being open about myself goes a long way) helped a lot in gaining that trust. Doesn't mean I couldn't be a no-no-sense guy when needed.

I probably suck as a manager because I have it much less often. I have about 15 direct reports and there is no chance at all I can spend time to meet each one on one biweekly or similar. However I am quite present and interact daily with all of them so I have got their trust I think.
You don't suck. You are doing good by them by staying out of the way. Most people are not children and don't need scheduled pampering after initially. There are other ways of making oneself available which is all that is needed. The other people here who have endless meetings are doing nothing but looking out for themselves (see example where they don't want their reports to leave, therefore must keep tabs on their feelings for themselves). Can't blame them but let's also not kid ourselves that that is being a "good manager" for reports.
If your team is functioning well, there's no need to change. You can do what my manager does...who also has 15 direct reports and largely tries to get out of our way. Block off two hours per week. One hour per day. Anyone on your team can schedule a 1:1. Most weeks, probably on one will talk to you. But if someone has something to discuss, they can just place an invite on your calendar.