I'm disappointed that you're getting downvoted because I think you're touching on something really important, which is that 1:1s, like everything else in corporate life, have an inherently heavy atmosphere to them. The fact that you're cognizant of this shows that you have some experience under your belt. A good manager will do what he can to ease the situation, but the arrangement of the meeting is substantial and can certainly be risky.
However, while recognizing some flaws that are basically inherent in contemporary corporate structure, I believe 1:1s are extremely important. I think one of the single biggest problems organizations have is that they don't regularly check-in and explicitly solicit feedback. You get so much valuable intelligence this way, even if you're aware of the atmosphere and the incentives that loom over these meetings. The isolation and lack of data really hurt managerial efforts.
This is compounded as you go up the chain. I think that upper management should perform 1:1s all the way down every 3-6 months. This is basically checking middle management's work, something which rarely happens, and it provides the essential pieces of data that get obscured as information travels up the ladder.
> I think that upper management should perform 1:1s all the way down every 3-6 months.
I think this is probably never gonna happen in my company. Top-level managers do not want to have an honest conversation with an employee, because they fear what they might hear and have to respond to. They prefer to do Q&A - speak out prepared answers to pre-reviewed questions. On the other hand, the fact the upper management does not talk to most employees probably helps the product department people enjoy lots of freedom and have a sense of a flat, class-less workplace.
I'm also disappointed to see the downvotes the parent poster is getting. It certainly adds to the conversation. Most places I've worked, a 1:1 with your boss appearing on your calendar meant you screwed something up, and you need to be very careful to make sure you don't say anything career-limiting.
If one on ones aren't normally scheduled, then seeing one popup is definitely cause for anxiety. If the company or manager sets a regular schedule for them, then it shouldn't be cause for pants shitting- unless of course you royally screwed up at some point in recent history.
A long time ago I royally effed up on a project I was working on. It was a Sharepoint project, a deployment went sideways, and I frankly wasn't very good with Sharepoint yet. It lead to some temporary data loss and downtime but I was able to rollback and restore. Anyway, the problems were my fault but my good habits prevented it from being a complete disaster. It was a highly visible fuck up though.
I came in to my one on one, for the first time ever, scared that I was at least going to get an ass chewing. My boss took the time straight out of the gate to praise my good habits for saving the day, and trying to figure out how we could've avoided the issues I caused. The way he approached the meeting completely re-sold me on him as a manager and the company I was working for.
Yes, your manager was an adept politician. I'm glad he was able to handle the issue without alienating you. However, this is not evidence that an honest rapport existed; in fact, it's evidence of the opposite. If your manager was being honest, he probably would've mentioned the performance issue, that it never should've happened, and that it was a frustrating experience.
Instead, the manager made a political calculation: he a) wanted to maintain a good reputation with you, his report, because that makes his job a lot easier, improves his advancement opportunities, etc.; and b) valued your skillset sufficiently that he didn't intend to risk it by dwelling on a failure that he understood you were probably already aware of. His response to you was absolutely political in nature, and not an expression of his honest feelings. The fact that such responses occur is the reason that trepidation is apropos for such meetings.
Thanks! I've been managing developers for quite a while now and my approach has been very much influenced by the good and bad I've experienced throughout my career. I have always valued honest and regularly scheduled one on ones and I feel like it is the most critical part of my connection with my team.
I understand the trepidation that can come from employees having to meet with their boss, but I am adamant that a culture of mutual respect that fosters a sense of open communications is possible and if you're doing it right, your employees shouldn't have to worry about what they say in a personal meeting could cost them their job.
Everyone is different, and it takes me a while to figure out how to encourage some people to say whatever is on their minds, but I know that I have done all I could to try and encourage it everywhere I've been.
The possible difference that may ingratiate me more with my teams has been that I've never been completely out of the fray. Even at a Director level I would still be playing Software Architect or even just pitching in as a developer and taking instruction from the Dev lead in the project. Having never left the trenches, it may have helped with the feeling that we're all equal and in it together rather than coming in from the ivory tower to dictate stuff and leave again.
However, while recognizing some flaws that are basically inherent in contemporary corporate structure, I believe 1:1s are extremely important. I think one of the single biggest problems organizations have is that they don't regularly check-in and explicitly solicit feedback. You get so much valuable intelligence this way, even if you're aware of the atmosphere and the incentives that loom over these meetings. The isolation and lack of data really hurt managerial efforts.
This is compounded as you go up the chain. I think that upper management should perform 1:1s all the way down every 3-6 months. This is basically checking middle management's work, something which rarely happens, and it provides the essential pieces of data that get obscured as information travels up the ladder.