When the Vent begins, you might confuse this for a conversation. It's not. It's a Vent. It's a mental release valve and your job is to listen for as long as it takes. Don’t problem solve.
This is one of the most important things about conversations I've ever learned. When someone comes to you with a problem, you need to detect if that person wants
1) your help with problem-solving, or
2) commiseration.
#1 tends to be a calm, analytical conversation, while #2 can be emotionally motivated.
When someone is looking for commiseration but you offer problem solving, you might actually add to their frustration by your lack of compassion for their situation.
If they're looking for problem solving but you commiserate, you might actually add to their frustration as they wonder why you're doing so little to help them.
Identification is the first step to being an effective conversation partner.
"When someone is looking for commiseration but you offer problem solving, you might actually add to their frustration by your lack of compassion for their situation."
Thanks for this. I have definitely frustrated friends who come to me complaining, in exactly the way you describe, because I offered only problem solving when they wanted commiseration. I think I can identify commiseration (they come complaining about something stupid, and then reject my sensible suggestions), but I don't know how to solve it -- how do you effectively commiserate with someone?
I think people want their suffering to be understood. All that's necessary is to let them know you identify with their problem. Just validate their complaint.
For example, saying "oh man! that sucks!" might be all that's needed. Or, "I can't believe he said that!" Or, "you can't be expected to read their mind!" etc.
You'll know you're effective if such comments start to relieve your conversation partner. If you're wrong and problem solving is actually called for, people will explicitly ask you for solutions-- especially if it's a conversation at work, as in the OP.
I used to work with the most amazing guy when it comes to commiseration. I actually felt bad for him--he was so good at it, it seemed he had to do it more often because people would (unconsciously?) seek him out.
Once I realized it, I tried to observe everything I could. He used a lot of those techniques. Another useful one is, "That must have felt X ". Again, validating feelings.
Please note: telling someone that they shouldn't worry about something is pretty much the polar opposite of this, and should be avoided by anyone hoping to maintain a friendship with someone with feelings.
If you want to actually make this happen, read the book, "Parent Effectiveness Training" by Thomas Gordon. Get over the title and understand this is about active participation in a conversation with two people. You listen. You let the other person talk. You don't try to solve their problem, at least until or unless they want it. Let them express, and sometimes that alone is enough. It works whether in business, personal relationships, or even parental relationships.
The article is a bit overly prescriptive. "These are the three kinds of conversations you will encounter, and here is how you should respond." Human interaction is not that easily codified.
The book Behind Closed Doors superbly describes approaches to conducting weekly one-on-one meetings, in addition to IT management in general.
Really, you get 3 points for that, and I get -2 points for a valid criticism and a book mention? People don't like dead trees? If you care about being a better manager, get the book -- it's a much better treatment of the subject. Actually I think ol' Rands here ripped off a lot. See page 12.
Anyone read either of Rand's books? I see a new one just came out last month: http://www.beinggeek.com/
Also thanks to his wikipedia page, I just learned for the first time that the magical software company that Rand describes with smart and attentive managers is Apple.
I read Managing Humans a while back, when I was a programmer, and liked it. Then, a year later, after I'd started working as a manager, I read it again and found it amazing. Seriously, having seen how things work as an actual manager, I was able to relate much more to all his stories and characters, which are spot-on, and got a lot of help from this book.
I've read Managing Humans (his first book). If you like the writing style from his blog posts, then you can expect more of the same. It's a good read, though perhaps a little abstract. If you're looking for a step-by-step guide for managing software teams then Managing Humans probably isn't for you. However, if you want ideas and concepts that you can play with, then it's worth your time.
My experience has been that engineers tend to resent this kind of stuff. Many of them would consider it 'fluff' that essentially distracts them from important work.
I have one on one meetings with my team, but I don't force a lot of structure on it. If it takes 2 minutes fine. If it takes an hour thats fine too. If nobody wants to do it during crunch time then we don't do it.
Not saying one on ones are not important, but given a certain kind of team and a certain kind of employee they are not necessarily required or a productive use of time.
I'd still say you need to book at least 30 minutes. If your staff don't want/need more than 2 minutes, then fine. The important thing is telling them "this time slot I'm all yours".
Rands' point is that its not a status meeting. That's what project managers are for. The 1:1 is supposed to be preventive maintenance of a team - a chance for you (the managed) to express yourself about any small things that are getting in your way or upsetting you before these things come to a head and create large problems for your overall happiness, the happiness of the team and the project, and your career.
> a chance for you (the managed) to express yourself
As it is I'll walk into my manager's office whenever I feel like it and literally tell him he's "being a shithead" about something. Don't see the point of him wasting a half hour of my time a week.
That's you. But for many people, that style of interaction just doesn't mesh with their personality. Some people are more meek, and won't tell you about an issue until you ask them straight out "what's up?" in a setting where they know that's their time to speak up. If you don't have a scheduled recurring 1:1 with those people, they won't schedule a time to meet with you. Until they schedule a "here's my 2 weeks notice" meeting with you.
Most 1:1s shouldn't be meetings. Think of them as 'bonding' time. This is where you get a pulse of each other. In the manager's case, find out whether your report is happy or on the verge of burning out.
One recommendation I would do is to not do the 1:1 in a typical office setting. Some of the most effective managers I know do it outside - from the cafeteria to a nearby restaurant. A friend of mine had a great manager who did 1:1s while doing joint grocery shopping for the Friday evening team meeting/casual get-together thing.
If we're not boozing and cracking jokes it's a "meeting", and I've got better things to do.
> where you get a pulse of each other ... find out whether your report is happy
Mature adults want a business relationship at work, not a psychotherapist. Everybody does their job and gets paid, the end.
This whole idea sounds like those "Please rate our service" surveys you get from businesses. I'll rate your service with my wallet, thanks. If you can't figure out how to make sure things are running smoothly that's your failure, and I'm positive survey results won't help. It really shouldn't be that hard.
Really, if a manager can't see what's what with who just from the day-to-day, then I assure you the place is screwed up and some stupid weekly meeting will be useless.
I'm glad rubashov posted this. It reinforces the point that you really need to understand the people who work for you.
One of the developers currently working for me needs multiple one-on-ones per week. She needs frequent feedback on her performance. I've had other developers working for me who bristled at the thought of scheduled and structured one-on-ones. With them I'll casually stop by to chat for a couple of minutes from time to time, but I won't schedule anything except when performance reviews are due.
I do find that most developers respond well to weekly or bi-weekly short one-on-ones, however.
This is one of the most important things about conversations I've ever learned. When someone comes to you with a problem, you need to detect if that person wants 1) your help with problem-solving, or 2) commiseration.
#1 tends to be a calm, analytical conversation, while #2 can be emotionally motivated.
When someone is looking for commiseration but you offer problem solving, you might actually add to their frustration by your lack of compassion for their situation.
If they're looking for problem solving but you commiserate, you might actually add to their frustration as they wonder why you're doing so little to help them.
Identification is the first step to being an effective conversation partner.