📝 How To Make the Most of a 1:1 Meeting with Professor and Author Steven Rogelberg

Book Talk - Glad We Met: The Art & Science of 1:1 Meetings

Jan 18, 2024

☎️ Hello, Hello. It’s Julia. Welcome to my weekly newsletter, The Switchboard. I write about the ways we communicate and connect at work and beyond with career profiles, toolkits and industry insights to support your creativity, inspiration and curiosity. Take a look back at top past posts — The Index, 2023 In Review or Your Smile File.

This Week, on Jan. 18th, be my guest along with

Al Dea

for our Define Your Values Workshop. Register. Enjoy today’s edition. Reply or comment to share your thoughts.

The 1:1 Meeting is one of the most important meetings you’ll have in your career. How do you make the most of it? In this edition, learn from Professor Steven Rogelberg, Author of Glad We Met: The Art & Science of 1:1 Meetings. We cover:

Why 1:1 Meetings Matter
How Managers and Direct Reports can make the most of 1:1 meetings
Who should set the agenda and how to prepare
An opening question to start a meaningful 1:1
How to avoid the “status update trap”
Why Notes Matter at 1:1s and who should take them

Read Time: 7 minutes

What sparked your passion for studying meetings?

As an organizational psychologist, I am drawn to conducting research on topics causing pain at work, and yet have tremendous potential for good. This brings me squarely to meetings. My hope, find evidence-based solutions to maximize wins, and minimize losses. And, for over 20 years this is what I have been working on. We have made great progress and what is most exciting is that starting with the pandemic, interest in making meetings truly work in organizations is at an all-time high.

How much time are we spending in 1:1 meetings and why does it matter?

There are approximately 200 million 1:1 meetings a day around the globe, costing well over $350 billion dollars each year based on just time and wages. Our research suggests the potential of 1:1s is not being reached. Namely, around ~50% of employees indicate that their 1:1s were “suboptimal” – clearly not the return on investment that we desire.

The link between 1:1s and employee engagement has been found in a host of contexts and studies. Gallup, for example, studied the engagement levels of 2.5 million manager-led teams around the world. They found that “on average, only 15% of employees who work for a manager who does not meet with them regularly are engaged; managers who regularly meet with their employees almost tripled that level of engagement.”

Your new book, Glad We Met: The Art & Science of 1:1 Meetings, is designed to address this gap.

Let’s start with managers. What’s one major insight for them?

Talk less, listen more! The biggest predictor of 1:1 value I have found in my research is the direct report’s active participation as measured by the amount of time they talk during the meeting relative to the manager. Stated differently, the biggest predictor of ineffectiveness was a manager talking more than the direct.

The ideal balance appears to be the direct speaking anywhere between 50%-90% of the time. Encourage your direct to share solutions to problems they bring to you rather than you just sharing yours.

But, here is the key point. If the direct’s solution does not fully align with yours, but it is still viable, go with their idea—even if you think yours is a bit better. If you think there is a large gap in quality between your idea and theirs, and the consequences of a wrong solution are high, then it is reasonable to push back.

But, if not the case, accepting the direct’s idea conveys that you trust them and their judgment, and promotes more commitment from the Direct to take action and persevere in the face of obstacles. It’s essential to be reasonable to avoid de-motivating your directs.

Now, let’s look at direct reports — what insights do you have for them to have better 1:1 meetings?

Know what you need and ask for help. Figure out your meaningful short and long-term needs, hopes, and goals. Your clarity of purpose helps you prioritize and organize your talking points and questions. This will ultimately increase the chances of the 1:1 truly giving you what you need.

In the research, there are two types of help-seekers:

Autonomous help-seeking refers to individuals seeking information that enables them to independently accomplish tasks, and solve problems on their own. This tends to promote long-term independence.
Dependent help-seeking, on the other hand, refers to searching for a “quick fix” and an “answer” from someone else. This style of help-seeking conserves time and effort and leads to immediate gratification, but typically doesn’t yield long-term self-sufficiency.

As you might expect, job performance ratings are higher among people who are autonomous help-seekers, and lower among dependent help-seekers. Here is one way to think about framing your requests for help to be more autonomous:

I am having some challenges and struggles with X.
I am thinking about trying Y, would love your thoughts on that approach.
What do you think? Am I missing something I should consider?

Your research indicates an agenda is needed for meetings to be successful. Who should be drafting it?

An agenda of sorts is indeed needed. My research underscores that having a simple plan of action is a strong predictor of the effectiveness of a 1:1, whether it is created in advance or at the meeting itself.

Even more critical is the direct report’s involvement in its creation: Both direct reports and managers rated meetings highest when the direct report created the agenda, whether they did so alone or in conjunction with their manager.

What is your recommendation for an opening question at a 1:1 beyond “how are you”?

Consider “Take a moment and think about what is going on in life and at work— based on that, how are things for you?” or “Taking into consideration everything going on for you at the moment, how are you showing up today?”

The twist, the direct has to answer using a 10-point rating scale. from 0 very poorly to 10 very good. You will tend to inspire more thought and the response you get back will give you something to explore.

For example, “tell me more, why you feeling like a ‘6’ today, what’s going on?” The additional candor and depth are key to a great 1:1.

In your book, you caution against the 1:1 becoming a “status update trap.” How do we avoid that?

Commit to weaving in longer-horizon topics such as career planning and developmental opportunities. To aid in this effort, a few strategies can be used: 1) dedicate 5-10 minutes at every meeting to something not tactical, or 2) dedicate 1 meeting out of every 4 to address longer-horizon topics, or 3) consider the use of a meeting template that always contains longer-term items.

What’s the best way to prepare for 1:1 meetings?

Start with reviewing notes from the last 1:1 you had. What was discussed, what threads should continue to this next 1:1, and are there any items that should be followed up on?

It is important to remember and reinforce the connective tissues between 1:1s to continue the momentum and amplify positive outcomes.

Preparation also involves your mindset. This brings me to one of my favorite research findings—the Pygmalion effect, also known as the Rosenthal effect which states that “when we expect certain behaviors of others, we are likely to act in ways that make the expected behavior more likely to occur.”

Entering 1:1s with the belief that your direct wants to grow, change, learn, and develop will likely lead to leadership behaviors more focused on listening, collaborative problem solving, empathy, support, and encouragement.

What are your insights on taking notes during 1:1’s?

Note-Taking in 1:1s actually matters — by both parties. Notes capture key takeaways and actions, the essence of conversations, and the topics discussed in 1:1s. Notes capture developmental opportunities.

Taking notes in your 1:1s makes you significantly less likely to forget or miss something of importance from the 1:1. Notes also allow you to notice and track changes (e.g., topics, concerns, and problems changing) over time.

Research shows that when you take notes, your brain better organizes the information you’re hearing and encodes it more readily into your memory. The goal is not to document all parts of the conversation but to capture important points, actions, and highlights.

In research with my fantastic doctoral student, Jack Flinchum, note-taking in 1:1s among managers was positively associated with directs’ evaluation of the manager’s overall effectiveness. Why might that correlation exist? We postulate that the manager who takes notes in 1:1s is a manager who takes 1:1s more seriously; they are more motivated to act on commitments agreed upon and are more inclined to support their directs.

To learn more about Steven’s research and recommendations, check out his book, Glad We Met: The Art & Science of 1:1 Meetings and this episode of Adam Grant’s TED podcast.

About Steven

Steven G. Rogelberg is Chancellor's Professor at University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He is a professor of Organizational Science, Management, and Psychology and the founding Director of Organizational Science at UNC, Charlotte.

He is editor of the Journal of Business and Psychology and been recognized with numerous awards and honors, including the 2022 Raymond A. Katzell Award for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. His research has been featured in major news outlets, including CBS, NPR, the Wall Street Journal and other publications. He received his Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of Connecticut and his undergraduate degree from Tufts University.

His last book, The Surprising Science of Meetings, was named by The Washington Post as one of the 10 books to watch for in 2019.

Thank you for being part of The Switchboard’s community. If you appreciated this edition, please comment, share or give this edition a heart.

The Switchboard