CONSCIENCE CHECK / REFLECTION EXERCISE – Before reading this chapter, answer the following questions:
- Do you hold regular One-to-One conversations with your employees? If yes:
- What benefits do you see from them?
- What benefits do you see from them?
- What is the biggest challenge?
- What benefits do you see from them?
- What benefits do you see from them?
About One to one’s by Martyna and Aleksander
M: So let’s talk about open conversations, building a culture of trust, and how to avoid leaning too far into criticism or inappropriate praise?
A: You know what – that’s a real challenge, because a manager has to adapt their communication style to each individual. That’s why it’s so important to meet regularly with employees and observe how the team or its members respond. If One-to-One meetings aren’t part of your routine, you won’t learn this.
If you do have One-to-One meetings in your routine—for example, with a young leader who’s just joined your team—and you talk regularly, you have a platform to discuss these kinds of topics. During the first 90 days of working together, you establish some ground rules. Here’s an example: a new guy joined us as the head of one of our factories. I’m his manager’s manager – he reports to the CEO, and the CEO of the entity reports to me, so N-2 in the relation.
I still add my two cents to set the direction from the EMEA Region’s perspective and offer support. And I have to tell you, it worked out so well that after a long conversation, he said to me: “Man, I’m so glad someone finally talked to me about this.”
M: So it’s about having space to talk about what’s happening, where we’re headed, how things are going, what challenges he’s facing in the early stages, etc.?
And now the question: Why do such conversations happen so rarely?
A: Exactly. Another example: a guy joins the organization – an experienced director, you know, 15 years in the Volkswagen Group, I was involved in the recruitment process, etc. He starts work, has a meeting with the CEO and board members who set his goals. He should get a clear message: “We’re heading in this direction – here’s the plan.” But I wanted to meet with him beforehand. I wanted him to assess where he stands and what kind of team he has.
How does he see it all? Tell me now, what’s your plan? Then we started talking:
- Where are you now in terms of understanding your problems and solving them?
- What does your team look like?
- How can I help you?
- How can I support you?
At that moment, directly or between the lines, he needs to hear: “You’re an important player here,” and so on. And another situation: after an hour and a half of conversation, he says, “Man, finally someone talked to me like this.”
Ja sobie myślę: „No to zajebiście! Tylko dlaczego po raz kolejny ja muszę te luki organizacyjne czy procesowe łatać?” Odpowiedź jest prosta – po prostu tego typu rozmowy nie zdarzają się tak często, jak powinny. Tutaj nie chodzi o to, żeby przelecieć przez sprawy operacyjne na zasadzie: „OK, słuchaj, dobra, to lecimy po kolei: Jak tam wyniki w obszarze bezpieczeństwa? A jakość? Jak wygląda sytuacja finansowa? Gdzie jesteś z realizacją swoich celów?” Nie na tym polega istota spotkania jeden na jeden.
M: What you are saying now is pure gold. It’s something seemingly within reach, yet so rare. People sometimes engage in such important conversations only when things are already going wrong. It’s beyond me that one can avoid such discussions – that one can avoid one-on-one meetings.
How to build a partnership relationship? You must have a communication platform.
A: Because people often don’t understand the concept of such meetings. And to build a partnership relationship within a team, you must have a communication platform. A one-on-one meeting is precisely such an opportunity to build relationships. I’m not saying we’re striving to be colleagues or friends – that’s not the point. The point is for the subordinate, that is, John, to be aware that they are important; that they are not just a tool, a cog in the entire machine, but an important link, for whom very clear expectations are set. They also have the authority to solve problems. They have support from their manager and a relationship with their manager that allows them to say, for example: “Listen, I’m in a terribly difficult family situation.”
If you come to such a meeting and merely fire questions like: “Good morning, Robert, please tell me about KPIs, etc.” – that immediately creates defensiveness. A “general” arrives and starts holding you accountable for everything. However, if you build a partnership relationship, you look at each other as equals, regardless of position, and you sincerely say: “Tell me about your problem. Can I help you in any way? Do you have everything you need? Do you have adequate financial resources? Do you have a team? Is there anything you’d like to discuss? Does my communication style suit you? Do you need stronger feedback? What do you need?”
How to Reinforce, and where to Frankly State What Isn’t Working?
M: Do you feel appreciated in what you do?
A: Exactly. But you know, sometimes other topics come up. For example, I very often tell my bosses directly – the British, Americans, French, etc.: “Sometimes, when things aren’t going well, I need you to kick me in the butt. It’s natural for me that as my Boss, you’ll say: ‘You messed this up; now we need to do it this way and that way.’”
These rules of engagement during such conversations can be established. If such meetings don’t happen, you don’t provide the team with a platform to establish these things. This is an important matter.
M: I also understand this as a communication contract and a mutual understanding that we are different, as well as clarifying what is and isn’t acceptable in our communication.
It Must be Regular
M: In training sessions, I strongly emphasize that these one-on-one meetings should take place regularly. I tell people how important it is – that during such conversations, we create an opportunity to show that we are human. Then we can talk about matters for which there’s no time in the rush or during an operational meeting. It’s a different platform for conversation. However, I’ve encountered this reaction: “Martyna, but we all know each other inside out here. We’ve worked together for years – some for over a decade, even several decades. We don’t need these types of conversations because we’re already up-to-date and in contact. It happens naturally.”
What would you say to someone who claims that? Because I don’t quite believe that. It’s a bit like in a family: I’m supposedly in contact with my partner and children – we talk every day and do various things together. But I know that this week I need to have a “meeting” with my family to talk about what isn’t working in our home (e.g., regarding tidiness) and what we need from each other to function well together. It’s a slightly different conversation, a different space. I think that if – metaphorically speaking – married couples organized such one-on-ones, on the principle of: we go and talk about what’s happening between us, what you’re struggling with, what there’s no daily space to discuss, most of them would function better. I’m passing the ball to you. What do you think about this narrative, “but we’re in contact and we talk”? Is this one-on-one really necessary? After all, I’m already swamped, and there are so many meetings.
A: There are two aspects here: the issue of respect and time management. Personally, when I don’t conduct such meetings regularly, in 99% of cases, the reason is time constraints – a problem with time management. So it’s not that I don’t want to hold one-on-one meetings, but I simply don’t have time for it. And here arises the second topic – the issue of respect. If you respect an individual (a team member or even a manager), you must make time to devote your full attention to them. It’s not about operational or professional matters, but about time dedicated solely to that individual. I have joined new organizations and new teams many times. I believe the culture of one-on-one meetings emerged for me in 2007 when I joined Dell, where it was the norm to conduct regular meetings of this type. At that time, Martyna, I had over a hundred employees, and in my routine, I had to have a one-on-one conversation with each of them. Imagine: a hundred such meetings a month –
and every month, with every employee!
M: How is that possible? You wouldn’t have time for work…
A: It’s a true skill. In such a situation, you get straight to the heart of the conversation – what’s truly essential. Let me give you an example of such a conversation: I ask the employee directly “How is it working with me?” When you ask such a question and receive an answer like “This is okay, and that’s not okay,” you get the most valuable feedback and simultaneously build a relationship. I sometimes had to fit into 5-15 minutes to get feedback. It wouldn’t be possible if I asked about everything – all possible problems. I stuck to the core issues: How are you feeling? How is it working with me? Remember, you are important to me.
M: So you got straight to the point. You’re saying that if you don’t have time to do it the way you’d like – in a calm, hour-long conversation – you should still do it anyway, instead of thinking in ‘all or nothing’ terms. Just focus surgically on what’s most important.
A: I’ll tell you this: in all the companies I’ve been with, when you start a new position and join a team, you conduct your own situation assessment. You check whether the team is culturally mature enough for such things. In 90% of cases, in less mature teams, it looks like this: a one-on-one conversation begins with an employee coming in with a piece of paper or a laptop and a list of operational topics. That is – either a ‘dump’ along the lines of: “I’m giving you my problems, solve them,” or informatively: “These are my problems, and I’m working on them.” In more mature organizations, it’s good in that people say:
“These are my problems, and I have such and such a plan for them.”
What if Someone Imposes the Agenda for these Meetings?
A: Ten years ago, I remember having a meeting in Luxembourg where we discussed the topic of one-on-one conversations. The exact same questions you mentioned came up. The Head of Global HR came up with the idea of creating a standard for these conversations – that is, to define exactly how such meetings should look. We even received printed forms with instructions on what exactly should be included in them and what set of questions should be asked to the employee.
All the best managers present at that meeting – and there were several plant directors from all over Europe and the world – looked at this standardized procedure, were aghast, and said: “Good heavens, what have they come up with?!” I then stood up and said: “I will not do this.” I declared that I would conduct my one-on-ones my own way. For me, the most important questions concern what problems my people have and how I can help them; I want to emphasize that they are important to me, and I want to know the answer to the question: “How is it working with me?”, which is something like: “What would you change in working with me to make it better?” You see, these meetings cannot be standardized because each one is tailored to the individual – everyone is different, sees the world differently, and needs a different communication style.
M: So you also place great emphasis on gathering feedback for yourself. But you know, leaders say:
Such Meetings are an Opportunity to Observe how People Function
A: My experience is this: initially, when you join a team and start this process, the first three meetings are full of various topics. I conduct them monthly – 30 minutes for each member of my direct team (N-1). If you genuinely work with people on solving these problems and provide appropriate feedback, then by the third meeting, only 30% of the initial topics remain. As you work on them, many of these issues begin to resolve themselves. Over time, thanks to systematic work, from that initial “Pandora’s box,” only the most important issues remain.
M: So, by being aware of problems and dedicating attention to them, things start to happen, and matters progress?
A: Martyna, such meetings are a great source of information about the quality of relationships and whether collaboration is working well. To be blunt – I have some blood on my hands because I have fired several people in my career. However, you get an excellent overview: which employee comes to you with a problem and immediately with its solution, which one comes with creative ideas and suggestions for improvements, and which ones are shirkers – those who only come to “complain” and dump their problems on your shoulders. If you are a mature manager, first, you don’t take these problems upon yourself (because it’s not your job to solve the problems of well-paid people). Instead, you start thinking about who you want on your team and who you don’t. Of course – they will come to you with problems, but if someone comes with the same problem for the fifth time, you should suggest parting ways with the company. If a company hires an experienced manager and provides them with adequate resources, it is natural that their tasks include solving problems, making decisions, and developing the organization. If, during such meetings, there is no information about missing resources or a request for support in setting priorities, then you should simply replace such an individual with someone who will ask these questions and be able to bring greater value to the company.
M: What you are talking about concerns conversations with people who have greater agency, authority, and sphere of influence – e.g., directors or managers. I think they should also talk to their people, even with specialists in their teams.
A: This should happen at every organizational level. You always have very different people: you have shirkers, you have engaged people, you have solid employees, and you have talents. You need to balance this and assess the entire organization. Every leader influences the shaping of organizational culture; every leader needs feedback, but should also provide it to others. The role of effective leaders is to continuously select people for the team and develop them to grow the entire organization – for the benefit of the company and themselves.
M: I strongly believe in these meetings as one of the most important tools for a leader.
A: I do too. However, I know there are managers who don’t see any added value in it at all. Yesterday, I conducted an audit at one of my plants. When I saw how (poorly) the system was working there, I was dismayed. Two managers were standing, next to me the CEO and the director of that factory – and everyone was ashamed. So, you know, sometimes you have to put your foot down and give negative feedback. In such evident situations, it’s enough to ask the question: “Now tell me, what do you think about our audit?”
M: Is the point that negative feedback should also be accompanied by support?
A: Yes. Then perhaps they will open up, and I will ask: “Do you need any support?” For example:
- “Should I ask my boss to come and evaluate this process?”
- “Do you need to organize a bowling outing for people so they understand what is important and what is not?”
You make an assessment, draw conclusions, and take action. However, returning to one-on-one meetings: it is one of the fundamental platforms where you can connect with your employee. And then you must adapt your communication style to the individual. People have different temperaments – some are choleric, some are calmer; there are introverts and extroverts. You must adapt your language to their style.
For example, Paweł – the one who received a stern word from me yesterday – we worked together in Łódź a dozen or so years ago. I don’t have to speak very cautiously with him, because he is a former officer of the Polish Army, a soldier through and through. We joke around, but I can also say: “Paweł, damn it, get to work!” – and he takes it with a smile. We’ve known each other for many years, and it wouldn’t occur to anyone that I’m bullying him or anything like that. It’s simply a different language that I cannot afford with everyone.
Building Relationships and Showing Respect
M: You just spoke about something very important – namely, maintaining relationships and showing respect regardless. I think the fact that you can both joke and be blunt sends a signal: “The fact that I critically assess that you haven’t done some work doesn’t mean I can’t joke with you in the hallway. It doesn’t mean I can’t ask how you’re doing.” For me, this is a true separation of task evaluation from people evaluation. I saw this very clearly when I attended school in the United States for a year. My experience from school in Poland was that if I failed a subject, I usually also had a bad relationship with the teacher – you know, I didn’t study biology, so the biology teacher didn’t like me. It was interconnected. But in the USA, for the first time, I felt that it was completely separate: that I could be a mediocre student in a given subject and still have a good relationship with the teacher. It doesn’t mean they judge me unfairly – only that there is a distinction: I am me (Martyna), and these are my results, which, as you know, are better in some areas and worse in others. For me, that’s precisely such maturity – that I don’t sulk. I leave a difficult meeting and normally say, “Have a good day.” This is that famous motto: “tough on tasks, soft on people.” I have the impression that for many people, it is quite abstract – they don’t know how to translate it into practice. And for me, the practice looks exactly like this: I can get upset for a moment and gain some distance, but I make sure it doesn’t last too long. I want to show the other party that discussing tasks is one thing, but on a purely human level, I express warmth, respect, and openness towards you.
If You Wish to Receive Specific Guidelines and Instructions from Us
Like my post, add me as a friend and write a comment: INTERESTING
within 7 days, you will receive additional materials related to the article’s topic from us