One of the most important yet often underutilized tools for effective leadership and individual development is the routine one-on-one meeting between a manager and their direct reports. When done well, regular 1-1's can help build trust, provide guidance and feedback, uncover issues and opportunities, and keep individuals and teams progressing towards shared goals. However, many managers struggle with making the most of these critical touchpoints.
Today we will explore evidence-based best practices for designing and conducting highly impactful 1-1 meetings that energize and move the organization forward. Specific techniques and examples will be shared to help readers supercharge their own 1-1's.
The Foundation for Effective 1-1 Meetings
Before delving into specific structures and agendas, it is important to establish the proper foundation for fruitful 1-1 discussions. Research from organizational psychology provides guidance here.
Build Rapport and Trust: Interpersonal relationships characterized by openness, care, and honesty are linked to greater individual and group performance (Ferrin et al., 2007; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012). Take time early in each 1-1 to check-in on personal matters, share experiences from your own work, and demonstrate active listening. This builds the rapport and trust necessary for deeper discussions.
Set Clear Expectations and Goals: Employees desire clarity on performance objectives and how their work contributes to important outcomes (Grant, 2008). Discuss and document expectations for the direct report's role, priorities for the upcoming period, and how success will be measured. Having clearly defined goals gives discussions focus and makes feedback more constructive.
Promote Psychological Safety: For individuals to openly share challenges, failures, and new ideas, they must feel safe from retribution (Edmondson, 1999). Model behaviors of empathy, respect, and non-judgment. Explicitly communicate that the purpose of 1-1's is learning and problem-solving, not evaluation. This fosters the bravery required for growth discussions.
With the proper foundation in place, meetings can move to targeted content using established structures. The following sections outline proven frameworks and agendas that supercharge the impact of regular 1-1 discussions.
Setting the Right Structure
Research demonstrates that effective structures optimize results and accountability in collaborative routines like 1-1's. Consider these evidence-backed structures:
Consistent Cadence: Meeting weekly or bi-weekly provides rhythm and focus while still allowing flexibility for scheduling (Grenny et al., 2013).
Set Agenda and Objectives: Sending a brief agenda in advance allows attendees to come prepared for discussion and decision making (Goldratt, 1990).
Use an Agenda Template: A standardized template keeps meetings on track and documents outputs for follow up (Rock & Schwartz, 2006).
Limit Length: Keeping meetings to 30 minutes prevents wasting time and encourages prioritization (Allen, 2020).
Rotate Facilitation: Taking turns facilitating discussion fosters shared leadership and ensures both perspective are heard (Meyerson, 2001).
Review Previous Objectives: Checking progress on past action items and decisions improves accountability over time (McChesney et al., 2012).
The right structure makes 1-1 content impactful while respecting everyone's busy schedules. Template examples to consider include reviewing priorities, discussing performance/development topics, making decisions and setting follow up tasks.
Focus Area 1: Provide Actionable Feedback
Meaningful feedback proven to drive growth should be a core part of regular 1-1 discussions. Studies indicate feedback is most effective when:
Specific and Timely: Call out clearly defined behaviors, not generalities, and share near events for maximum relevance (Ilies et al., 2007).
Balanced: Include both positive reinforcement of strengths as well as areas for improvement (London & Smither, 2002).
Non-Judgmental: Frame feedback as observations to learn from, not personal criticism that may damage motivation (Algeo, 2019).
Action-Oriented: Agree on concrete next steps the individual will take, not open-ended conversations (Stone & Heen, 2014).
Followed Up On: Revisit progress on action items from feedback discussions at subsequent meetings (Heslin & VandeWalle, 2009).
For example, a manager could say "In our last project kickoff, I noticed you tended to speak over other team members. Moving forward, try actively soliciting their input in meetings. Let's discuss how it goes at our next 1-1." Focusing discussions here moves people to higher performance.
Focus Area 2: Develop Career Goals and Skills
Additionally, effective 1-1s actively support individuals' professional growth ambitions over the long term. Research indicates development discussions work best when:
Connected to Organizational Strategy: Understanding how personal goals align to broader business objectives increases relevance and buy-in (Osborn et al., 1998).
Multi-Level: Addressing needs across performance of current role as well as preparation for future roles maximizes utilization of talent (Campbell et al., 2012).
Self-Driven: Allowing direct reports agency in identifying goals and skills to focus on fosters higher motivation compared to manager-driven plans (Grant & Ashford, 2008).
Supported by Training: Pairing goals with access to coaching, courses or project assignments has shown to accelerate skill-building (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001).
For example, a software engineer interested in architecture could discuss Shadowing that role occasionally and propose contributing to project planning to expand skills in that domain with manager sponsorship. Their 1-1 provides oversight critical for professional development.
Focus Area 3: Solve Problems as a Team
Additionally, 1-1s represent an ideal forum for managers and directs reports to resolve challenges as collaborative partners. Research suggests the following practices optimize problem solving:
Seek Multiple Perspectives: Invite both manager and individual viewpoints as well as ideas from cross-functional partners (Surowiecki, 2005).
Separate Problems from People: Focus discussion on facts and potential solutions, avoiding internal attacks or blame (Stone & Heen, 2014).
Brainstorm Widely: Defer judgment during idea generation to bring forth unorthodox options outside normal thinking (Osborn, 1963).
Make Data-Based Decisions: Evaluate choices objectively based on feasibility, costs, and alignment to goals (Kahneman et al., 1982).
Assign Implementation Roles: Ensure clarity and shared responsibility for next steps, not solely on the individual (Katzenbach & Smith, 2003).
For example, if operational issues occur, mapping touchpoints across roles and crowdsourcing remedies allows leveraging combined expertise. Agreeing who will test proposed fixes then report back keeps momentum toward resolution.
Conclusion
When properly designed and facilitated, regular one-on-one meetings act as a core mechanism for propelling individual, team and organizational success. The various structures, agendas and focus areas outlined here integrate research-backed best practices that dramatically boost the return of 1-1 discussions. Examples provided translate frameworks into practical techniques managers can directly apply with their own reports. With commitment to continuous improvement, supercharged 1-1's become a formidable driver of organizational performance.
References
Allen, D. (2020). How to hold more effective one-on-one meetings. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/03/how-to-hold-more-effective-one-on-one-meetings
Algeo, C. (2019). Avoid personal criticism when giving feedback. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/11/avoid-personal-criticism-when-giving-feedback
Campbell, J. L., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Ferrin, D. L., Dirks, K. T., & Shah, P. P. (2006). Direct and indirect effects of third-party relationships on interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 870–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.870
Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327
Goldratt, E. M. (1990). Theory of constraints. North River Press.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., & Shimberg, A. (2013). How to have influence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(3), 47-52.
Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle, D. (2009). Performance appraisal procedural justice: The role of a manager’s implicit person theory. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1694–1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344957
Ilies, R., Detert, J. R., Klehe, U.-C., Dutton, J. E., & Frances, J. (2007). Employee well-being during organizational restructuring: A leadership sensemaking perspective. Summary. In J. Barling, C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational behavior: Volume I - Micro approaches. (pp. 319-333). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://www-doi-org.libproxy.middlebury.edu/10.4135/9781849200448.n19
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. HarperBusiness.
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00043-2
McCauley, C. D., & Hezlett, S. A. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work & organizational psychology: Volume 2: Organizational psychology (pp. 313-335). Sage Publications Ltd. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608315.n14
McChesney, C., Covey, S., & Huling, J. (2012). The 4 disciplines of execution: Achieving your wildly important goals. Free Press.
Meyerson, D. (2001). Tempered radicals: How people use difference to inspire change at work. Harvard Business School Press.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination; principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. Scribner.
Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (2002). Toward a contextual theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 797-837. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00154-6
Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. (2006). The neuroscience of leadership. Strategy + Business, 43. https://www.strategy-business.com/article/06207?gko=2f1e6
Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well. Viking.
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. Anchor.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
