Manu's Vault

1on1-Meeting-Formats

4 min readStatus:Seedling

What It Is

Michael Lopp (Managing Humans - Lopp - 2019, Chapter 6) defines a taxonomy of three possible 1:1 encounters. The manager’s first task in any 1:1 is classification — determining which type of encounter they’re in before deciding how to respond.

  • The Update: Status transfer. The engineer tells you what they’ve been working on. This is the default mode almost every 1:1 begins with, but it’s not the purpose. A 1:1 that produces only status updates is a meeting that could have been an email.
  • The Vent: Emotional processing. The engineer is frustrated, overwhelmed, or angry. They need to be heard, not fixed. The manager’s instinct — to jump into problem-solving mode — is precisely wrong. Interrupting a Vent with solutions communicates inattention. The Vent resolves when the person has space to fully articulate what they’re experiencing.
  • The Disaster: A genuine crisis requiring the manager’s direct intervention. Unlike the Vent, this is not about emotional processing — it’s about action. Something has gone seriously wrong and the manager must respond.

The Classification Problem

Misclassification is costly in both directions:

  • Treating a Vent as a Disaster (taking action when the person needs to be heard) → the engineer feels unheard; they may feel undermined if you act on something they were still processing
  • Treating a Disaster as a Vent (listening when action is required) → the manager abdicates responsibility at the moment the engineer most needs intervention

This classification requirement directly parallels Alignment-vs-Informational-Meetings: in both cases, correctly identifying the type of interaction must precede the response. Classification is always prior to action.

Detecting Which Type You’re In

  • Update signals: Factual language, forward-looking, low emotional affect
  • Vent signals: Emotional or repetitive language, not asking for help, describing frustration
  • Disaster signals: Escalating distress, specific crisis, explicit request for action

Often the transition from Vent to Disaster is subtle — a shift in language, tone, or affect. This is exactly the kind of signal The-Twinge describes: experienced managers learn to notice when something “feels wrong” before it’s articulated explicitly.

Structural Recommendations

Andy Grove argues the 1:1 is the subordinate’s meeting — agenda and tone should be set by them, not the manager. Grove found substantive topics typically surface after 20–30 minutes of routine discussion, which argues for meetings of at least one hour. Frequency should be calibrated to task-relevant maturity: weekly for newer or struggling engineers, bi-weekly as competence grows.

Flinchum et al. (2023) found that 1:1 meetings represent nearly half (47%) of all workplace meetings and have qualitatively different dynamics than group meetings — more interpersonal, more emotionally charged. This makes correct response-mode selection more consequential.

Sources

  • Lopp, Michael (2019). Managing Humans: Biting and Humorous Tales of a Software Engineering Manager. 3rd ed. Apress. ISBN: 978-1-484-23712-4. Available: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4842-3713-1

    • Chapter 6: “The Update, the Vent, and the Disaster” — primary source for the three-type taxonomy and the classification-before-response principle

  • Grove, Andrew S. (1983). High Output Management. Random House. ISBN: 978-0-679-76288-1. Available: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/105467/high-output-management-by-andrew-s-grove/

    • Establishes the 1:1 as the subordinate’s meeting; argues for minimum one hour duration; observes that substantive “heart to heart” topics emerge only after 20–30 minutes of routine conversation

  • Flinchum, Jonathan R., Kreamer, Liana M., Rogelberg, Steven G., and Gooty, Janaki (2023). “One-on-one meetings between managers and direct reports: A new opportunity for meeting science.” Small Group Research, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 3–38. DOI: 10.1177/20413866221097570. Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/20413866221097570

    • Reviews the state of 1:1 meeting research; finds that 1:1s constitute approximately 47% of all workplace meetings and have distinct interpersonal dynamics that make response-mode calibration especially important

  • Goh, Joo Siang and Loi, Renald (2022). “One-on-one meetings and subordinate motivation: The roles of supervisor listening and subordinate voice.” Asia Pacific Journal of Management. DOI: 10.1007/s10490-022-09843-w

    • Research from dyadic supervisor-subordinate pairs finding that supervisors who listen actively produce higher subordinate motivation, while the optimal dynamic involves balanced speaking and listening — not one-directional information delivery

  • Rogers, Carl R. and Farson, Richard E. (1957). “Active Listening.” Industrial Relations Center, University of Chicago. Reprinted in Communicating in Business Today. D.C. Heath & Co. Available: https://rogercommunication.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Active-Listening-Rogers-Farson.pdf

    • Classic practitioner paper establishing that effective listening requires withholding evaluation and problem-solving; directly underpins the distinction between Vent (requires acknowledgment) and Update/Disaster (require different responses)

Note

This content was drafted with assistance from AI tools for research, organization, and initial content generation. All final content has been reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with the author’s intentions and perspective.

Graph View

Backlinks