1-on-1 | Just listening won't increase engagement

1-on-1

There are companies that hold 1-on-1s, yet nothing changes on the ground.

Meetings are held every month.
There is time for managers and subordinates to talk.
Recent updates are being heard.
Problems are being checked.
Career topics are being discussed a little.
HR is also telling people to conduct 1-on-1s.

Even so, the organization does not change.

Members do not step forward.
Consultations are slow.
Expected roles remain ambiguous.
Managers think they are listening.
But the individual's behavior does not change.
Gaps in perception emerge at evaluation time.
Growth challenges and next steps remain vague.

In this state, management and HR think as follows:

Let's improve the quality of 1-on-1s.
Let's train managers to be better listeners.
Let's draw out the members' true feelings.
Let's increase psychological safety.

Of course, listening is important.
But listening alone is not enough.

1-on-1 is not a place to collect complaints.
It is a place to connect work, roles, and growth.

Last time, I wrote that surveys are not for collecting numbers.

Click here for the previous article

Response rate.
Average score.
Departmental scores.
Free comments.
Comparison with last time.

Just looking at these will not change the organization.
The important thing was to read the bottlenecks in the field behind the numbers and turn them into action.

This time, I will write about 1-on-1, which is one of those actions.

The theme is dialogue.

1-on-1 is not a time for small talk

The term 1-on-1 has spread to many companies.

Managers and subordinates talk regularly.
Listen to work concerns.
Talk about careers.
Check for problems.
Know the state of members.
That in itself is necessary.

There are things you cannot see through daily tasks alone.

There are things that cannot be discussed in meetings.
Performance reviews alone can sometimes be too late.
That is why 1-on-1s are meaningful.

However, there is one mistake you must not make here.
Doing 1-on-1s is different from 1-on-1s actually functioning.

It is on the calendar.
It is held every month.
Both the manager and the subordinate are setting aside time.
HR is also tracking the completion rate.

Even so, there are times when it is not functioning.

It ends with a status check.
It ends with small talk.
It ends with listening to complaints.
It ends with a progress report on tasks.
It ends with the manager giving advice.
Nothing is decided about what to change next.

In this state, a 1-on-1 is just a conversation.

Conversation is important.
But to move an organization, that alone is not enough.

What you should look at in a 1-on-1 is not just the person's mood.

Do they find meaning in their current work?
Do they understand the role expected of them?
Where are they stuck?
What should they be developing?
What actions will they change next?
What support will the manager provide?

Only when you address these points does a 1-on-1 begin to function.

--

Companies where they listen, but behavior never changes

I have seen companies where 1-on-1s are conducted quite diligently, yet the behavior on the ground never changes.

The manager is listening earnestly.
The members are attending the meetings.
HR is monitoring the implementation status.
As a system, it appears to be operating properly.

But on the ground, there is a sense of disconnect.

Members cannot explain their own roles.
The expected results remain vague.
The manager thinks, "I listened to them."
The individual thinks, "I consulted with them."

But the next action has not been decided.

Months later, the same problems are still repeating.
You are doing 1-on-1s.

But the work isn't moving forward.

When this happens, these kinds of conversations increase in the workplace.

"How have things been lately?"
"Everything is fine, really."

"Is there anything you're struggling with?"
"I'm okay for now."

"Let me know if anything comes up."
"Yes, thank you."

At first glance, these aren't bad conversations.
But if that's all there is, the 1-on-1 is shallow.
This is because the person's work, role, growth, and next actions haven't changed.

The purpose of a 1-on-1 is not just to create a safe space to talk.
It is for the person's approach to their work to change as a result of the conversation.

Only when it connects to that does it have meaning.

--

Just listening to complaints won't increase engagement

In companies where 1-on-1s have become a mere formality, meetings can end up being places to collect complaints.

I'm busy.
We're understaffed.
I'm not satisfied with my evaluation.
Coordination with other departments is poor.
Instructions from my boss are vague.
I don't really understand the company's policy.

It is important to listen to these voices.
It's not that you should ignore complaints.

It is also necessary to pick up on the unease in the workplace.
A space to talk about things that are hard to say is also necessary.

However, just listening to complaints will not increase engagement.
This is because there is usually a structure behind the complaints.

What are they struggling with?
Why is that happening?
What is expected of the person?
What should the boss support?
How does the company's policy relate to the person's work?
What will be changed next?

If you don't address these things, complaints will just pile up.

They listened to me.
But nothing changes.

If this continues, expectations for 1-on-1s will drop.
It is the same as a survey.

If you collect feedback but don't act on it, you lose trust. 1-on-1s are the same if they end with just listening.

--

The problem is not a lack of dialogue, but a lack of connection

When this happens, the company says, "Let's have more dialogue."
Of course, that is important.

If there is little dialogue, the state of the workplace remains invisible.
If the manager cannot listen, the members will not talk.
Without a relationship where one can speak with peace of mind, true feelings will not emerge.

However, in many cases, the problem is not just the amount of dialogue.
It is that the dialogue is not connected to the work.

You are talking in 1-on-1s.
But,
It doesn't return to the individual's role.
It doesn't return to the company's direction.
It doesn't return to the expected results.
It doesn't return to growth challenges.
It doesn't return to the next actions.

In this state, no matter how much you talk, the work will not change.

The manager thinks they are listening.
The member thinks they are talking.
HR thinks the system is working.
But, the actions on the ground have not changed.

There is a gap here.

1-on-1 is not just a time to process emotions.
It is not just a time for the manager to be a "good person."
It is not just a time to soak up member complaints.

It is a time to connect the individual's work to the company's direction and growth.

If you miss this, 1-on-1 becomes a system that is merely "nice."

A nice system is not bad.
But, to move the organization forward, that alone is not enough.

When a manager only listens, subordinates stop thinking

In 1-on-1s, it is a problem if the manager talks too much.
On the other hand, it is also a problem if the manager only listens.

"What do you want to do?"
"What are you having trouble with?"
"Is there anything I can support you with?"
"What do you think?"

These kinds of questions are important.
However, if you just end by listening, the subordinate may leave without having anything sorted out.

They talked about their worries.
But,
what the issues are remains vague.
What needs to be done isn't decided.
Expectations from the manager aren't clarified.
What to change by the next meeting isn't decided.
Under these conditions, it is difficult for the person to move forward.

What is needed in a 1-on-1 is not just listening.
Sorting things out
Communicating expectations
Clarifying roles
Deciding on the next actions
Promising necessary support

Managers do not need to provide all the answers.
But they must provide the criteria for the individual to think for themselves.

How much should be delegated?
What is considered a result?
What do you want them to change?
What parts do you want the individual to think about?
What parts will the manager support?

If these points remain vague, the 1-on-1 will just be a conversation.

Repeating just a conversation will not increase engagement.

1-on-1s directly reflect the competence of the manager.
1-on-1s are easy to introduce as a system.

Once a month.
30 minutes.
Conducted by manager and subordinate.
Keep records.
HR monitors the implementation rate.
This much can be created.

But whether it actually functions depends heavily on the manager's competence.

Can you see the state of your team members?
Can you grasp the issues underlying the conversation?
Can you translate company policy into the individual's work?
Can you clearly communicate expectations?
Can you provide difficult feedback without avoiding it?
Can you verbalize the individual's growth challenges?
Can you break it down into the next actions?

If you cannot do this, the 1-on-1 will be just for show.
When this happens, even if the 1-on-1 exists as a system, it will not be effective in the field.

Even if HR promotes 1-on-1s, they will not take root if managers cannot use them.

Here, too, the same problem as before occurs.

The policy exists.
But it is not being operated.
It is not connected to actions in the field.

If you want to make 1-on-1s function, just telling managers to 'do it' is not enough.

When reviewing 1-on-1s, it is better not to start with frequency or format.

Should it be once a month?
Should it be every other week?
30 minutes or 60 minutes?
Should we create a record sheet?
Should HR check it?
Should we decide on a theme?

That is also important.
But there is another question that should be asked first.

Has the person's work or behavior changed after the 1-on-1?
This is what you should be looking at.

If this hasn't changed, the 1-on-1 is not functioning.

Looking at a 1-on-1 does not mean checking whether a conversation took place.
It means checking whether their work and behavior have changed after the dialogue.

If you miss this point, the 1-on-1 will just continue on.

--

There is one thing I want to leave you with in this article.

A 1-on-1 is not just a time to listen.
It is a place to connect the person's work, role, growth, and next actions.

Just listening is not enough.
Just talking is not enough.

A 1-on-1 only functions when behavior changes after the dialogue.

How did we create solutions after the company fell apart?
I wrote about that here.
"Because we didn't die, we were able to create solutions"

In this series, I will write about engagement, MVV, and HR policies, starting from the structures that weaken an organization.

I would be happy if you could like and follow so that you receive the next installments.

Next time, I will write about evaluation.

The philosophy is there.
I also intend to convey expectations.

But it is not clear what is being rewarded.

Evaluation | A company's true intentions appear in its evaluation system, not its MVV