Field Notes #6: But We Talk All The Time, Why Do We Need A 1 on 1?

The Situation:

We were talking with a supervisor about setting up regular one-on-ones with their employees. “I don’t really see the need,” they said. “We talk all the time.”

And they did. They checked in throughout the day, talked between meetings, answered questions, and worked through problems as they came up. They had good relationships with their employees and felt like everyone knew where things stood.

But when we asked the employees, they described something different.

Most of their conversations with the supervisor were about whatever needed attention that day. There was rarely time to talk about how they were doing overall, what they needed from their supervisor, or what was getting in the way of their work.

One employee had been waiting months to discuss their workload. Another wanted more feedback but didn’t know when to ask for it. Someone else wasn’t clear about what their supervisor expected from them. They talked all the time. They just weren’t talking about these things.

Making Space:

Regular conversation and regular supervision are not the same thing. Day-to-day conversations usually focus on what is most urgent: a deadline, a problem, a decision, or the next task. A one-on-one creates protected time to step back from the immediate work and talk about the employee’s experience of doing it.

And “formal” doesn’t have to mean stiff or overly documented. It can simply mean the conversation happens consistently, both people know what it is for, and the time doesn’t disappear whenever something else feels more urgent.

One-on-ones also create a place to look at both results and development. Objective information—such as deadlines, workload, outcomes, or other agreed-upon measures—helps keep feedback clear and fair. But performance is not only about what gets done. Regular one-on-ones also give supervisors time to help employees develop skills like communication, accountability, judgment, and collaboration.

This matters because feedback is not always given equally.

Research examining performance feedback across race and gender found that women received more feedback about their personalities than men. Black employees received more feedback they couldn’t act on than white and Asian employees. White and Asian men were more likely to be described as “brilliant,” while Black women were more likely to be called “overachievers”—language that can suggest surprise when someone exceeds expectations. Read the research.

A regular one-on-one will not automatically make feedback fair. But when supervisors use the same clear expectations, objective information, and specific examples with everyone, it becomes easier to notice when feedback has drifted away from someone’s actual work and toward vague judgments about their personality, communication style, or how they present themselves.

This is especially important when discussing so-called “soft skills.” Feedback about communication or collaboration should describe specific behaviors and their impact—not whether someone feels polished, likable, or easy to work with. Talking frequently can create familiarity. Intentional one-on-ones create clarity, accountability, and room to grow.

You need both.

Your Turn...

As you reflect, consider:

• Do your one-on-one conversations focus mostly on tasks and immediate problems?

• Are you using the same expectations and evidence to evaluate everyone?

• Is your feedback based on observable behavior, or on how someone’s personality or communication style makes you feel?

• What might your employees be waiting for the right time to discuss?

• If you stopped scheduling one-on-ones, would the important conversations still happen—or only the urgent ones?

Field Notes is a series of leadership dilemmas drawn from real organizational life. The aim is to help us all lead with more humanity.

Know someone who might find this useful? Forward it to them, or invite them to subscribe to Field Notes

Ben & Jamesa