Narrator: What if one of the most common activities in the modern workplace, happening between 200 and 500 million times every single day, was also one of the most broken? The financial investment in this activity is staggering, estimated at over a billion dollars daily in the U.S. alone. Yet, research reveals a startling truth: nearly half of the people on the receiving end rate these interactions as suboptimal. Worse, the people leading them are often blissfully unaware, suffering from an inflated sense of their own effectiveness. This isn't a hypothetical scenario; it's the reality of the one-on-one meeting. In his book, Glad We Met, organizational psychologist Steven G. Rogelberg exposes this "Grand Canyon" in leadership skills and provides an evidence-based roadmap to transform these dreaded check-ins into the most powerful tool a leader has.

Narrator: The one-on-one meeting is a ubiquitous feature of corporate life, yet it's fundamentally misunderstood and poorly executed. Rogelberg argues that while leaders spend countless hours in these meetings, there is a shocking lack of evidence-based guidance on how to conduct them effectively. This creates what one executive described as a "hole the size of the Grand Canyon" in management practice. Leaders often rely on guesswork or simply replicate the flawed models they experienced, leading to meetings that employees find unhelpful or even demotivating.

The data presented in the book is stark. While leaders tend to rate their own 1:1 skills highly, their team members often disagree. Nearly 50% of employees find their one-on-ones to be less than effective. This disconnect reveals a critical blind spot for managers. They invest enormous amounts of time and organizational resources into a process that is failing to deliver on its promise. The problem isn't the existence of 1:1s, but the quality. They have the potential to be the bedrock of relationships and performance, but without a deliberate, science-backed approach, they become a costly waste of time that erodes trust and engagement.

Narrator: A core failure of most one-on-ones is that they devolve into simple status updates—a trap that renders them redundant and transactional. Rogelberg emphasizes that the true purpose of a 1:1 is not about the work, but about the person doing the work. It is a dedicated space for coaching, development, building trust, and fostering psychological safety.

The book shares the story of Sarah, a new manager at a tech company called Innovate Solutions. She inherited a team that was disengaged and unmotivated, viewing their 1:1s as a pointless chore. Recognizing the problem, Sarah decided to overhaul her approach based on the principles in Glad We Met. Instead of just asking about project timelines, she started each meeting by asking about her team members' personal and professional goals. She created a structured agenda that focused on their challenges, growth opportunities, and well-being. She listened actively and created a safe space for them to share concerns without fear of reprisal.

The shift was transformative. Over time, her team became more motivated, productive, and connected to the company. The turning point came when a senior engineer, previously disengaged, told her he finally felt the company was invested in his growth. By shifting the focus from task management to human connection, Sarah turned the 1:1 into a powerful tool for engagement and retention, proving that these meetings are essential for building a high-performing, human-centered culture.

Narrator: One of the most powerful shifts a leader can make is moving from feedback to "feedforward," a concept championed in the book's foreword by Dr. Marshall Goldsmith. Traditional feedback is past-oriented, often focusing on mistakes and failures. This can trigger defensiveness and anxiety, making the conversation feel like a judgment rather than a discussion. As a result, both leaders and employees come to dread it.

Dr. Goldsmith recounts his experience as an executive coach where he saw leaders consistently fail to provide timely feedback because of this associated discomfort. His solution was to reframe the conversation. Feedforward, in contrast, is future-oriented. It focuses on soliciting positive, helpful suggestions for what a person can do next. It's a conversation about possibilities, not a post-mortem of past errors.

He instructed his clients to make this a central part of their 1:1s. Instead of just critiquing past performance, they would ask questions like, "Here's a goal I have for the future. Do you have any ideas or suggestions for me?" This small change radically altered the dynamic. The meetings transformed from dreaded events into highlight moments of the week. By focusing on future improvement, the fear was removed, communication opened up, and the 1:1 became a pillar of their leadership, dramatically improving team culture and productivity.

Narrator: An effective 1:1 doesn't just happen; it's designed. Rogelberg provides a comprehensive toolkit for structuring these crucial conversations, moving them from ad-hoc chats to intentional dialogues. This begins with establishing a consistent cadence—whether weekly, biweekly, or monthly—which signals to the employee that they are a priority. Canceling a 1:1 should be a rare exception, not a common occurrence.

The agenda is another critical component. The book argues against the manager unilaterally setting the agenda. Instead, it should be a collaborative document, with the direct report taking the lead in adding topics. This ensures the meeting serves their needs first. Rogelberg presents two models: a simple "listing approach" where topics are added to a shared document, and a "core question approach" where the agenda is built around answering a few key, forward-looking questions.

Perhaps most importantly, the book stresses the need for better questions. A simple "How are you?" is not enough to spark a meaningful dialogue. Leaders must ask more nuanced questions that cover a range of topics, from career aspirations and roadblocks to well-being and team dynamics. By thoughtfully designing the structure, cadence, and content of the 1:1, leaders can create a reliable and effective forum for genuine connection and progress.

Narrator: The value of a one-on-one is not fully realized until after it ends. The conversation itself is only half the battle; the follow-through is what cements its success. Rogelberg emphasizes that without clear action items and accountability, even the best discussion will fail to produce results. At the end of every 1:1, both the leader and the direct report should be clear on the commitments made and who is responsible for what.

Furthermore, the book urges leaders to actively evaluate the effectiveness of their 1:1s. Given the research showing that managers tend to overestimate their skills, it's crucial to seek direct feedback. A leader should ask questions like, "How can we make this meeting more valuable for you?" This guards against the "inflated positive bias" and ensures the meeting is truly serving its purpose. This process of continuous evaluation and adjustment is what separates good leaders from great ones. It demonstrates a commitment not just to the process, but to the person, ensuring that the time invested in 1:1s yields a real return in trust, engagement, and performance.

Narrator: The single most important takeaway from Glad We Met is that one-on-one meetings are not a managerial obligation but a moral one. They are the primary vehicle through which a leader demonstrates their investment in their people, builds trust, and lives out their values. It isn't what leaders say or think that defines them, but what they do, and conducting effective 1:1s is a core leadership action.

The book challenges every manager to stop viewing these meetings as a recurring item on a calendar and to start seeing them as the most significant opportunity they have to impact their team's success and well-being. The ultimate question it leaves us with is this: Are your one-on-ones simply happening, or are you intentionally designing them so that both you and your team member can truly say, "I'm glad we met"?