 |
|
|
|||||
For decades, the one-on-one meeting has been a sacred ritual of managerial life. Its the office equivalent of a treadmill session: repetitive, well-intentioned, and mostly endured out of guilt. Conventional wisdom says every manager should have regular 1:1s with their direct reports to build trust, boost engagement, and drive performance. However, as work evolveswith a faster pace, flatter structures, hybrid and asynchronous communication, AI tools that manage tasks more efficiently than most humans ever willits worth asking: Do we still need all these 1:1s? A Brief History In the early 20th century, Frederick Taylor’s influential Scientific Management (1911) introduced the idea of optimizing work through detailed observation and individual instruction. While strictly not 1:1 meetings in a modern sense, this era laid the groundwork for formal manager-employee check-ins, focused almost exclusively on productivity and control. Similarly, military hierarchies institutionalized briefings and debriefingsstructured one-on-one conversations that inspired corporate management systems, especially during and after WWII. Think of it as command-and-control performance reviews, with little space for career development or psychological safety. After WWII, workplace psychology gained prominence. The famous Hawthorne Studies showed that individual attention improved morale and productivity. This era birthed the “manager as coach” concept, which has recently reemerged in the form of Herminia Ibarras leader as coach. In 1960, Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y reframed employees as intrinsically motivated individuals rather than passive workers. In this context, 1:1 meetings began to evolve into opportunities for feedback, mentorship, and development, especially in management training programs pioneered by companies like GE, IBM, and Procter & Gamble. With the decline of manufacturing and the rise of the knowledge economy, especially in tech and consulting, the nature of workand therefore managementchanged. As workers were paid more for thinking than doing, interpersonal communication became a management imperative. By the early 1980s, books like Andy Groves High Output Management popularized 1:1s as tools for alignment, coaching, and decision-making. Grove, the legendary Intel CEO, explicitly advocated for weekly 1:1s as a way to catch small issues before they became large ones, and to ensure both parties shared the same context. His model influenced Silicon Valley and remains widely cited in tech. Meetings Without Meaning Steven G. Rogelberg, an organizational psychologist and author of Glad We Met: The Art and Science of 1:1 Meetings, compellingly illustrates that while 1:1s can be powerful tools for enhancing employee engagement and satisfaction, they often become counterproductive and misused. Rogelberg identifies several common pitfalls that can render 1:1 meetings ineffective: Manager-Dominated Conversations: When managers monopolize the discussion, speaking more than they listen, or focus solely on task lists, it undermines the meeting’s purpose. Rogelberg notes that such practices serve the manager’s needs rather than supporting the employee’s development. Lack of Personal Engagement: Effective 1:1s should address both tactical and personal aspects of an employee’s role. Neglecting the personal dimension can lead to missed opportunities for deeper connection and support. Over-Frequency Leading to Micromanagement: Holding these meetings too often can make employees feel micromanaged. Rogelberg suggests a biweekly cadence of 25 to 50 minutes to balance oversight with autonomy Productivity Tax Too often, 1:1s are where status updates are mumbled, calendars are synced, and passive-aggressive comments are politely ignored. They are, in short, a productivity tax, one which alas is often not properly quantified or accounted for. Harvard Business Schools Ashley Whillans reckons the typical knowledge worker spends over 20 hours a week on meetings. The problem is not the 1:1 itself. Its how, why, and how often its done. Managers cling to weekly 1:1s out of habit or guilt, not strategy. In some orgs, these meetings are confused with therapy; in others, with micromanagement. And worse still, many managers show up to 1:1s with no agenda, no questions, and no curiositya surefire way to destroy psychological safety. As a matter of fact, most 1:1s are ineffective. Recent research suggests that 70% of meetings hinder employees from completing their tasks, leading to decreased productivity. Despite a 20% reduction in average meeting length during the pandemic, the number of meetings attended by workers increased by 13.5%, exacerbating the issue. To be sure, not all 1:1s are created equal. In fact, one of the biggest mistakes leaders make is treating all 1:1s the same. Effective managers treat 1:1s like tools in a leadership tool kitused with intention, tailored to the task. Importantly, good management is not about treating everyone the same, but as they deserve and would like be treated. In that sense, it would be foolish to assume that everyone is equally interested in 1:1 meetings, or benefits from the same kind or type of meetings. Why AI Makes 1:1s Redundant In an age where Slack pings, shared docs, performance dashboards, and real-time feedback tools bombard us with continuous signals, the weekly or biweekly 1:1 starts to feel like a nostalgic ritualless essential leadership practice, more management cosplay. The workplace has become asynchronous, distributed, and data-rich. Managers can monitor performance in real-time through productivity aalytics. Employee sentiment can be gauged with pulse surveys and engagement tools. Peer feedback, 360 reviews, personality assessments, and even mood indicators from collaboration software give you more insight than a 30-minute Zoom ever could. And unlike human memory, these systems dont forget, distort, or sugarcoat. Even the emotional dimension of 1:1sthe human check-inis being digitized. AI tools like Microsoft Copilot or Reclaim.ai can summarize conversations, flag coaching opportunities, and recommend follow-ups before youve even had your morning coffee. Platforms can infer burnout risk from calendar density or written tone. Want to know who feels neglected or disengaged? Ask the algorithm, not your gut. The very technologies designed to enhance 1:1s are replacing the need for them. Just as calculators made mental math optional, AI makes manual managerial check-ins look like horse-drawn meetings in an era of hyperloops. Less ritual, more relevance That doesnt mean we dont need feedback, coaching, or empathy. But it does mean the format of the traditional 1:1calendarized, synchronous, performativemay be overdue for rethinking. In a world of always-on data and generative simulations, the manager who insists on a standing weekly check-in may look less diligent and more . . . analog. So, what replaces them? Perhaps a mosaic of micro-interactions, data-driven nudges, and intentional (not habitual) human moments. In other words, less ritual, more relevance. As generative AI matures and avatars become indistinguishable from their human counterparts, we may not need to show up to 1:1s at all. Instead, well delegate them to our digital twinshyperrealistic, fine-tuned, emotion-simulating versions of ourselves, trained on our past performance reviews, Slack tone, and leadership competencies. Imagine logging into Zoom and seeing your bosss AI twin nodding empathetically at your AI twin, while both exchange perfectly polite updates and preapproved feedback. The meeting ends, the logs are summarized, and the human versions skim the transcripts over lunch, ideally while doing something more usefullike actual work. This isnt as far-fetched as it sounds. Companies like Synthesia and Soul Machines are already building digital avatars that can hold unscripted conversations. Microsoft and Meta are investing in personal AI agents that will schedule, negotiate, and even attend meetings on your behalf. In a world of 60% scheduling excess and skyrocketing manager-to-report ratios, letting your digital clone handle routine 1:1s might feel less dystopian and more like time management. The only question is: when both participants are AI, will the meeting be more productiveor just faster at getting nowhere? Requiem for the 1:1 The one-on-one meeting, once a cornerstone of modern management, now teeters on the edge of obsolescencea charming relic from an analog era, repurposed but rarely rethought. What began as a well-intended vehicle for alignment, coaching, and connection has too often devolved into a managerial placebo: comforting, habitual, and questionably effective. The demands of todays workplacefaster, flatter, and far more fluidsimply dont align with the lumbering cadence of standing check-ins. In a world where performance is visible in real-time, where emotional states are algorithmically inferred, and where digital twins can carry out conversations better than most middle managers, the weekly 1:1 risks becoming the corporate equivalent of sending a faxquaint, unnecessary, and performed mostly by those resistant to better alternatives. This doesnt mean we should abandon human connection or stop developing talent. It means rethinking how and when its best delivered. Great managers will still check inbut with intention, not obligation. Theyll coach, not calendar. And the smartest ones will know when to step aside and let technology take the busywork out of empathy. The future of leadership may still (hopefully) be personalbut it wont always be synchronous, sentimental, or stuck in a recurring Zoom slot.
Category:
E-Commerce
When Spencer Rascoff took over as CEO at the struggling dating app giant Match Group in February, one of his first orders of business was to acquaint himself with all the services under his purview. Match, which owns and operates more that 45 dating apps, including Tinder, Hinge, OKCupid, and Match.com, has seen its stock price drop more than 80% from its 2021 high amid growing fatigue with online dating and a generation shift away from apps. After explosive growth during the pandemic, Matchs annual revenue has been flattening, in large part because growth at Tinder, its once-reliable cash cow, has stalled. Rascoff, the cofounder and former CEO of Zillow Group, is tasked with turning things around. Rascoff asked the leadership of Tinder and Hinge to each take three hours and present their apps to him. The Tinder team began by walking him through the apps financial results and business metrics. They then got to the product road map, and finally to the people and culture. The team behind Hingewhich grew revenue by 39% last year, providing a rare bright spot in the Match Group portfoliotook an entirely different approach. They started with consumer insights. This is where Gen Z is at. This is where Millennials are at. This is the zeitgeist of the world. This is what they want. This is how they date. This is how they think. This is how they connect, Rascoff recalled in May, as he told the story to the audience at the JPMorgan Global Technology, Media, and Communications Conference. Only at the very end, did they actually share, briefly, revenue and financial metrics. Rascoffs conclusion: If you want to understand why Hinge is winning and Tinder was losing, thats it. Thats why. A little more than a week later, Tinder CEO Faye Iosotaluno announced that she would step down in July, after less than two years in the role. Rascoff is taking the reins himself. Match shares rose 1.3% following the announcement. Tinder, which accounts for more than half of Match Groups revenue, has had a difficult run. It grew revenue only 1% last year and has been shedding users: Its lost more than 1.2 million paying subscribers since the start of 2024. (When Match Group reported its Q1 earnings in May, it also announced it was laying off 13% of its workforce.) Tinders not alone: In January, rival dating app Bumble announced that founder Whitney Wolfe Herd would return as CEO, replacing Lidiane Jones, who had been in the role for all of a year. In 2024, Bumble app grew its paying users by 11% to 2.8 million. But in the first quarter of this year, its revenue decreased 6.5% year over year, to $201.8 million, and it shed nearly 100,000 paying users since the end of 2024. Meanwhile, the average revenue per user has dropped 15% since 2021. Bumble has signaled in earnings that it has had difficulty retaining younger users, particularly Gen Z. Its stock is down more than 40%, year over year, and off 90% from its post-IPO high in 2021. (Match and Bumble both declined to make executives available for interviews for this story.) Rascoff and Wolfe Herd are now embarking on ambitious turnaround plans that have them rethinking what users want from Tinder and Bumbleand how the dating apps underlying user experiences can deliver it. This generation doesnt want more matches. They want better ones, Rascoff said in a recent Instagram post. And though their target audiences may be different, its a lesson both can learn from Match Groups emerging darling, Hinge. Hinging on connection Led by CEO and founder Justin McLeod, Hinge launched in 2012the same year as Tinder and two years ahead of Bumble. But while Tinder became a pop-culture staple, thanks to its addictive swipe-right UX, Hinge remained fairly under-the-radar. Its motto is designed to be deleted, and McLeod has focused on creating a user experience that optimizes for lasting connections. Customers logging off the app for good rather than swiping forever is considered a success. That ethos is paying off. In 2024, Hinge took in $550 million in revenue, driven by a 23% rise in paying users. In October, it leap-frogged over Bumble to become the second most downloaded dating app in the U.S. for the first time ever (Tinder retained its no. 1 status). To guide this kind of user behavior, Hinge has deployed a counterintuitive product strategy. Most apps try to reduce friction to make the user experience easy and addictive: Think of the simplicity and elegance of swiping through unlimited options on Tinder, without any pressure to message potential matches. In September, Hinge bucked that trend and deliberately inserted a stumbling block for users with a feature called Your Turn Limits. The feature solves one of the biggest challenges users face when trying to secure a date: unanswered messages from people who ghost their matches. Now, Hinge users with too many unanswered messages are required to send a reply or end the conversation before being allowed to connect with other users. Our north star metric is whether users are getting out on great dates or not, McLeod told Fast Company in an interview in February. After Your Turn Limits was released, the app saw fewer matches and likes, but more people going on dates. There are all of these kinds of techniques that can be really engaging and keep people sending lots of likes, but don’t necessarily lead to more dates, McLeod explained. So we do things differently. Hinge has a longer sign-up process than Tinder and Bumble. It asks users to submit at least six photos and answer a minimum of three prompts. On Tinder, users simply fill out basic information like their name, birthday, and sexual orientation, and add at least one photo; Bumbles sign-up process is similar. Hinge also takes a different approach to its premium offerings than Tinder. Tinders premium tiers focus on giving users access to more swipes or a profile boost to put them in front of more people, which helps with engagement but doesnt necessarily lead to quality matches. Hinges premium subscriptions have similar features but they also prioritize optimizing for better matches. Premium subscribers are able to filter profiles for characteristics like political affiliation, education level, family plans, or whether someone smokes. Subscribers can also get enhanced recommendations, where the apps algorithm surfaces profiles based on users recent activity. Perhaps taking inspiration from Hinges playbook, Tinder recently started letting users filter profiles by height. The new rules of dating Rascoff and Wolfe Herd diagnose the problems with Tinder and Bumble differently, but the result is the same: a decline in quality of matches. In interviews and earnings calls, Rascoff has said that Tinder suffers, first and foremost, from a perception problem as a hookup appa message that doesnt resonate with Gen Z users. Instead, he wants to help Gen Z users create casual, spontaneous connections without the pressure of hooking up. Were aiming to introduce new ways to meet new people in lower-pressure environments. Thats really what Gen Z wants. Rascoff said at the Wall Street Journals Future of Everything conference in late May. He signaled that even the apps core usr experiencethe profile swipecan be problematic. The high-pressure kind of product offering of looking at a photo and judging it, that is cringey for a lot of Gen Z people, he said. It makes them feel bad about themselves to look at photo and say thumbs up, thumbs down. (Rascoff went even further, writing on Instagram last week that The next era of dating wont be built on swipes alone, but he has since edited that line out of his post.) To create more casual dating experiences, Tinder is testing a new Double Date feature that allows users to pair up with a friend and swipe on other pairs of friendsand ultimately go on group dates. Currently available in Europe and rolling out in the U.S. later this year, the feature appeals to younger users: On Matchs Q1 earnings call, Rascoff reported that nearly 90% of Double Date users are under 29 years old. The feature is also helping the company grow its user base, as users invite friends to join (or reactivate) the app to take part in Double Date. Just as Hinge incorporates speed bumps in its user experience, forcing users to send messages to prospects before getting more swipes, Tinder also seems to be experimenting with adding a bit more friction into its own UX. To encourage good behavior on the app, the company recently introduced Are You Sure?, a feature that asks users to reconsider sending a message if it contains anything that could be considered distasteful. Rascoff has also announced plans to attract younger users by focusing less on making money from them through premium subscriptions. He told the crowd at the J.P. Morgan conference in May to think about Tinder as a bar for singles to meet. We’ve had two or three years of declining attendance at our bar. And the solution, to date, has been to increase the price of the drinks at the bar, and then occasionally come up with slightly different drinks or maybe sell food to an ever decreasing number of people at the bar. We must increase the number of people at the bar. According to Wolfe Herd, Bumbles problem isnt a lack of people at the barin some ways, its the opposite. During Bumbles Q1 earnings call, she noted that the company pulled in a lot of new users during the pandemic, but we now know they werent always the right fit, which led to fewer and lower-quality matches on the platform. As match quality dropped, some members got discouraged, found fewer successful matches and dates, and fewer people recommended the app to others, she said. The solution for Bumble is simple: Showing members people they want to see, getting them quality matches, quality chats, and closer to love. She has said that the company is pausing its efforts around monetization and growth marketing to instead focus on improving its matching algorithm and driving user engagement ahead of an app update this summer. And although she hasnt revealed too many specifics around how the app will change, she used her Q1 earnings call to highlight the importance of helping users create better profiles, giving them dating coaches to assist them through the process, and refining the apps ability to anticipate quality matches. She also signaled that its less about what new products Bumble will launch. We want you to see great people in great simple ways, efficient ways, but this is not about more features. Instead, the metrics that matter here are the quality of the engagement that people have on our product. In other words, shes orienting the app towards a north star that sounds very similar to Hinges. Incorporating AI Hinges recommendations algorithm has been a big draw for users. While Tinder relies heavily on a users location, age preferences, and swiping behavior to surface a users profile, Hinge generates matches primarily based on how a user answers prompts. Once it detects a pattern in the profiles a user is drawn to, it shows them more of that type of user towards you. In March, Hinge tweaked its algorithm to give users more targeted AI-powered recommendations. That update led to a 15% increase in matches and contact exchanges according to Match Groups Q1 earnings. We really have an understanding of your inclination to like someone and their inclination to like you back. We have more and more information about you and we have more information about your taste and your preferences, we can much more strongly predict that match, Mcleod told Fast Company, explaining that the more time a user spends on the app, the better the algorithm gets to know them. Now, Tinder and Bumble seem to be following its lead. Introducing himself to investors on Match Groups Q4 earnings call, Rascoff stressed that AI can help with user engagement and retention on dating apps, just as it has for social media apps like TikTok and Snapchat. Tinder is currently rolling out a Hinge-like AI-powered matching, which generates more personalized connections based on user data and activity in select markets. Meanwhile, in a May interview with The New York Times, Wolfe Herd said that she wants to use AI to make Bumble the worlds smartest matchmaker over the next two years. The AI can now select the best people and start showing the best people the best people and start getting you to a match quicker, more efficiently, more thoughtfully, she said. All three apps are also harnessing AI to help users optimize their profiles to get better matches. On Hinge and Tinder, if a user says they are afraid of snakes, for example, an AI prompt might counsel them to write a couple of sentences about why to make their profile more engaging. Wolfe Herd has said that the company plans on introducing a coaching hub, powered by humans and AI, that will help users improve their profiles and dating skills. In a somewhat bleak turn, Tinder is using AI to teach users how to behave on dates. Rascoff also mentioned a voice-based AI coach that Tinder rolled out for the month of April in Matchs Q1 earnings call. [It] let users practice flirting with an artificial intelligence date to learn to break the ice through humor, storytelling, and playful interaction. Ultimately though, Bumble and Tinders success may hinge on whether or not theyre able to incorporate Hinges secret sauce into their apps: features that attract high quality, intentional users who engage with the app and find a great match. To a large extent, the companies need to go back to their original strategies, before monetization and a growth at all costs mindset ruined their user experiences. As Wolfe Herd said in Bumbles latest earnings call, There has been this mindset that has been pervasive in the dating industry that more features equal better outcomes. And let’s just launch something new. But some of the greatest consumer products have not changed all that much in the last decade if you think about it.
Category:
E-Commerce
Everyones always talking about new tools, but some of the best tools are the classic onesincredibly useful things that have been around for ages. These are the tools that have stood the test of time and are just as handy today as they were 20 years ago. They’re also the kinds of things you wont hear about from most people or publications. And it’s easy to see why: Theyre not the hot new thing. Theyre just quietly helpful for anyone in the know. So today, lets take a look at one of those web-wide classics. It’s the ideal way to tell, in an instant, whether a website is actually down or not. Ive used it for nearly two decades, and I still rely on it regularly. Psst: If you love these types of tools as much as I do, check out my free Cool Tools newsletter from The Intelligence. You’ll be the first to find all sorts of simple tech treasures! Is it down for everyoneor just for me? Sometimes, no matter what you do, a website just won’t load. The question is obvious: Wait, is the website actually down for everyone? Or will it just not load for me for some reason? Its an important question to ask. Sometimes, the problem may very well be with your computer, phone, or internet connection. Other times, the website may indeed be completely down for everyone. And these days? It can even be somewhere in between: A website might go down only for people in your region but be accessible elsewhere at the same time. The way to get to the bottom of whatever’s going on is with a simple little site called Down for Everyone or Just Me. To use it, just pull up the site in your browser of choiceon your phone, computer, or any other web-connected contraption. Then, plug in a website addressan address like fastcompany.com or theintelligence.com, a social media service, the name of an app, or anything else that doesnt appear to be working right. Plug in any website’s address to answer the age-old question: Is it down for everyone, or just for me? Youll learn whether the website appears to be down for everyoneor just for you. And its not only a one-way interaction, either: You can also report what youre seeing. And you can see what problems other people have reported recently, too. It really is that simpleno accounts, no paid subscriptions, and nothing but a few ads on a single page. Itll help you troubleshoot website connection problems in a snap, exactly as it has since the internet’s early era. You can access Down for Everyone or Just Me directly in your browser. Its completely freethe website just has a few ads and accepts donations. You dont have to provide any private information, and the privacy policy says the service wont sell your personal data. Ready for more tech-enhancing treasures? Check out my free Cool Tools newsletter for an instant introduction to an incredible audio app thatll tune up your days in delightful waysand another off-the-beaten-path gem in your inbox every Wednesday!
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||