🖼️ See the drawing + lab 🏠 Course home 🌿 Branch on GitHub ✏️ View source

🖼️ आकृती आणि labThe drawing + lab पूर्ण पानावर उघडा ↗Open full page ↗

💬 धडा 02 — 1:1s आणि feedback: SBI, वारंवारता आणि एक tracker

📍 तुम्ही इथे आहात: 12 पैकी धडा 02 · मागे: lesson-01-from-engineer-to-lead · पुढे: lesson-03-delegation

📦 या ब्रँचमध्ये काय आहे

धडा 01, आणि 1:1 — lead आणि तिच्या टीममधील प्रत्येक व्यक्ती यांच्यातील नियमित खासगी meeting — आणि व्यक्तीला वापरता येईल असा feedback. SBI (situation-behaviour-impact), किती वेळा भेटायचे, आणि कोणाच्या 1:1s वारंवार पुढे ढकलल्या जातात हे दाखवणारा एक छोटा tracker. lead/demo.py मधले oneonones(); lead/models.py मधले sbi_check() आणि one_on_ones().

🧒 5 वर्षांच्या मुलाला समजावल्यासारखे

दर आठवड्याला कतरिना तिच्या विभागातील प्रत्येक शिक्षिकेसोबत अर्धा तास बसते. फक्त त्या दोघी. ☕ हा त्या शिक्षिकेचा वेळ आहे: तिच्या मनात जे आहे ते ती घेऊन येते.

एक दिवस कतरिना दीपिकावर चिडलेली असते. तिला म्हणायचे असते: "दीपिका, meetings मध्ये तुझा attitude वाईट आहे, आणि तू कधीच ऐकत नाहीस."

पण दीपिका त्याचे काय करणार? कोणती meeting? तिने काय केले? "Attitude" म्हणजे दीपिकाच्या डोक्यात काय चालले आहे याचा अंदाज. "कधीच" हे खरे नाही — आणि आता दीपिका ऐकण्याऐवजी "कधीच" वर वाद घालेल. 😠

म्हणून कतरिना पुन्हा प्रयत्न करते, तीन भागांत:

Situation: "मंगळवारच्या planning meeting मध्ये…"
Behaviour: "…ऐश्वर्या तपासणीचा अंदाज समजावत असताना तू तिला दोनदा मध्येच थांबवलेस…"
Impact: "…ती बोलायची थांबली, आणि तिने ओळखलेला धोका लक्षात न घेताच आपण नियोजन केले."

आता दीपिकाला नेमके काय घडले ते कळते, आणि ती ते बदलू शकते. ✅

कतरिना दर आठवड्याला ती कोणाला भेटली याची एक छोटी यादीही ठेवते. ती यादी तिच्या लक्षात न आलेली गोष्ट दाखवते: लीला, सर्वात नवी आणि सर्वात शांत शिक्षिका, सलग चार आठवडे वगळली गेली आहे.

🗺️ आकृती

flowchart LR
    v["😠 'your attitude is bad,<br/>you never listen'<br/>missing: situation, impact<br/>judgement words: attitude, never"] -->|"rewrite"| s["📍 Situation<br/>Tuesday's planning"]
    s --> b["👀 Behaviour<br/>cut Aishwarya off twice"]
    b --> i["💥 Impact<br/>we planned without her risk"]
    t["📋 1:1 tracker, 12 weeks<br/>Aishwarya 12/12 · Leela 5/12<br/>Leela: 4 weeks since last"] --> o["⚠️ overdue: talk this week"]

🗺️ काढलेली आवृत्ती + एक lab: https://school-edh.pages.dev/engineering-leadership/lesson-diagrams.html#l02

❓ काय

1:1 (one-on-one) — lead आणि एका व्यक्तीची नियमित, खासगी meeting. Andy Grove यांच्या मांडणीत ही report ची meeting आहे: आधी तिचा agenda (अडथळे, काळजी, वाढ), status updates शेवटी किंवा अजिबात नाहीत — status लिखित स्वरूपात असावा (धडा 11). दर आठवड्याला किंवा दर दोन आठवड्यांनी हे सामान्य आहे; योग्य लय व्यक्तीवर आणि ती किती नवी आहे यावर अवलंबून असते.
Feedback — एखाद्याने केलेल्या गोष्टीचा परिणाम तिला सांगणे, जेणेकरून ती ते जास्त करू शकेल (reinforcing feedback) किंवा बदलू शकेल (redirecting feedback). बहुतेक लोकांना पहिल्या प्रकारचा feedback त्यांच्या लायकीपेक्षा खूप कमी मिळतो.
SBI — Situation, Behaviour, Impact — Center for Creative Leadership चे feedback model. Situation: कधी आणि कुठे. Behaviour: त्या व्यक्तीने काय केले, camera ला जसे दिसेल तसे. Impact: त्याचा परिणाम काय झाला — तुमच्यावर, टीमवर किंवा कामावर. हेतू आणि स्वभावाबद्दलचे अंदाज यात येत नाहीत.
Judgement words — behaviour ऐवजी व्यक्तीबद्दलचे शब्द ("attitude", "lazy", "unprofessional") आणि निरपेक्ष शब्द ("always", "never"). ते त्या शब्दावरच वादाला आमंत्रण देतात. sbi_check() अशा शब्दांची एक छोटी यादी शोधते — ढोबळ check, पण नेहमीचे शब्द पकडते.
Timeliness — घटनेच्या जवळ दिलेला feedback वापरणे सर्वात सोपे असते. Review साठी महिने थांबल्याने छोटी सूचना धक्का बनते.
Skip-level — lead ची स्वतःची manager अधूनमधून तिच्या टीममधील सदस्यांना थेट भेटते ती meeting.

🤔 का

कारण 1:1 मध्येच lead ला गोष्टी समस्या बनण्याआधी कळतात: कंटाळलेली, कामाने दबलेली, अडकलेली किंवा सोडून जाण्याच्या बेतात असलेली व्यक्ती. आणि कारण अस्पष्ट feedback हा feedback नसण्यापेक्षाही वाईट असतो — लोक रिकाम्या जागा स्वतःच्या सर्वात वाईट अंदाजाने भरतात. Tracker यासाठी आहे की 1:1s यादृच्छिकपणे रद्द होत नाहीत: त्या सर्वात शांत, सर्वात नव्या किंवा तक्रार करण्याची शक्यता सर्वात कमी असलेल्या व्यक्तीच्याच पुढे ढकलल्या जातात. नोंद नसेल तर lead ला वाटू शकते की ती दर आठवड्याला सगळ्यांना भेटते, आणि ती चुकीची असू शकते.

🔧 कसे (या repo मध्ये)

lead/models.py मधले sbi_check(note) situation, behaviour आणि impact असलेली dict घेते, आणि गहाळ भाग आणि सापडलेले कोणतेही judgement words परत देते. one_on_ones(held, weeks) प्रत्येक व्यक्तीची साप्ताहिक 1:1 प्रत्यक्षात झाली ते आठवडे घेते आणि प्रत्येक व्यक्तीसाठी परत देते: किती झाल्या, सलग चुकलेल्या आठवड्यांची सर्वात मोठी मालिका, आणि शेवटच्या 1:1 पासूनचे आठवडे. lead/demo.py मधले oneonones() शेवटच्या 1:1 ला 2 किंवा जास्त आठवडे झालेल्या कोणालाही flag करते. हे विचार करण्याचे साधन आहे, माणसांसाठीचे सूत्र नाही: चांगली 1:1 म्हणजे संख्या नव्हे, आणि चुकलेला आठवडा त्या व्यक्तीची स्वतःची निवडही असू शकते.

🧪 करून पाहा

python3 lead/demo.py oneonones
python3 - <<'EOF'
import sys; sys.path.insert(0, "lead"); from models import sbi_check, one_on_ones
notes = {"you did great!": {"behaviour": "you did great!"},
         "you are always late": {"behaviour": "you are always late"},
         "SBI, reinforcing": {"situation": "At Monday's parents' evening",
                              "behaviour": "you showed each parent their child's marking on the screen",
                              "impact": "three parents told me they finally understood the grades"}}
for label, n in notes.items():
    missing, words = sbi_check(n)
    print(f"{label:<20} missing {missing or 'nothing'} · judgement words {words or 'none'}")
held = {"Leela, as it was": [1, 2, 3, 5, 8], "Leela, fixed slot": [1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12],
        "fortnightly, on time": [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]}
for name, (n, gap, since) in one_on_ones(held, 12).items():
    print(f"{name:<22} held {n:>2}/12 · longest run missed {gap} · weeks since last {since}")
EOF

✅ तपासा — तुम्हाला काय दिसायला हवे

oneonones असे print करते:

── feedback as a judgement → missing ['situation', 'impact'] · judgement words ['attitude', 'never']
── feedback as SBI        → missing nothing · judgement words none

आणि tracker:

   Dipika     held 11/12 · longest run missed 1 · weeks since last 0
   Aishwarya  held 12/12 · longest run missed 0 · weeks since last 0
   Meera      held 10/12 · longest run missed 1 · weeks since last 0
   Leela      held  5/12 · longest run missed 4 · weeks since last 4  ← overdue: talk this week

तुमचा snippet असे print करतो:

you did great!       missing ['situation', 'impact'] · judgement words none
you are always late  missing ['situation', 'impact'] · judgement words ['always']
SBI, reinforcing     missing nothing · judgement words none
Leela, as it was       held  5/12 · longest run missed 4 · weeks since last 4
Leela, fixed slot      held  9/12 · longest run missed 2 · weeks since last 0
fortnightly, on time   held  6/12 · longest run missed 1 · weeks since last 0

🏁 तुम्ही आत्ताच काय सिद्ध केले

"You did great!" प्रेमळ आहे पण त्यात situation नाही आणि impact नाही — दीपिकाला काय पुन्हा करायचे ते कळू शकत नाही. Reinforcing SBI note संध्याकाळ, कृती आणि तिचा परिणाम सांगते. Tracker ने दाखवले की लीलाच्या फक्त 12 पैकी 5 1:1s झाल्या आणि 4 आठवडे एकही नाही, तर ऐश्वर्याच्या सर्व 12 झाल्या. ठरलेला slot लीलाला पुन्हा नियमित संपर्कात आणतो. आणि प्रत्यक्षात पाळली जाणारी पंधरवड्याची लय (6/12, कधीही एका आठवड्यापेक्षा जास्त चुकले नाही) सतत पुढे ढकलल्या जाणाऱ्या साप्ताहिक लयीपेक्षा चांगली असू शकते.

⚠️ नेहमीच्या चुका

1:1 ला status meeting बनवणे — व्यक्तीचा नव्हे तर lead चा agenda
"काहीच चालू नाही म्हणून" 1:1s रद्द करणे — तेव्हाच शांत समस्या वाढतात
redirecting feedback performance review पर्यंत राखून ठेवणे
behaviour ऐवजी स्वभावाबद्दल feedback ("lazy", "not a team player")
फक्त redirecting feedback देणे; मग लोकांना प्रत्येक 1:1 वाईट बातमीच वाटते
"feedback sandwich" युक्ती म्हणून वापरणे — लोक भाकरीची वाट पाहायला शिकतात

🏭 प्रत्यक्ष वापरात

प्रत्येक व्यक्तीसाठी एक shared 1:1 document इतिहास आणि agenda जपून ठेवते:

# Leela ↔ Katrina — 1:1s

## Week 12
**Leela's topics:** the Year 9 marking load; wants to try the timetable project
**Katrina's topics:** feedback on Monday's parents' evening (SBI, reinforcing)
**Actions:** Katrina asks Dipika to pair on timetables (Thu) · Leela drafts a marking plan

"कसे चालले आहे?" पेक्षा 1:1 ची सुरुवात चांगली करणारे काही प्रश्न:

- What is the most annoying part of your week right now?
- What is one thing I could do differently to help you?
- Is there anything you are worried about that we have not talked about?
- What would you like to be doing more of in six months?

तुमच्या स्वतःच्या सवयींसाठी: calendar मध्ये प्रत्येक व्यक्तीसाठी एक recurring event ठेवा (धडा 01), आणि tracker तुमच्या टीमच्या यादीच्याच ठिकाणी ठेवा, म्हणजे चुकलेला आठवडा पुढच्या सोमवारी दिसेल.

🏭 प्रत्यक्ष वापरात हे का महत्त्वाचे आहे: एका वाईट आठवड्यामुळे लोक क्वचितच सोडून जातात. ज्याबद्दल कोणी विचारले नाही अशा छोट्या गोष्टींच्या महिन्यांनंतर ते जातात. नियमित 1:1 आणि स्पष्ट, नेमका feedback ही lead कडची सर्वात स्वस्त early-warning system आहे.

⏭️ पुढे

1:1s दाखवतात की लोक कुठे अडकले आहेत. बहुतेक वेळा ते तुमच्यावर अडकलेले असतात: फक्त lead घेऊ शकते असे निर्णय, फक्त lead ला समजणाऱ्या systems. पुढे: delegation आणि ownership.

git checkout lesson-03-delegation

💬 Lesson 02 — 1:1s and feedback: SBI, frequency and a tracker

📍 You are here: Lesson 02 of 12 · Previous: lesson-01-from-engineer-to-lead · Next: lesson-03-delegation

📦 What's in this branch

Lesson 01, plus the 1:1 — a regular private meeting between a lead and each person in her team — and feedback that a person can act on. SBI (situation-behaviour-impact), how often to meet, and a small tracker that shows whose 1:1s keep slipping. oneonones() in lead/demo.py; sbi_check() and one_on_ones() in lead/models.py.

🧒 Explain like I'm 5

Every week, Katrina sits down with each teacher in her department for half an hour. Just the two of them. ☕ This is their time: they bring what is on their mind.

One day Katrina is cross with Dipika. She wants to say: "Dipika, your attitude in meetings is bad, and you never listen."

But what can Dipika do with that? Which meeting? What did she do? "Attitude" is a guess about what is inside Dipika's head. "Never" is not true — and now Dipika will argue about "never" instead of listening. 😠

So Katrina tries again, in three parts:

Situation: "In Tuesday's planning meeting…"
Behaviour: "…you cut Aishwarya off twice while she explained the marking estimate…"
Impact: "…she stopped talking, and we planned without the risk she had spotted."

Now Dipika knows exactly what happened, and she can change it. ✅

Katrina also keeps a small list of who she met each week. The list shows something she did not notice: Leela, the newest and quietest teacher, has been skipped four weeks running.

🗺️ Diagram

flowchart LR
    v["😠 'your attitude is bad,<br/>you never listen'<br/>missing: situation, impact<br/>judgement words: attitude, never"] -->|"rewrite"| s["📍 Situation<br/>Tuesday's planning"]
    s --> b["👀 Behaviour<br/>cut Aishwarya off twice"]
    b --> i["💥 Impact<br/>we planned without her risk"]
    t["📋 1:1 tracker, 12 weeks<br/>Aishwarya 12/12 · Leela 5/12<br/>Leela: 4 weeks since last"] --> o["⚠️ overdue: talk this week"]

🗺️ Drawn version + a lab: https://school-edh.pages.dev/engineering-leadership/lesson-diagrams.html#l02

❓ What

1:1 (one-on-one) — a regular, private meeting between a lead and one person. In Andy Grove's framing it is the report's meeting: her agenda first (blockers, worries, growth), status updates last or never — status belongs in writing (lesson 11). Weekly or every two weeks is common; the right rhythm depends on the person and how new she is.
Feedback — telling someone the effect of what they did, so they can do more of it (reinforcing feedback) or change it (redirecting feedback). Most people get far less of the first kind than they deserve.
SBI — Situation, Behaviour, Impact — a feedback model from the Center for Creative Leadership. Situation: when and where. Behaviour: what the person did, as a camera would see it. Impact: what happened as a result — to you, the team or the work. It leaves out guesses about intent and character.
Judgement words — words about the person instead of the behaviour ("attitude", "lazy", "unprofessional") and absolutes ("always", "never"). They invite an argument about the word. sbi_check() looks for a short list of them — a crude check, but it catches the common ones.
Timeliness — feedback is easiest to use close to the event. Waiting months for a review turns a small note into a surprise.
Skip-level — the lead's own manager meeting her team members directly, now and then.

🤔 Why

Because the 1:1 is where a lead learns things before they become problems: the person who is bored, overloaded, stuck, or about to leave. And because unclear feedback is worse than none — people fill the gaps with their own worst guess. The tracker exists because 1:1s do not get cancelled at random: they get moved for whoever is quietest, newest or least likely to complain. Without a record, a lead can believe she meets everyone every week and be wrong.

🔧 How (in this repo)

sbi_check(note) in lead/models.py takes a dict with situation, behaviour and impact, and returns the missing parts and any judgement words it found. one_on_ones(held, weeks) takes the weeks each person's weekly 1:1 actually happened and returns, per person: how many were held, the longest run of missed weeks, and weeks since the last one. oneonones() in lead/demo.py flags anyone at 2 or more weeks since the last 1:1. It is a thinking tool, not a formula for people: a good 1:1 is not a count, and a missed week can be the person's own choice.

🧪 Try it

python3 lead/demo.py oneonones
python3 - <<'EOF'
import sys; sys.path.insert(0, "lead"); from models import sbi_check, one_on_ones
notes = {"you did great!": {"behaviour": "you did great!"},
         "you are always late": {"behaviour": "you are always late"},
         "SBI, reinforcing": {"situation": "At Monday's parents' evening",
                              "behaviour": "you showed each parent their child's marking on the screen",
                              "impact": "three parents told me they finally understood the grades"}}
for label, n in notes.items():
    missing, words = sbi_check(n)
    print(f"{label:<20} missing {missing or 'nothing'} · judgement words {words or 'none'}")
held = {"Leela, as it was": [1, 2, 3, 5, 8], "Leela, fixed slot": [1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12],
        "fortnightly, on time": [2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12]}
for name, (n, gap, since) in one_on_ones(held, 12).items():
    print(f"{name:<22} held {n:>2}/12 · longest run missed {gap} · weeks since last {since}")
EOF

✅ Verify — what you should see

oneonones prints:

── feedback as a judgement → missing ['situation', 'impact'] · judgement words ['attitude', 'never']
── feedback as SBI        → missing nothing · judgement words none

and the tracker:

   Dipika     held 11/12 · longest run missed 1 · weeks since last 0
   Aishwarya  held 12/12 · longest run missed 0 · weeks since last 0
   Meera      held 10/12 · longest run missed 1 · weeks since last 0
   Leela      held  5/12 · longest run missed 4 · weeks since last 4  ← overdue: talk this week

Your snippet prints:

you did great!       missing ['situation', 'impact'] · judgement words none
you are always late  missing ['situation', 'impact'] · judgement words ['always']
SBI, reinforcing     missing nothing · judgement words none
Leela, as it was       held  5/12 · longest run missed 4 · weeks since last 4
Leela, fixed slot      held  9/12 · longest run missed 2 · weeks since last 0
fortnightly, on time   held  6/12 · longest run missed 1 · weeks since last 0

🏁 What you just proved

"You did great!" is kind but has no situation and no impact — Dipika cannot tell what to repeat. The reinforcing SBI note names the evening, the action and its effect. The tracker showed that Leela had only 5 of 12 1:1s and none for 4 weeks, while Aishwarya had all 12. A fixed slot brings Leela back to regular contact. And a fortnightly rhythm that actually happens (6/12, never more than one week missed) can be better than a weekly one that keeps slipping.

⚠️ Common mistakes

turning the 1:1 into a status meeting — the lead's agenda, not the person's
cancelling 1:1s "because nothing is going on" — that is when the quiet problems grow
saving redirecting feedback for the performance review
feedback about character ("lazy", "not a team player") instead of behaviour
giving only redirecting feedback; people then hear every 1:1 as bad news
the "feedback sandwich" used as a trick — people learn to wait for the bread

🏭 In production

A shared 1:1 document per person keeps the history and the agenda:

# Leela ↔ Katrina — 1:1s

## Week 12
**Leela's topics:** the Year 9 marking load; wants to try the timetable project
**Katrina's topics:** feedback on Monday's parents' evening (SBI, reinforcing)
**Actions:** Katrina asks Dipika to pair on timetables (Thu) · Leela drafts a marking plan

A few questions that open a 1:1 better than "how's it going?":

- What is the most annoying part of your week right now?
- What is one thing I could do differently to help you?
- Is there anything you are worried about that we have not talked about?
- What would you like to be doing more of in six months?

For your own habits: put a recurring event for each person in the calendar (lesson 01), and keep the tracker in the same place as your team list, so a missed week is visible the next Monday.

🏭 Why this matters in production: people rarely leave because of one bad week. They leave after months of small things nobody asked about. A regular 1:1 and clear, specific feedback are the cheapest early-warning system a lead has.

⏭️ Next

1:1s show where people are stuck. Often they are stuck on you: decisions only the lead can make, systems only the lead understands. Next: delegation and ownership.

git checkout lesson-03-delegation

← Previousfrom engineer to lead Next →delegation

This page is the lesson's README from the lesson-02-one-on-ones branch, shown here so the whole School stays on one site. Code files open on GitHub at the same branch.