I LOVE the idea of one-on-ones. I am a firm believer in the principle that "it's all about the people (and their behaviours)", but I have two questions for you, to which I would really appreciate your responses:
1. My 'team' lasts only as long as the project I have been assigned - between 3 and 6 months. They are allocated from a 'pool' to perform specific tasks and the project team is then disbanded and the people move on to other projects. This type of resource management technique could probably be the subject of a podcast in itself, but my question is, under this structure is it still worthwhile doing the one-on-ones you describe?
2. A large part of the team comprises contract staff. Admittedly, some of them have been around longer than some of the permanent staff, but they are still 'temporary staff'. Should I be including them in the weekly one-on-ones? My instinct says Yes.

As an idea for a future show, I'd like to hear your views on the concepts of "resource pooling" as mentioned above as opposed to permanent teams, Professional Practice Managers (PPMs) and Practices in general.

Kind Regards

Mark's picture


Hey, if you've posted this before and I missed it, my apologies. It sounds familiar... so please forgive.

The answers are yes and yes. 3-6 month is absolutely long enough to get incredible benefit.

A couple of IT friends of mine say that, in fact, it's a sweet spot, because short projects don't get managed the same, but weekly check ins and updates and follow-through on task completions are perhaps more important because there's less slack in a 3 month gig. If you are off in the first month, the last month will be VERY painful.

Some firms mistakenly treat contractors so differently... but if it's about the work, then BY ALL MEANS include those external personnel. I've done it, it works, and it sends a message about professionalism that braces everyone up a bit. In many cases, I've found external folks actually being proactive about communicating issues because of the O3, versus thinking/knowing they could "hide" something.