- This course is offered for free to all Vida HR Clients -
Description:
One-on-one meetings are one of the most valuable tools a leader has, and one of the easiest to let become routine.
​
When done well, 1:1s create space for more than status updates. They can help leaders surface issues earlier, coach instead of simply solve, understand what motivates and develops their people, and gain insight they may not get anywhere else.
​
In this 30-minute Power Session, we'll look at the research behind effective 1:1s and, more importantly, how to make them work in the real world.
​
​We'll cover:
Finding the right cadence- how often to meet, for how long, and when to adjust
Making 30 minutes count- a practical structure that leaves room for what matters
Moving beyond status updates- balancing productivity, relationship-building, and development
Getting better conversation- questions that invite more than “I'm good”
Coaching without creating dependency- when to solve and when to let employees do the thinking
Hearing what isn't being said- creating opportunities for concerns, ideas, and feedback to surface earlier
Keeping high performers engaged- why your easiest employees to manage may be the easiest to overlook
Understanding what employees want next- without assuming growth always means promotion
Using skip-levels effectively- what makes them different, what to ask, and how to avoid undermining managers
Turning conversations into action- following through and closing the loop
​
You'll leave with practical questions, frameworks, and small changes you can use in your very next 1:1, without adding another complicated process to your calendar.
​
If you're already investing the time, let's make sure the time matters.
isolved is rolling out a new option for building out time off policies in the system, Advanced Accruals. This new option is designed to provide additional flexibility for managing more complex policies but does not replace Standard Accruals.
​
Advanced Accruals allows time off balances to be updated in real time as accruals are earned and time is used, helping employees and managers have a more current view of available balances.
This option is intended primarily for clients with more complex accrual policies or requirements that are not fully supported by standard accrual options. Advanced Accruals will be evaluated and implemented on a case-by-case basis based on each client’s specific needs over the coming months.
Additional updates that have been rolled out along with this new Advance Accruals feature include a new look and updated information on the Time Off Balances screen within the Classic View:
Employee Workspace Computer View:
And the Employee Workspace Mobile View:
Service animals may qualify as a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability, though are not guaranteed under federal law. Some state laws, like Colorado, give qualified employees the right to be accompanied by their service animal in their place of employment. Support animals generally do not fall under the same definition, though some state laws may vary. However, employers should still go through the interactive process to determine reasonable accommodations.
​
While there are a couple of moving parts to address, the majority of the legwork is found within the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). One of the major components of the ADA is the interactive process, in which an employer and employee engage in a discussion about accommodating an employee’s disability.
In context of the question, it may initially appear the employee requesting an accommodation for a support animal is acting in bad faith, but it’s important for the employer to engage in the interactive process regardless. Part of the process includes determining if the employee’s medical condition meets the ADA’s definition of ‘disability’, which can help rule out bad actors.
The interactive process also helps determine what steps could be considered a ‘reasonable accommodation’. In the case of service animals, while the ADA doesn’t specifically address their use in the workplace, they may qualify as a reasonable accommodation. This means under federal law, that employees are not automatically guaranteed use of their service animal, but that the employer should consider whether or not the accommodation would cause undue hardship. Some state laws vary – for example, Colorado does require employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with service animals, unless they can prove it would cause undue hardship.
It’s important to note that a support animal and a service animal are considered different under the law. The ADA defines a service animal as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities, which means emotional support animals don’t generally fall under this definition. However, there may be some state laws with expanded definitions that differ from federal law.
So does that mean you can deny accommodations for a support animal? Hold your horses – if the employee’s medical condition does qualify as a disability, the interactive process still needs to be completed. However, since accommodations for support animals are not protected under federal law (and many state laws), the employer is not required to make that specific accommodation and through the interactive process should determine if it would be effective for assisting an employee in performing their essential job functions.​
It usually starts with a perfectly reasonable decision, an employee needs a temporary schedule change, someone asks to work remotely for a few weeks, a trusted employee has exhausted their PTO. You agree to let them borrow against future accruals or a manager overlooks an attendance issue because an employee is going through a difficult time.
​
You aren't changing company policy, you're simply trying to be a reasonable employer until the exception becomes the expectation.
Most workplace exceptions are well-intentioned, a manager is trying to retain a good employee, respond to a difficult situation, reward someone who has earned trust, or simply exercise some common sense instead of rigidly applying a policy.
​​
The problem isn't the flexibility, the problem is what happens when no one defines it.
​​
A two-week schedule adjustment stretches into three months. The employee who was temporarily permitted to work from home now considers themselves a hybrid employee. The occasional late arrival that a manager chose not to address becomes the employee's normal start time.
​
And sometimes the employer doesn't realize the arrangement has changed at all until someone tries to change it back. That's when a simple act of flexibility can suddenly become an employee relations problem.
There's another complication: employees notice exceptions.
When one employee receives flexibility, another employee may reasonably wonder why the same option isn't available to them. That doesn't mean employers can never make individual exceptions and it also doesn't mean every employee must be treated identically.
​
Two employees may make the exact same request and receive different answers for legitimate reasons: their jobs may be different, their attendance histories may be different, the operational impact may be different, one arrangement may be temporary while another request would create an ongoing hardship for the business.
​​
The question isn't necessarily, “Have we ever allowed this before?”
A better question is: “Can we explain why we're making this decision in this situation?”
​​
Fair doesn't always mean equal, but fair should be explainable.
There is one important caution. What sounds like a manager granting a little flexibility may actually be something HR needs to evaluate more carefully.
A request to work remotely because of a medical condition, adjust a schedule because of pregnancy, take intermittent time away to care for a family member, or modify a workplace requirement because of a sincerely held religious belief may trigger obligations under federal or state law.
That doesn't mean the employee automatically gets exactly what they requested. It does mean the request shouldn't be handled as casually as, “Sure, I can make an exception,” or “Sorry, we don't make exceptions.”
Managers don't need to diagnose the legal issue, they just need to know when to bring HR into the conversation.
Employers don't need a complicated approval process every time they decide to be flexible, they do, however, need to be intentional.
What exactly are we agreeing to?
Why are we making the exception?
Is this temporary or ongoing?
If it's temporary, when does it end?
When will we revisit the arrangement?
Does HR need to review it?
Who needs to know about it?
Compare “Sure, you can come in later for a while” with:
“Let's adjust your start time to 9:30 through September 30 while you work through the childcare issue. We'll check in before then and determine whether you can return to your regular schedule.”
Same compassionate decision. Very different expectation.
There's another side to workplace flexibility: sometimes the expectation isn't created by the employee. It's created by the employer.
A manager approves a flexible schedule and begins expecting greater availability in return. The company advances PTO during a difficult situation and later feels frustrated when the employee isn't willing to make a different concession.
It's human nature to view flexibility as a two-way street. But an exception shouldn't create an invisible debt that only one side knows exists. If there are expectations attached to an arrangement, say so. Otherwise, both sides can walk away believing they agreed to very different things.
Good employers make exceptions: they recognize that employees are human beings, circumstances change, and sometimes the best business decision doesn't fit perfectly inside a handbook policy.
There's also value in paying attention to the exceptions you keep making. If managers routinely approve the same schedule adjustment, overlook the same policy requirement, or find themselves repeatedly working around the same rule, the problem may not be employee compliance. The policy itself may deserve another look.
The goal isn't to eliminate discretion or make managers afraid to say yes. It's to make sure that when you choose to bend a rule, everyone understands that you're bending it, not quietly rewriting it.
Be flexible when it makes sense. Just be clear about what you're agreeing to and where it ends. Because today's reasonable exception can easily become tomorrow's expectation.
