Is It Time to Abandon 1-on-1s?

If you work in a typical organisation, chances are your "leaders" pride themselves on innovative thinking and are fully signed up to the principles of diversity. What always fascinates is that diverse or innovative thinking is usually only desired up to a point. This is because first and foremost managers are required be a safe pair of hands — with 'safe' arbitrarily defined. Second, managers generally shy away from truly thinking outside the box for fear their diverse view, in so far as it deviates from organisational norms, jeopardises their opportunities for advancement.

Delightfully this obsession with conformity, and not being seen to rock the boat, vanishes like the darkness at dawn once people get into the top job. Either because the individual was always a maverick and now has a megaphone to project their thinking or because being at the top, they are less affected by peer pressure. Either way, it is a divergence from moribund corporate thinking that becomes even more pronounced as we climb into the rarified atmosphere of CEOs who run multi-trillion-dollar companies.

One such example is Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia (NVDA.O), who famously has 60 direct reports and shared his unconventional approach in conversation with Stripe founder Patrick Collison:

Huang: I don't do 1-on-1s, and almost everything I say, I say to everybody all the time. I don't really believe there's any information that I operate on that only one or two people should hear about… I believe that when you give everybody equal access to information, that empowers people. And so that's number one… Number two, if the CEO's direct staff is 60 people, the number of layers you've removed in a company is probably something like seven.
Collison: [how then do you] provide coaching, where you maybe talk through personal goals and career advancement, where maybe you give feedback on something that you see somebody systematically not doing so well… Do you not do those things or do you do them in a different way?
Huang: I give you feedback right there in front of everybody. In fact, this is a really big deal. First of all, feedback is learning. For what reason are you the only person who should learn this?… We should all learn from that opportunity… Half the time I'm not right, but for me to reason through it in front of everybody helps everybody learn how to reason through it. The problem I have with 1-on-1s and taking feedback aside is you deprive a whole bunch of people that same learning. Learning from other people's mistakes is the best way to learn.

This approach may seem shocking, having attention drawn to our faults and failures in front of peers, but spare a moment for the leader. They cannot hide behind a closed door in which their positional authority dominates all. They must use reasoned deliberation in a group setting and if they are wrong it will be seen by all. This not only takes tremendous courage but tremendous capability to do it well and do it consistently. If a manager cannot consistently achieve this feat of leadership, questions should be asked about their suitability in the role.

But before scrapping a time honoured and in most organisations mandatory practice, what should 1-on-1s be achieving?

The Changing Work Environment

In the management of an organisation, 1-on-1 meetings traditionally serve four key purposes:

1. Personalised Feedback and Mentorship: a private setting where managers can offer tailored feedback and guidance to employees and address their specific performance and career development needs.
2. Relationship Building: a space to build trust and strengthen the manager-employee relationship. The hope being this will foster open communication and mutual understanding.
3. Addressing Concerns: a time to voice concerns, discuss challenges, and seek support in a confidential environment. A key element to promoting a sense of psychological safety.
4. Goal Alignment: to ensure alignment on goals, progress, and expectations, with a view to contributing to overall productivity and performance.

Despite conventional management thinking suggesting that we need to double down on 1-on-1s, there are several factors which should prompt managers to reevaluate the effectiveness of this approach:

1. Remote and Hybrid Work: the shift towards remote and hybrid work models has disrupted traditional communication channels. Virtual 1-on-1s can feel impersonal and lack the spontaneity of in-person interactions.
2. Digital Collaboration Tools: tools like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and Zoom are increasing the volume of real-time communication and collaboration. Gone are the days a manager may be stuck in meetings and away from their team. Arrived are message notifications popping up all day every day in a stream of employee consciousness. Reducing the need for scheduled, formal meetings.
3. Work-Life Balance: employees increasingly value flexibility and time efficiency (read hate feeling micro-management). Scheduled 1-on-1s can be seen as interruptions rather than productive interactions, especially in a remote work context.
4. Employee Autonomy: managers are increasingly trending toward an emphasis on empowering employees with greater autonomy and trust. An approach which can conflict with the structured nature of regular 1-on-1s.

The Case for Abandoning 1-on-1s

Given these changes, there are compelling arguments for abandoning, or at least radically rethinking, the traditional 1-on-1 meeting format. Which brings us back to the approach taken at Nvidia where Jensen Huang's approach is grounded in the belief that transparency and collective learning outweigh the benefits of individualised feedback.

Huang's reasoning, explained in his conversation with Stripe founder Patrick Collison at the start of this article, stresses the value of:

1. Equal Access to Information: by sharing information openly with all direct reports, Huang empowers them. He believes that no critical information should be confined to just a few individuals. This practice not only democratises knowledge but also removes multiple layers of communication within the organisation, speeding up decision-making processes.
2. Public Feedback: by giving feedback in front of everyone, a learning opportunity is created not just for the individual receiving it but for the entire team. By reasoning through feedback publicly, even if he is wrong, Huang believes it fosters a culture of collective learning and open discussion.

Nvidia are not complete mavericks in questioning the value of 1-on-1s, with several researchers supporting the argument for rethinking the traditional approach. A study by Raghuram et al. found that remote employees often experience higher levels of job satisfaction and productivity when they have greater autonomy and flexible communication options. Similarly, Gajendran and Harrison reported that remote work arrangements can enhance employee well-being and reduce work-related stress, if communication remains effective and timely.

Moreover, companies like Automattic and GitLab (GTLB), which operate fully remote workforces, demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative communication strategies. These organisations leverage asynchronous communication, on-demand check-ins, and team-based feedback mechanisms to maintain high levels of engagement and performance.

Alternatives to Traditional 1-on-1s

Abandoning 1-on-1s does not mean abandoning communication and mentorship. Instead, it calls for more adaptive and innovative approaches:

1. On-Demand Check-Ins: employees to request check-ins as needed, fostering a more flexible and responsive communication culture. This can help address issues promptly without waiting for the next scheduled meeting. It also helps to drive accountability as staff realise they need to be active in their approach to work, rather than waiting for their manager to chase them.
2. Team-Based Feedback: sessions where peers can share insights and support each other, enhancing collective growth. This approach can promote a culture of continuous improvement and mutual accountability.
3. Leveraging Technology: utilisation of digital tools for continuous feedback and updates, reducing the need for formal, scheduled meetings.
4. Focus on Outcomes: Shift from process-orientated meetings to outcome-focused interactions, ensuring that every meeting has a clear purpose and value. This approach emphasises the achievement of specific objectives rather than the mere adherence to a routine.
5. Open-Door Policies: where employees feel comfortable approaching managers without the need for scheduled meetings. This can create a more inclusive and approachable work environment.

Challenges and Considerations

While there are clear benefits to rethinking 1-on-1s, organisations must also consider potential challenges to amending or even scrapping the practice:

1. Transition Period: shifting away from traditional 1-on-1s requires a transition period where both managers and employees adjust to new communication norms and tools.
2. Training and Support: managers need to be able to adapt to the situation and may need training to do this. Providing adequate support and resources is essential for a smooth transition.
3. Maintaining Engagement: ensuring that employees remain engaged and feel supported without regular 1-on-1s requires careful planning and ongoing evaluation. Organisations must continuously assess the effectiveness of their communication strategies and adjust as needed.

Back to the Future

There is of course a very big HOWEVER to questioning the traditional approach to 1-on-1s. Which is that a more flexible and dynamic approach requires psychological safety in teams so people feel confident to take calculated risks and are assured that they will not face sanction for failing to meet preset performance standards — so long as there were lessons learned and change happens in the future.

Another key requirement is for people to engage in an open knowledge model, sharing information and experiences across departments and engaging in discretionary boundary spanning. This latter aspect can be monitored by assessing deeds rather than words — for example does a person just put forward ideas in meetings or do they actively take on and deliver action items?

The traditional 1-on-1 meeting, once a staple of effective management, may no longer be the optimal tool in today's dynamic and digital work environment. Particularly where there are autonomous, adaptable, and highly capable managers. As organisations strive for greater efficiency, flexibility, and employee satisfaction, it is crucial to reassess and innovate the accepted communication practices of an organisation. By embracing new approaches that leverage technology and prioritise meaningful interactions, we can create a more engaged and productive workforce. It's not about abandoning 1-on-1s entirely, but rather evolving them to better meet the needs of modern employees and organisations.

Good night, and good luck.

Further Reading:

Bailey, C, and Madden, A (2017) Time Reclaimed: Temporality and the Experience of Meaningful Work. Work, Employment & Society, 31(1), 3–18.

Bloom, N, Liang, J, Roberts, J, and Zhichun Jenny Ying (2013) Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc.

Deci, EL, and Ryan, RM (2000) The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Drucker, PF (2011) The Practice of Management, New York: Routledge.

Edmondson, A (1999) Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. Retrieved from.

Gajendran, RS, and Harrison, DA (2007) The Good, the Bad, and the Unknown About Telecommuting: Meta-Analysis of Psychological Mediators and Individual Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.

Grote, D (2011) How to Be Good at Performance Appraisals: Simple, Effective, Done Right, 1st edn, Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Hill, EJ, Ferris, M, and Märtinson, V (2003) Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Special Issue on Technology and Careers, 63(2), 220–241.

Kotter, JP (2012) Leading Change, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Review Press.

Locke, EA, and Latham, GP (2002) Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-Year Odyssey. The American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

Raghuram, S, Garud, R, Wiesenfeld, B, and Gupta, V (2001) Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment. Journal of Management, 27(3), 383–405.

Winter, Robert N.
— Leading Psychological Safety in Teams.
— The Boundaries of Informal Leadership.
— Fixed and Growth, Twin Aspects of our Mindset.
—Are Hierarchies Healthy for Organisations?.