Imagine this: You're the CEO of a major tech company. Your day is scheduled down to the minute with meetings, presentations, and strategic planning sessions. But there's one type of meeting you'll never find on your calendar - the dreaded one-on-one. Jensen Huang, the uncompromising leader of Nvidia, has abolished them entirely for his 40 direct reports: "I don't do any of them unless they need me, and then I drop everything for them". Why not? Because they create complexity and asymmetrical information flow: "in our company people are empowered by what they can do, not what they know." His radical move flies in the face of conventional management wisdom that prizes face time and open dialogue between bosses and employees.
One-on-one meetings have become enshrined in corporate culture as a hallmark of good leadership. The logic seems sound - regular check-ins build trust, surface issues early, and foster strong working relationships. We like them so much that we spend around 25% of our working time doing them. But what if this treasured ritual is an insidious waste of time and a catalyst for dysfunction?
The data, it turns out, is not kind to the vaunted one-on-one. Dr. Steven Rogelberg, an organizational psychologist at UNC-Charlotte studying the science of meetings, has found a stunning 50% of leaders believe their one-on-ones are suboptimal or actively harmful.
Firstly, there's the fundamental problem of "face time" itself - the pressure to accumulate visibility through needless meetings that achieve no tangible outcomes. Then there's the leadership paradox - even the most skilled communicators struggle to convey nuanced messages consistently across a series of individual sessions rife with impromptu Q&A. And perhaps most perilous are the unilateral decisions made in temporary blindspots, with limited context and input.
Yet we are human animals, hardwired to crave the intimacy of personal connection. Rogelberg's research reveals that face-to-face interaction when executed thoughtfully, remains indispensable for building cohesion and trust. The solution, it seems, lies in being ruthlessly intentional.
If going cold turkey is too much for you, why not at least breathe some new energy and intention into these meetings?
Name it: Instead of calling it a "1:1", re-name the meeting based on what you and your team want to achieve with a focus on things like coaching, problem-solving, and two-way feedback. How would your mindset shift if you had a "Thinking Partnership Meeting" instead of a generic "1:1"?
Plan it: Establish a steady, achievable cadence - for many, every two weeks hits the productivity sweet spot. And if they start to get canceled frequently, ask yourself why and try a different approach. Also, because 1:1 meetings require heavy engagement of the Prefrontal Cortex, consider having meaningful breaks in between meetings or spreading them throughout your calendar.
Live it. Lastly, resist the urge to dominate and instead reduce your share of voice to 25% or less. Say less; listen more! Monitor your inner voice to make sure you are staying focused in the present.
And here’s a final thought: why not take these meetings into the fresh air? A pioneering study from the University of Miami Medical School found that walking meetings can boost mood, physical activity, and creative thinking. Who knows - the path to better meetings may begin with abandoning the confines of the office altogether.