📷 Pixabay

When I first stepped into a management role in my team, I followed the textbook approach. Weekly one-on-one meetings were scheduled with each report, neatly slotted into our diaries like tiny check-ins of care and productivity. It looked great on paper.

But here's the thing: every time one of those meetings rolled around, there was nothing left to say. The team had already sorted it out.

It’s not that we weren’t collaborating. Quite the opposite. We just weren’t saving problems for the meeting slot, because that’s not how fast-moving, real-world work in a communications environment actually happens.

Eventually, I cancelled all the one-on-ones.

But don’t you need those meetings for team cohesion?  . . . Not really

Not because I didn’t care about my team, but because they were (and are) simply that efficient. The issues were being resolved before they could be diarised. So we trialled a new structure: weekly written “Updates” via Microsoft Teams. It worked for a while, until it didn’t. Turns out that format added more admin than value. Another layer of “update theatre” that, ironically, slowed us down.

So, in our team, we now have a radical policy: no regular one-on-ones.

And it’s working. Not in a begrudging, survival-mode way, but in an energised, purposeful, results-based way.

But don’t you need those meetings for team cohesion?

Not really. We replaced scheduled catchups with something far more fluid: an actual open-door policy. Yes, I know “open door” sounds like corporate fluff, but I mean it literally. If a team member wants to chat, they pop in, check if I’m available, and we talk it through then and there. No performance. No PowerPoint. Just real conversation when it matters.

I do the same with them.

Some might argue that these impromptu conversations break focus, and occasionally, they do. But most of the time, we sort out an issue in five minutes and go back to our work sharper than before. It’s a reset button. A fast-track solution. And dare I say, a refreshing “brain break” in a busy day.

Collaboration ≠ calendar invites

We do have one scheduled meeting every month: A full Unit sync where each person shares what they’ve been working on and what’s coming up. But here’s the difference: it’s not status-report theatre. It’s a real creative jam session.

In our Communications Unit, we thrive on momentum and shared input. These monthly meetings are where strategic feedback flows freely. Even if something isn’t “your job,” you can weigh in, offer ideas, or ask the question that pushes your colleague’s project in a new direction.

Nine times out of ten, those spontaneous contributions elevate the work. They also build team cohesion in a way that formal check-ins simply don’t. You walk out reminded that everyone is doing something meaningful, and frankly, quite cool.

One-on-ones are a productivity tax

There’s growing evidence to support this shift. Studies featured in Harvard Business Review, Fast Company, and The Guardian all echo the same thing: meetings (especially one-on-ones) are often a productivity tax.

Organisational psychologist Steven Rogelberg found that 70% of meetings actually hinder progress. Other studies show meetings cost large companies millions each year in lost productivity. And one compelling analysis from Atlassian showed how replacing meetings with asynchronous tools saved them 3.75 million minutes across their workforce.

Even leaders like Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky and Nvidia’s Jensen Huang have walked away from one-on-ones altogether, arguing they often feel more like therapy than strategy.

We’ve known for a while that back-to-back meetings are a problem. But what’s less talked about is that even well-meaning check-ins can bloat your calendar without adding value.

Studies show meetings cost large companies millions each year in lost productivity.

So, how do you manage performance?

The short answer: with clarity and trust (plus a little help from folders).

My inbox is structured to give me a live view of all tasks related to each of my reports. Every item gets slotted into categories: “To Check,” “Waiting for Feedback,” “Pending,” and “Finalised.” We don’t lose track. We don’t duplicate. And best of all, we don’t need a meeting to know what’s going on.

Clear email etiquette and follow-through are non-negotiable. But once you have that rhythm, everything else falls into place. Performance conversations happen naturally in context, not in isolation. The visibility is built in.

The caveat: This only works if…

Of course, this kind of system only works if your team culture supports it. You need:

• Psychological safety, so that team members want to ask questions or flag issues in real time.
• Real-time responsiveness, without relying on always-on availability.
• Clarity of roles and expectations, so people aren’t waiting around for permission to move.

Most importantly, you need a team that thrives on accountability, not performance optics.

I used to feel like a failed manager for not wanting to do one-on-ones. I worried it made me seem disengaged, or worse, disorganised. But what I’ve come to realise is this:

Good management isn’t about meetings. It’s about momentum.

You can’t calendar your way into connection. You have to create a system that’s built for the team you have, not the theory you read.

If it’s not broke, don’t formalise it

So no, I don’t do one-on-ones.

We email. We pop in. We solve things. We trust each other. We meet monthly to jam.

And it’s working, for us.

Unpopular opinion? Maybe.

But if it helps us stay focused, creative, and connected… I’ll gladly be the outlier.