the one-on-one is dead

Are one-on-one meetings essential… or obsolete?

The traditional wisdom, championed by management guru Andy Grove, says one-on-one meetings are a necessity. In his book, "High Output Management," Grove argues that regular one-on-ones are the cornerstone of effective management.

He states, "Ninety minutes of your time can enhance the quality of your subordinate’s work for two weeks." The one-on-one, in Grove's view, is the manager's primary tool for:

• Alignment: Ensuring everyone's on the same page.

• Surfacing issues: Catching problems before they become crises.

• Coaching and development: Investing in individual growth.

• Building trust: Creating a safe space for candid conversations.

Grove's approach, honed at Intel, emphasized structure, regularity, and individual accountability. It's a model that's been adopted across industries, including SaaS.

But what if there's a different way? A way that prioritizes speed, collaboration, and collective intelligence over individual check-ins? An entrepreneur’s approach versus that of a seasoned manager from a different business era.

Enter Brian Chesky (Airbnb) and Jensen Huang (NVIDIA). These CEOs represent a growing counter-narrative to Grove's doctrine.

Chesky, for instance, is against traditional one-on-ones. He believes they're often unproductive and can even be detrimental to open communication.

"The one-on-one model is flawed," Chesky said in a recent interview. "It's a recurring one-hour one-on-one meeting where the employee owns the agenda. And what happens is that they often don't talk about the things you want to talk about, and you become like their therapist."

Instead, Chesky favors:

• All-Hands Meetings: Large, open forums where employees can ask anything.

• Spontaneous Conversations: Addressing issues as they arise, rather than waiting for a scheduled meeting.

• Design Jams & Workshops: Collaborative problem-solving sessions among small, focused working teams.

Huang takes a similar approach. He doesn't hold one-on-one meetings with his 60 (😳) direct reports. His philosophy is rooted in radical transparency and agility: "They never hear me say something to them that is only for them to know. There is not one piece of information that I somehow secretly tell them that I don’t tell the rest of the company," Huang explained. He prefers "in-the-trenches" collaboration, often dropping into engineering "war rooms" to work through challenges in real time.

So, who's right? Grove, the champion of structured management? Or Chesky and Huang, the proponents of fluid, open communication?

The answer, as with most things in business, is: it depends.

Grove's model offers predictability, individual attention, and a dedicated space for personal development. It's valuable in organizations where:

• Hierarchy is important.

• Individual performance is tracked.

• Employees need regular coaching and guidance.

The Chesky/Huang approach prioritizes speed, collaboration, and collective problem-solving. It might be better suited for companies that:

• Value agility and rapid iteration.

• Have a flat organizational structure.

• Encourage open communication and transparency.

• Have a high-trust environment.

I know where I stand on this one (can you guess?). But there's no one-size-fits-all answer. The best approach to one-on-ones (or any management practice) depends on your company culture, your team's needs, a leader’s personal preferences, and your overall business goals.

To me, the key is to be intentional about whatever you choose and to regularly evaluate its effectiveness.

Are your current one-on-one practices (or lack thereof) serving your team and your business? Or is it time to rethink your approach, drawing inspiration from both the structured rigor of Grove and the fluid agility of Chesky and Huang?

🤘