I like to begin coaching work with new clients exploring a couple tangible aspects of how they're leading.

I first check to see if they can state a clear, compelling "preferred future" they are sailing the team towards and the priorities to get there.

Without that, there is nothing for anyone to follow, no matter how finely-tuned their inner worlds might be.

Then, if they can clearly articulate the strategic landscape, I ask them to lay out their operating rhythm...what meetings happen daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly...and to describe what role each of those meetings have in ensuring effective execution of the strategy.

As an aside, I find many leaders have never laid out the full year calendar and reflected on whether their specific operating mechanisms and rhythm are the most effective way to deliver short- and long-term outcomes. (#coachingopportunity)

More to the point of this article, I notice most of my clients list one-on-one meetings with each member of their team, often weekly or every other, as part of their Operating Rhythm.

This leads me to wonder whether the perseveration of weekly 1-1s might be an instance of the Abilene Paradox.

The prevalence of 1-1s is interesting to me. These recurring, place-holder meetings seem to have an almost obligatory, you'd-be-negligent-if-you-didn't quality about them.

Though they are widespread, of course, not everyone does them. 

Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia does not schedule one-on-one meetings with his direct reports.  “Unless they need me,” he said, “then I’ll drop everything for them.”  

Elon Musk agrees.

(N.B., I am not advocating for either of their overall approaches to leadership per se.  Think whatever you will about them, their approach, and their companies.  I am just highlighting their public acknowledgement of eschewing one-on-ones.)

In Jensen's case, skipping one-on-ones, might have something to do with the fact that he has 55 direct reports  More on big teams later.

But they are still popular with many leaders.

This leads me to wonder whether the perseveration of weekly 1-1s might be an instance of the Abilene Paradox. Managers do them because they think their people want them.  And the team goes along because they believe the manager wants them.

So I decided to ask why so much time is being allocated to them.

Why Leaders Say They Have Place-Holder One-on-Ones on Their Schedules

Here are some responses to my inquiry, followed by my take.

“My team wants guidance on their execution challenges.”

My view: probably a problem. 

I argued here that there is a lot a leader can teach and a lot of ways to do that teaching.  But if you are in the M.A.S.H. tent rehabbing the team on functional & execution aspects of their jobs, smart money says your team likely needs up-leveling.

Blindingly successful leaders often advise against tolerating C players.  

Brad Jacobs says, "An empty seat is less damaging than a poor fit."

And Frank Slootman says, "If someone says they would rather have someone than no one, then they are the wrong person.  I would rather have nobody than somebody not functioning because they become real leadership traps. Everyone sees they are not performing, and you are not doing anything about it.  Suffering and tolerating mediocrity is the worst reflex you can have."

But I am not sure how many leaders consistently follow recommendations like those, seeming to prefer the rehab process or just limping along with the team they have.

“They want my help with decisions.” 

My view: probably a problem.

Start by asking, why they aren't making the call themselves.  Are they too inexperienced?  Or have you not delegated enough decision-making authority and made it clear that you expect them to make the call and dig themselves out if they go off course? 

Now, every leader will, at some point, need to make a big bet that will require other eyes on the decision. 

But this is not happening every week, nor every other, to justify the steady stream of one-on-ones.

"I am one of the "Cs" in the DACI and they are just consulting me for my input on a decision they will make."

My view: OK, but there are probably better ways to get your input.

First, are there that many projects and project decisions that they need to C-consult with you every week for your input? 

Second, could email or some other asynchronous channel work to get that input instead of a standing meeting that will likely devolve into other conversations?

If development is really your objective, instead of more one-on-one time, you would be better off asking yourself if each person reporting to you is sufficiently stretched.  Not busy, they all are, but rather, taking on projects and tasks they have never managed and operating outside their comfort zone.

“It’s for their development.” 

My view: OK, but there are better ways. 

While still working on my doctorate, I was involved in a large research project (N=3500) on the drivers of development for leaders and managers. 

The answer from the research was unequivocal.  The big development thrusts did not come from bosses, mentors, or training.

The most rapid development came from being in over your head and having the expectation and accountability to figure it out. 

I realize that on-the-job training in key roles is not always pretty.  Unfortunately, it seems to be the mistakes and ass-kickings that are most developmental. 

However, even with some dings and dents, just getting through tough times is also developmental.  It leaves you with more confidence that you’ll be able to handle other steep challenges on the road ahead.

If development is really your objective, instead of more one-on-one time, you would be better off asking yourself if each person reporting to you is sufficiently stretched.  Not busy, they all are, but rather, taking on projects and tasks they have never managed and operating outside their comfort zone.

Finally, if you're really interested in development, you can learn more about the role of leaders in creating an optimal development environment here.  Note: one-on-ones do not make the Top Five list of strategies.

A core element of Mulally's turn-around plan was his One Team, One Ford philosophy and the rhythm of weekly business review meetings that were the operationalization of that philosophy. 

“It surfaces early warnings about issues.”  

My view: there are definitely better ways. 

Boeing Executive, Alan Mulally, with no previous experience in the auto industry, walked into family-led Ford Motor Company, with it's "competitive, self-preservation" culture and pulled off one of the largest turnarounds in the history of corporate America. 

When Mullaly joined in September 2006, the company was on track to lose $17 billion by year end.  In this case, unfortunately, the forecast was spot-on! 

Two years later, the financial crisis hit and the entire auto industry had to be bailed out.  Except for Ford, which had mortgage critical assets (including the Ford emblem) to take a $23B loan to weather the storm.

Even with the loan, Ford and the entire auto industry were on the ropes.

A core element of Mulally's turn-around plan was his One Team, One Ford philosophy and the rhythm of weekly business review meetings that were the operationalization of that philosophy.  

Every Thursday, four geographic P&L leaders, the head of Ford Credit, 12 functional leaders, his COO, and the Chairman of the Board(!), Bill Ford, met in a conference room dedicated to that weekly review meeting. 

That's 20...very senior people...every week.

Everyone was assigned clear priorities, all linked to company profitability.  The status of each was color-coded and posted on the wall, with the picture(!) of the exec in charge of those projects/priorities posted over the results.

Each exec was expected to explain to the rest of the team anything that was off track.  And they got the help they needed to resolve bottlenecks real-time from the rest of the team.

If you can see some value in this approach, know that it didn't look so rosy at the start.

Mark Fields, Mulally's successor at CEO, said that at Ford, you never talked about problems, because it was seen as a sign of weakness.

In the initial meetings after the color-coding system was implemented, all of the charts were green [emphasis added]. Mulally responded by saying, "Surely there must be some issues.  We're forecasting a $17 billion dollar loss this year."

Fields, who was a business unit chief for Ford's Americas operation at the time, had an issue in Canada with the launch of the Ford Edge - a lift-gate actuator on the tailgate wasn't functioning properly. So Fields stopped production, and then in the weekly business plan review presented a launch chart with three columns in red.

"Eye contact goes down to the floor, the air leaves the room," Mulally said, underscoring the fear felt by some of the company officials.

Fields explained that he didn't know what the issue was, but they were working on it, and Mulally began to clap [emphasis added]. Then someone else at the meeting said he had a similar issue with another product. And then someones else noted a possible solution. The collaboration got the issue solved quickly, Mulally said.

A few weeks later, the charts presented at the weekly meetings looked like a rainbow of greens, yellows and reds.

"At that moment, we all knew that we were going to trust each other," Mulally said. "We were going to share everything about the plan, and we were going to help each other to turn the reds to yellows to greens."

In 2014 when Mulally stepped down from Ford, he handed his successor a company that had had 19 consecutive quarters of profitable growth and made $7B in profit the previous year. 

No weekly 1-1s with 20 people.  Weekly Op Reviews.  With the whole team.  With clear priorities, clear accountabilities, and clear color-coded status...posted on the walls.  With real-time help immediately tapped from across the team to parachute in where needed.

People are dying for connection, dying to be seen, and dying to be part of something meaningful.  Why limit the fostering of connection to just you, in 1-1s?

It’s so they can feel like they have a personal connection to me and personal visibility."

My view: OK.  There are probably better ways. 

Nothing builds stronger bonds between people than going through a gauntlet working on hard, meaningful problems...together.  The previous vignette highlights how the Ford team, facing a $17B loss, learned to trust each other, get out of their self-preservation silos, and come to each other's aid.

If the bonding that is forged in the fire of working together on real problems is not enough, how about augmenting the Op Reviews, with a weekly lunch with the team, where work is off the table? People just check in and share whatever aspect of their lives they feel comfortable sharing, and the whole team gets to know each other better.  To cap it off, you could end with a round of appreciations for good measure.

I am not saying that is a good idea for every team.

But people are dying to be seen, dying for connection, and dying to be part of something meaningful.  Why limit the fostering of connection to just you, in 1-1s?

But, getting a dog might be a better option for feeling special because I am guessing there are higher ROI uses for your time, expertise, and the power to move the needle that comes with your organizational level than the half day or more each week or every other spent in place-holder one-on-ones.

Gut Check:  Are You Sure Those Place-Holder One-on-Ones Aren’t Really for You?

The reasons listed make it seem as if the leaders do those one-on-ones just for their team. 

But it's your calendar. 

Sustained behavior grows out of a web of rewards.  What might the strands of this particular web be made of?

Well, first, it’s nice to feel needed and to feel like you are in control and the wise one with the answers.

I agree.  That is nice.  Really nice. 

But, getting a dog might be a better option for feeling special because I am guessing there are higher ROI uses for your time, expertise, and the power to move the needle that comes with your organizational level than the half day or more each week or every other spent in place-holder one-on-ones.

If there aren't, perhaps there should be.

"Guys like Jensen Huang and Elon Musk are always working on the most critical problems at the company. Jensen told me, 'I have no fixed schedule. I have no standing meetings. I just find out what is the most important problem at the company, and I go and sit my desk down in that area and I pull the best resources to work on that problem.  That is also what Elon does at each of his companies." [Gavin Baker Interview]

And there are not only today's thorniest problems that you could be working on, but also tomorrows.

For example, you could be spending time looking out 18-36 months and laying out potential scenarios, priorities, and the types and number of resources needed.  By the way, who's doing this if you are not?

But this is also challenging work, requiring you to make big bets that you might be wrong about.  Ugh!

This then is a second possible reward you're getting for holding regularly scheduled one-to-ones: you get to stay busy and avoid facing those tough, ill-defined problems.

You might be howling that these are not "rewards" that you need or are getting. 

Maybe so. I don't know you.

But I wouldn't generalize from what's true for you.  Trying to argue that the prevalence and persistence of one-on-ones across organizations today flows solely from the leaders' largess for their teams would be to ignore what we know about what sustains behavior.

If the wheels start coming off the cart, though it is hard to imagine why they would, it is easy enough to return to "your regular scheduled programming."

Alternatives to 1-1s

If you are open to trying to operate without 1-1s here are some options.

Option #1: cancel all place-holder 1-1s on the calendar and tell your team that you will make time for anyone whenever they need it.  See if anyone tries to continue scheduling them and if so, reflect on whether that is indicative of any other issue.

Option #2: hold office hours twice a week.  Block the time so nothing else can get scheduled.  If no one shows up, do real work during that time on those thorny ill-defined problems only you can solve.  If anyone shows up, help as needed.  When they leave, ask yourself if that "escalation" was appropriate. 

With Options #1 and #2, what have you got to lose? 

If the wheels start coming off the cart, though it is hard to imagine why they would, it is easy enough to return to "your regular scheduled programming."

Option #3: Consider whether a Mullaly-like weekly or bi-weekly business review with the whole team might have a higher ROI than your current 1-1s.  Placing team member pictures over the priorities and status is optional.

Option #4: the single best way to avoid having your calendar filled by standing one-on-one meetings is to make a commitment to having a lot of direct reports. 

Maybe not 55 like Jensen Huang, but consider aiming for double digits. 

Because there is no way to manage a lot of direct reports with 1-1s.

If you have a big team, you have to:

• Hire real hitters that can operate independently
• Get aligned on the deliverables, timing, budget, and "the Hows" (operating norms, values, decision-making process & authority)
• Establish an operating rhythm that provides clear visibility, to everyone, on how each leader is executing on his/her priorities that are critical to the team's success
• Turn them loose, letting them know that you believe in their ability to figure it out, and you expect them to.

 

"One-on-one [basketball] can build confidence, but it doesn’t teach you how to share the ball, how to read a defense, or how to make your teammates better." 

~Steve Nash, NBA Hall of Famer, who ranks 5th in NBA history in assists

I obviously can't say that regularly scheduled 1-1s with your team isn't the right approach to optimize execution for the situation you find yourself in.

But I am suggesting that you clarify the role one-on-ones play in your operating rhythm and be brutally honest about what the real objective of doing them is. 

Then ask whether there might be better approaches, with higher ROI, for the time invested.

Even a slight reduction in time spent in place-holder meetings wouldn't be a bad outcome.

Dennis Adsit, Ph.D. is an executive coach, organization consultant, and designer of The First 100 Days and Beyond, a consulting service that has helped hundreds of leaders get the best start of their careers and given them tools and templates for continued success long past their First Hundred Days.