?? Team Meetings Outperform 1–1s — When Psychological Safety is Present

File this under #businessresilience

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang doesn’t believe in 1–1 meetings. His stance is that they create information silos and inhibit the free flow of knowledge within teams. Instead, he prefers team meetings, where the entire group can engage, collaborate, and solve problems.

This perspective holds some merit. Team meetings are inherently more inclusive and can be far more efficient. Instead of a manager spending an hour with each team member individually, they can spend a single hour with the entire group, saving significant time — potentially up to seven hours if the team has eight members.

However, there are two key assumptions we must question.

Information Flows

The first assumption is that information always flows freely in team meetings. This only holds if every team member feels comfortable contributing. That requires high talent density — where all team members are highly skilled and capable of engaging effectively — and psychological safety — where everyone feels safe to voice their thoughts without fear of negative repercussions.

Unfortunately, many organizations don’t meet these conditions. Without psychological safety, team meetings may fall short, leading to silence or shallow discussions that miss the opportunity for real collaboration. In such cases, 1–1s might be more effective because they provide a private, focused space for individuals to share their thoughts openly.

Private Matters

The second assumption is that the content of 1–1 meetings is purely work-related. This isn’t always the case. 1–1s are often used to discuss personal topics, such as career advice and growth, professional development, and performance feedback. 1–1s can also be a way for managers and employees to build relationships.

These conversations can be sensitive and are often better kept private. In those cases, team meetings simply aren’t the right forum. While Jensen’s approach works for high-talent teams focused purely on work tasks, other teams might still need 1–1s for these personal and developmental conversations.

Psychological Safety

Psychological safety, as defined by Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson, is “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.” Without that safety, employees won’t feel comfortable sharing their thoughts in team meetings, rendering them far less efficient than 1–1s.

So, while Jensen’s recommendation holds water, it requires a crucial qualifier: Team meetings are preferable to 1–1s when psychological safety is present. If your team doesn’t have that safety, team meetings will not be more efficient. They may be less so, as people hesitate to contribute, and important information is withheld.

In such cases, 1–1s can act as a temporary stopgap measure. They provide a safer space for employees to speak up, but they shouldn’t be seen as the ultimate solution. The long-term goal should still be to create enough psychological safety that 1–1s become less necessary, allowing for more efficient and inclusive team meetings.

Personal Development

How about personal topics like feedback, performance reviews, and career development? Do these justify maintaining regular 1–1s? For many organizations, the answer is yes, especially if traditional performance management systems are in place.

However, even in these situations, you might not need 1–1s as frequently as you think. If work-related matters are handled well in team meetings, then perhaps 1–1s could be held less often — once a quarter, for example. This approach can still provide the necessary space for personal discussions without overwhelming anyone’s calendar.

Of course, this too assumes that feedback flows freely in team meetings, which circles us back to the need for psychological safety. In an ideal world, feedback should be given in real-time, during team interactions, rather than “saved up” for a formal 1–1 session.

Rethinking 1–1s

I realize this might spark some strong opinions. 1–1s are considered sacred in many organizations, a cornerstone of the manager-employee relationship. And yes, relationships are important; they’re one of the three pillars of workplace fulfillment, alongside impact and mastery. But I would argue that recurring 1–1s are not necessarily the best way to build these relationships. A standing calendar invite doesn’t automatically foster a genuine connection.

Jensen’s method of forgoing 1–1s in favor of team meetings is an intriguing idea, especially in environments where talent density is high, and psychological safety is well-established. For those of us managing more typical teams, though, we should see it as an ambitious target to work toward, rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.

Ultimately, the goal should be to create team environments where people feel safe, feedback flows freely, and team meetings are productive and inclusive. If that’s in place, the need for frequent 1–1s diminishes, allowing you to focus more on the collective wisdom and collaboration of the team.

But remember: psychological safety is the cornerstone of all this. Without it, no amount of team meetings can replace the value of a well-timed, focused 1-1 conversation.

That’s all for this week. Until next time: Make it matter.

/Andreas

How can we build better organizations? That’s the question I’ve been trying to answer for the past 10 years. Each week, I share some of what I’ve learned in a weekly newsletter called WorkMatters. Back issues are marinated for three months before being published to Linkedin. This article was originally published on Friday, Oct 11, 2024. If you are reading this you’re missing out. Subscribe now and get the next issue delivered straight into your inbox. ??