How openness, clarity, and accountability consistently outperform private check-ins
After spending two decades in the industry across several teams and organizations, I discovered (to no one’s surprise) that most 1:1s neither create clarity nor build alignment. Instead, they drain energy, hide issues, and create information imbalance.
This understanding didn’t come overnight; it came from seeing the same behaviours repeat across industries and leadership cultures.
1. What Exactly Is a 1:1?
A 1:1 is meant to be a dedicated conversation between a manager and an individual. In theory, its purpose is simple: help the person grow, give feedback, review alignment, and provide direction. But over time, the meaning has drifted. Many 1:1s today are not used for growth, and they have become:
- status updates privately delivered
- emotional unloading sessions
- complaint corners around team members or other functions
- backchannel discussions on things people don’t want to say openly
Thank god, at least someone like the Nvidia CEO openly talks about it, I was feeling odd man out.
2. Why 1:1s Are Not Good (and the Reasoning Behind It)
The purpose has been diluted
Most 1:1s today no longer focus on development. They often turn into status recaps or private sessions to complain or express frustration. This shifts attention away from fixing systemic issues and instead hides them inside private conversations.
“Saving it for my 1:1” shows a deeper cultural issue
When team members feel safe only in a private room, it usually sends a subtle signal to everyone else around that the manager does not want to discuss controversial issues openly. Sprint Retros or Project reviews are just superficial; checklist items and other discussions feel rehearsed, and people fear being judged.
Information asymmetry becomes a silent killer
I’m personally not a fan of information asymmetry. It is the biggest killer of high-performing teams.
These 1:1s create information gatekeepers. Some gain influence simply because they know things others don’t. Then, Narratives start replacing facts. Alignment weakens because everyone operates with different truths.
Status updates don’t belong in 1:1s
Good and efficient teams never rely on private meetings for the real status of the project or engagement; instead, they use dashboards that can be drilled down for finer details, ensuring everyone has the same information at the same time.
If a manager still needs a 1:1 to “get status,” the Operating Model system is already weak.
3. How to Fix This: Use OKRs + Restore the True Purpose of 1:1s
The solution is not to eliminate 1:1s; it is to remove their unhealthy dependency by improving the system.
Clear OKRs make most 1:1s unnecessary
When OKRs are aligned, visible, and updated regularly, operational 1:1s become less relevant. People who know me that I’m a proponent of the following:
- clarity removes confusion,
- Consistent metrics remove narratives.
- Transparency removes politics.
- Alignment removes escalation.
The Operating model itself drives accountability.
Bring 1:1s back to their real purpose
Once OKRs and transparency handle the operational flow, 1:1s can return to their original intention: career direction and personal development. These need not be weekly; instead, they can be achieved through quarterly or semi-annual checkpoints.
The mentor 1:1 is the true exception
I still have a monthly mentor 1:1. It is not about status or politics. It is a safe learning space where I can ask what I missed or what I could have done differently. How a senior leader would have done differently based on their 30+ years of industry experience
A mentor 1:1 strengthens judgment
A manager 1:1 often strengthens dependency
OKR-driven transparency reduces the need for layers
When related teams openly share updates, blockers, decisions, and outcomes, the organization naturally reduces the need for multiple layers of managers whose primary role is simply to “carry information.”
Teams begin to understand the decision-making process directly. They also learn from other stakeholders, their constraints, and their perspectives. On the surface, it may feel like a “waste of time.” Still, in reality, it is the most efficient way to remove information asymmetry and create shared understanding across the system. The usual counterargument is simple:
“Team A doesn’t care what’s happening in Team B. So why make them listen? Why waste their time?”
But this argument has gaps. Though teams may think they are independent, but they are interdependent on each other (technically, operationally, and strategically):
- One team’s decision impacts another’s progress
- One team’s delay becomes another’s blocker
- One team’s clarity becomes everyone’s benefit
And most importantly, employees should be groomed and trusted to decide for themselves what information is relevant, rather than having someone else make that decision on their behalf.
This mindset is not easy to sell. It challenges older ways of working where managers acts as “information owners.” But in a transparent operating model, information flows directly, and people can self-select what they need. This builds maturity, reduces dependency on middle layers, and creates a culture where teams naturally align without politics or hidden channels.
A difficult sell, yes. I firmly believe that the long-term benefits far outweigh the discomfort of breaking old habits.
4. What’s the Downside of This Approach?
Though this approach brings clarity and fairness, but it has real challenges.
A person loses an information advantage and cannot use selective visibility to gain power and influence. One must accept vulnerability because one’s decisions and mistakes are visible. Open discussions can feel intense because honesty (radical candor) replaces politeness. Again, the benefits far outweigh the downsides.
5. Final Conclusion
Most 1:1s exist because the Operating System is weak. When clarity or trust is missing, people default to private rooms. But when transparent OKRs, a common North star, and leveraging tech/tools for dashboards and real-time info, along with emotional safety, are present, the need for private 1:1s naturally reduces.
High-performance teams don’t solve public problems behind closed doors. They solve them openly, with shared context and shared ownership. That is authentic leadership.