USA 
United Kingdom
Senior executives are being encouraged to ditch traditional one-on-one meetings in favor of smaller group formats to improve cohesion, collaboration, and enterprise performance, according to a new Harvard Business Review article.
The piece, written by Ron Carucci, highlights how standard one to one formats - widely used at C-suite level for alignment and relationship management - may be causing more harm than good in large organizations.
Executive one to ones reinforce silos
The piece outlines four core issues linked to an over-reliance on one to ones - fragmented governance, functional bias, time wasted repackaging decisions, and increased rivalry between senior leaders.
“When too much time is spent in fragmented meetings, there’s little left for the work that only senior leaders can do: stewarding enterprise priorities, developing talent, and advancing culture,” it argues.
The piece contests that individual meetings often force senior leaders to act as sole integrators across departments, reinforce a view of the organization as a set of departments, and create power imbalances when private access to the CEO is used as informal leverage.
It adds that executives frequently spend time “repeating, translating, or defending decisions made privately,” which slows momentum and builds misalignment.
In extreme cases, one to ones can become arenas for executive competition it says.
“Succession overhang and ambition can subtly foster competition among top leaders,” it said. These meetings may create a sense of exclusivity that “erodes collective trust.”
Group formats improve cohesion
As an alternative, the HBR recommends replacing many 1:1s with “capability meetings” - structured 1:2 or 1:3 formats that reflect the way value is actually created in the business.
It advises convening small cross-functional groups focused on enterprise capabilities like digital transformation or innovation, bringing together key leaders responsible for delivery.
“Bringing those leaders together - at the same table - ensures strategic clarity, accelerates coordination, and strengthens shared ownership,” the article said.
Also suggested is limiting 1:1s to quarterly sessions focused solely on development and feedback, using prompts such as “What would stretch you in a meaningful way next year?”
Executives should reserve full leadership team meetings for enterprise-wide work and avoid turning them into catch-up sessions or political battlegrounds, it added.
One global company cited in the article saw better execution and stronger trust across its top team after replacing one to ones with targeted triad meetings.
“Minimizing 1:1s may feel uncomfortable at first,” the article concludes, “but for leaders ready to shape the organization they want, not just maintain the one they have, it’s a powerful step forward.”
