Why Executives Should Rethink One-on-Ones: A Shift Towards Strategic Leadership and Cross-Functional Collaboration

 In the realm of human resources management, time management and decision-making models adopted by senior leaders significantly influence organizational efficiency and collaboration. At the senior executive level, time is often consumed by an array of meetings, with one-on-ones being among the most common. 

While these meetings are typically viewed as essential tools for driving decisions, coordination, and relationship building, in the upper echelons of an organization, frequent one-on-ones can inadvertently become a hidden barrier that hinders optimal organizational performance. As more leaders become aware of this issue, many are beginning to reassess the role of one-on-ones, even going as far as changing their usage altogether.

Take the example of Melissa, the CEO of a healthcare technology company. She had a conversation with her Chief Human Resources Officer, Ben, who expressed concerns over transparency in decision-making. Although Melissa prided herself on being an open and inclusive leader, she had failed to realize that certain decisions made during her one-on-one meetings were not communicated to the broader team in a timely manner. 

For instance, the Vice President (VP) of Engineering found out about a deprioritized product feature from the VP of Marketing, while the VP of Quality learned about a new project to accelerate product delivery from the VP of Operations. Similarly, the VP of Sales discovered a budget shift from the CFO. From Melissa’s perspective, her one-on-ones were meant to accelerate decision-making, but in reality, her approach was creating a communication gap. She assumed her direct reports would loop in the affected parties, but the reality was that critical decisions were not being discussed openly across teams.

This issue is far from isolated. In large organizations, the calendars of CEOs and other senior leaders are often clogged with one-on-one meetings. These are typically viewed as necessary for alignment, decision-making, and relationship management. However, when senior leaders have frequent one-on-ones, these meetings can lead to the fragmentation of information and even exacerbate interdepartmental conflict. Each one-on-one becomes a mini "steering committee" without the necessary cross-functional perspective, leading to decisions that might not consider the full organizational impact.

There are several hidden costs associated with executive one-on-ones that often go unnoticed. First, there’s the issue of fragmented governance. Each one-on-one operates like a micro-decision forum, but without the full set of perspectives needed for holistic decision-making. This causes duplication, rework, and follow-up meetings to ensure that everyone is on the same page. More importantly, decisions made in isolation often have unintended consequences that only become apparent later, leading to friction within the team.

Second, one-on-ones tend to reinforce a functional bias, where leaders become increasingly focused on their individual departments rather than the organization as a whole. Over time, this approach strengthens silos and diminishes cross-functional coherence. As a result, the CEO or other senior leaders end up acting as the sole integrator of perspectives from across the organization, rather than fostering an environment of collaborative decision-making.

Third, one-on-ones contribute to decision repackaging, where decisions that were made privately need to be re-explained, reinterpreted, or justified in later discussions. This not only wastes valuable time but also breeds misalignment and creates friction. Trust erodes as leaders become accustomed to using one-on-ones to "game the system" or distort decisions to ensure their perspectives prevail.

Lastly, one-on-ones can subtly fuel executive rivalry and collusion. In environments with a strong focus on succession and ambition, leaders may leverage these private meetings to gain an upper hand. By referring to exclusive insights gained in one-on-ones, they create a sense of secrecy and power that undermines collective trust within the team. Additionally, CEOs may exploit these meetings to extract insider information, fostering a false sense of intimacy that ultimately erodes psychological safety.

In response to these issues, some companies have begun exploring more effective ways to structure executive time. Rather than relying on one-on-ones for operational discussions, many CEOs and senior executives are now convening small, cross-functional "capability meetings" (often 1:2 or 1:3 conversations) that mirror how value is actually created within the organization. 

For example, innovation is rarely the responsibility of a single department; it often lies at the intersection of Research & Development, Marketing, and Customer Experience. Bringing leaders from these departments together ensures strategic clarity, accelerates coordination, and strengthens shared ownership of key initiatives.

One way to effectively utilize executive time is to reserve one-on-ones for developmental purposes. Instead of holding frequent one-on-ones that focus on operational matters, CEOs and senior leaders can reduce these meetings to a quarterly cadence focused solely on individual growth, feedback, and career development. This ensures that leaders can give their direct reports their undivided attention for reflection and future goal setting, without getting sidetracked by tactical or operational updates.

At one global consumer goods company, the Chief Operating Officer (COO) redesigned her one-on-one structure by implementing a "career check-in" model. These quarterly sessions were entirely dedicated to each direct report’s long-term goals, with no slides or project updates allowed. This shift resulted in improved retention rates and provided greater clarity around succession planning, as it allowed team members to focus on their personal growth without being bogged down by day-to-day operational concerns.

Another effective strategy is to convene around capabilities—focusing on cross-functional intersections that drive strategic value. By mapping out an organization's critical capabilities, such as innovation, digital transformation, or customer loyalty, senior leaders can structure standing meetings around these areas. These "capability councils" become forums for near-term decision-making, trade-offs, and shared execution, ultimately saving the executive team time for truly enterprise-wide strategic initiatives.

For instance, Melissa worked with her team to reframe their strategic priorities around capabilities such as "virtual care experience" and "clinical operations technologies." By organizing standing 1:3 capability meetings that brought together product, operations, and engineering leaders, Melissa was able to reduce go-to-market cycles by 20% and significantly decrease duplication and friction between teams. These changes resulted in quicker decisions and greater alignment across the leadership team.

Ensuring that the right people are in the room is another benefit of capability meetings. One-on-ones often pull decisions into private channels, where the most affected individuals are absent. This requires later follow-up and communication to ensure everyone is up to speed, which can lead to misunderstandings and delays in execution.

 Capability meetings, on the other hand, allow key leaders from intersecting functions to hear critical information in real-time, reducing the need for redundant discussions later on and promoting more agile execution.

At a financial services firm, the CEO replaced many of his one-on-ones with capability meetings centered around topics like "go-to-market strategies," "operational efficiency," or "enterprise talent management." 

These meetings brought together the heads of risk, compliance, sales, and human resources, as well as general managers, to discuss issues that were central to the company’s success. By having the right leaders in the room, decisions could be made swiftly and executed more efficiently, without the need for extensive follow-up meetings or communication breakdowns.

Finally, by reducing the frequency of one-on-ones, senior leadership teams can reclaim valuable time for higher-level strategic work. When operational decisions are handled in cross-functional capability meetings, executive team time can be reserved for discussions that truly require the collective wisdom of the senior leadership group. This frees up bandwidth for work like cultural stewardship, long-term scenario planning, and developing systemic solutions to complex organizational challenges.

For instance, one Fortune 100 company realized that too much of their executive team’s time was being consumed by catching up on decisions made in one-on-ones. As a result, their monthly executive meetings often devolved into time-consuming updates and clarifications.

By shifting operational decision-making to capability-based groups, they were able to refocus their senior leadership team on the truly strategic issues facing the organization, such as cultural resilience, innovation pipelines, and long-term global portfolio shifts. This shift resulted in faster execution and better strategic alignment.

In conclusion, while one-on-one meetings have traditionally been seen as an essential tool for leadership, they come with significant drawbacks at the senior level. They fragment communication, reinforce silos, and create inefficiencies in decision-making. 

By reducing unnecessary one-on-ones and embracing capability meetings that foster cross-functional collaboration, senior leaders can improve organizational agility, align on strategic objectives, and strengthen team cohesion. 

Ultimately, the role of a senior executive is not just to manage isolated functions but to enable the organization’s full potential. Reducing one-on-ones may feel uncomfortable at first, but for leaders looking to shape the future of their organizations, it’s a necessary step forward.