Maximizing Leadership Impact with 1:1 and 2:1 Meetings
TL;DR: In addition to 1:1s, 2:1s can be an effective tool for you, as a new team leader, to explore as you seek to deliver Big Things F@$t; the breakthrough lies in finding the balance.
🚀 DEVELOP: Unleashing Potential
Over the holidays, I finally sat down to watch Amazon’s The Rings of Power. To avoid the ire of fans and critics alike, I shan’t opine on the show. Rather, what stayed with me was the quote about the rings, “1 corrupts, 2 divides, 3 will balance”.
As a result, during my morning reflections, I wondered if this concept of “3 will balance” could be applied in the workplace. Specifically…
Could 2:1s replace 1:1s in the professional work setting and be the balance needed to increase accountability, empathy, and impact?
Could 2:1s be used to ease or coach new managers into impactful 1:1s?
Could 2:1s help a new team leader who may be struggling with 1:1s?
Let’s explore.
Effective 1:1 Meetings: The Bedrock of Leadership
1:1 meetings stand as a cornerstone of successful leadership and management, providing a platform for direct, personalized communication. The research underscores the value of these interactions; for example, one Gallup study found that consistent 1:1 meetings can lead to higher employee engagement [1].
As a new team leader, regular, consistent 1:1 meetings are instrumental for understanding individual challenges, offering targeted feedback, and building trust.
But 1:1s don’t always go as planned.
A few issues—and ways to resolve—that I’ve seen play out (not exhaustive):
Lack of Preparation: Encourage both parties to come up with specific points to ensure productive sessions. Clarify the “why this matters” early and often.
Inconsistent Scheduling: Weekly, scheduled 1:1s help maintain communication rhythm and trust-building. Resist skipping them to the greatest extent possible. Even a brief “touch-base” goes a long way.
Poor Follow-up: Documented actionable items and follow-through turn discussions into meaningful change.
Manager Dominance (or One Way Traffic): Encourage open dialogue where both parties contribute equally. Ideally, both parties should align on the agenda beforehand.
Lack of Personalization: Tailor each session to individual team members' needs and styles. Both parties should align on “rules of engagement” or some form of “operating agreement” — the “how” is critical.
The 2:1 Meeting Concept
Now, back to The Rings of Power analogy—what if 2:1 meetings, involving a team member, their manager, and a third party (mentor, peer, or cross-functional collaborator), could enhance the dynamics of traditional 1:1s? Specifically, what if 2:1s could improve…
Accountability: The presence of a third party could heighten the sense of responsibility for both the employee and the manager.
Empathy and Perspective: A third party could offer new insights, fostering empathy and broadening perspectives.
Impactful Decisions: More diverse input could lead to more informed and impactful decisions.
Performance & Impact: A struggling team member—or struggling new manager—may be aided by having a neutral third party mediate the discussion.
That said, I can foresee some pitfalls/caveats.
For one example, to prevent the perception of "ganging up," clear communication of the 2:1 meeting's purpose is vital. It should be framed as a supportive, not evaluative, session. A Harvard Business Review article 'Make Every Meeting Matter', for example, emphasizes creating a safe and open environment in meetings. It suggests that transparency and psychological safety are critical for productive discussions, an aspect especially important in multi-person meeting formats like 2:1s [2].
Besides the risk of ganging up, 2:1 meetings might also pose challenges in maintaining the intimacy and directness of 1:1s and coordinating schedules can be more complex. These aspects require careful consideration to ensure the format is genuinely beneficial.
While specific studies on the effectiveness of 2:1 meetings in the workplace are currently limited, their potential benefits draw on principles of collaborative problem-solving and diversified perspectives, commonly recognized in team dynamics research.
Reflection and Action:
I posit that both meeting types have unique benefits. 1:1s are essential for personal connection and individualized attention [3], while 2:1s offer broader perspectives and collaborative problem-solving opportunities.
So, could 2:1s be an effective alternative and/or augment to your Big Things F@$t playbook?
Yes! New team leaders should use discretion to determine the most appropriate format based on the situation:
Consider scenarios where 2:1 meetings might offer additional benefits over 1:1s, like cross-functional projects or mentorship opportunities.
Ensure that 2:1 meetings are used to complement, not replace, regular 1:1 interactions.
Experiment and intersperse 2:1s with 1:1s. Co-create a hypothesis with your direct report, and a few stakeholders, then test & learn.
To effectively integrate 2:1 meetings, consider starting with a clear agenda focused on specific goals or projects. Involve the third party as a facilitator or advisor, rather than as a decision-maker, to maintain balance. Schedule these meetings judiciously, perhaps once a quarter or in special project scenarios, to complement regular 1:1s.
By thoughtfully integrating both 1:1 and 2:1 meetings, leaders can create a more dynamic, empathetic, and effective communication environment. Just as the rings in the story symbolize different powers and outcomes, the formats of 1:1 and 2:1 meetings offer distinct dynamics in workplace interactions.
The idea is to find a balance that maximizes impact.
The key to successful leadership communication lies in its adaptability to the needs of the team and the situation.
References:
"Re-Engineering Performance Management," Gallup
"Make Every Meeting Matter," Harvard Business Review
If you haven’t already established a playbook for how to effectively run weekly 1:1s, start there first. Here’s a good resource.