In leadership, how we frame our problems determines how effectively we solve them. Yet, when faced with complex organizational challenges, our first instinct is often to call a meeting or schedule a Teams call.
It’s an understandable reflex—we’re conditioned to believe real-time collaboration is the gold standard for problem-solving. However, 71% of senior managers consider meetings unproductive and inefficient, which suggests that this approach might not always yield the best results.
But what if this well-worn path is actually limiting your team’s potential? What if your default approach is inadvertently silencing voices, reinforcing biases, and ultimately leading to decisions that look sound but fail in execution?
Let’s explore why your choice of working format matters more than you might think—and how being more thoughtful about this choice can dramatically improve both decision quality and how well those decisions are carried out.
The hidden cost of our meeting culture
Meetings serve an important purpose in organizational life. They bring people together, create moments of connection, and can drive alignment when used effectively. However, they often become our automatic choice without considering whether they’re actually the best tool for the specific challenge we’re facing. In fact, 65% of employees agree that frequent meetings impact their productivity negatively
And for complex issues that need diverse perspectives and careful thought, relying only on meetings may limit the range and depth of input we receive. The time pressure of meetings often favors quick rather than thoughtful responses. And natural group dynamics can make it hard for everyone to contribute equally.
The good news is that today’s leaders have more options than ever—approaches that can enhance or extend the value meetings provide, especially for your most complex challenges.
Finding the right format: Options beyond the standard meeting
Before scheduling your next problem-solving session, consider the formats below and how each might serve your specific challenge.
Real-time collaborative workshops
These structured group sessions create energy and allow for immediate back-and-forth conversation. They build relationships through shared experience and work well when you need to create connections and quick consensus.
While valuable for face-to-face interaction, they become less effective with larger groups, and time constraints can limit deep thinking. Only 50% of meeting time is considered effective, engaging, and productive. They shine when emotional connection and immediate alignment are needed.
One-on-one conversations
Individual conversations create safety for honest and highly personal input. This allows for personalized questions that can uncover insights that might stay hidden in groups. Regular one-to-one meetings lead to a 276% increase in the probability that an employee feels close to their leader.
This approach works well for sensitive and highly personal topics or when you need deep expertise from specific individuals. However, the main drawbacks are the time required and missing out on people building on each other’s ideas. Many topics and organizational challenges require input and collective wisdom from all coworkers – whether within the team, the department, or the entire workforce. It’s estimated that 47% of all meetings are one-on-ones, which can consume a significant portion of a manager’s time.
Self-directed data collection
Surveys or questionnaires efficiently gather input at scale and asynchronously. When well-designed, this approach can quickly flag patterns and provide anonymous channels for feedback that might otherwise go unsaid. However, traditional surveys, e.g., engagement surveys or research surveys, may be perceived as tone-deaf due to their infrequency, lack of open-ended questions, and absence of learning from what coworkers think differently. This could make employees feel that managers aren’t genuinely interested in understanding what they truly mean.
This format works particularly well for specific questions with clear parameters, usually closed-ended, generic questions, but it offers no opportunity for dialogue or collaborative idea development.
Townhall-type meetings
Townhalls are large-format sessions where company leaders or managers share updates and invite questions or feedback from the broader organization. They can create a sense of transparency, foster connection to company direction. And, at the same time, give employees a chance to feel seen and heard. They’re especially valuable during moments of big organizational change, to rally people around a shared message or provide high-level clarity.
That said, because they’re usually one-to-many and often scripted, they can fall short of meaningful two-way engagement. Questions asked live tend to come from the most vocal few, while others may hesitate to speak up—especially in larger settings. And when used in isolation, townhalls risk giving the illusion of inclusion without actually gathering diverse input.
However, when paired with asynchronous tools that collect broad-based feedback before or after the session, their impact can be significantly amplified.
Asynchronous working tools such as email, Slack, and similar
Common asynchronous communication platforms like email and Slack offer flexibility and efficiency for everyday collaboration and communication. They work especially well for quick questions, progress updates, or sharing documents and links. People can contribute and respond in their own time, and information is easily searchable and documented.
However, these tools are often misused for problem-solving discussions that require depth, structure, and broad input. These tools are meant for quick and brief chats, and using them in another way can lead to conversations becoming fragmented. With valuable ideas buried in threads or missed entirely. And the constant notifications can create cognitive overload, especially when there’s no clear process for contribution or follow-up.
That said, when used intentionally—with clear prompts, timelines, and expectations—these platforms can support distributed thinking and keep momentum between more structured formats like asynchronous dialogue or live workshops. But, they should be seen as a support tool, not a replacement for structured decision-making.
Asynchronous dialogue platforms
Online, structured dialogues where people contribute on their own schedule give participants time to think deeply before responding. This approach includes diverse perspectives across departments and time zones—or other silos—and enables much larger groups to participate than meetings could accommodate. This way, people reflect and rethink critically upon learning from what others think and experience differently, which allows for deeper learning. Our data shows this may shift outcomes 40-60% compared to surveys.
Everyone’s voice carries equal weight, regardless of their position or how comfortable they are speaking up in groups. In fact, 64% of people believe asynchronous communication also maximizes their productivity.
And while they lack the immediate energy of in-person meetings, online dialogues excel at gathering thoughtful perspectives on complex issues without the social and other biases. Asynchronous interactions are also usually text-based, allowing for seamless transitions between different communication channels without the need for repetition. Since the human brain is a lot smarter and more creative in writing than while talking, this working format is a successful replacement for traditional synchronous meetings.
Choosing the right approach for your challenge
The most successful leaders and managers don’t just solve problems—they design a deliberate problem-solving process. This means consciously choosing the working format best suited to the specific challenge at hand, and avoid falling into the trap of planning just another meeting or Teams with the usual suspects
Ask yourself:
- Does my challenge require diverse perspectives or specialized expertise?
- How important is psychological safety to getting honest input?
- Do we need quick alignment or deep, considered thinking first?
- Are power dynamics and biases likely to influence contributions in a group setting?
- How important is implementation support from a wide group?
Research consistently shows that decisions with both high quality (incorporating diverse perspectives and thorough analysis) and high support (buy-in from those responsible for implementation) are executed faster and more effectively. Synchronous meetings with a small group often achieve neither.
The untapped potential of asynchronous dialogue
The evidence for expanding beyond traditional meeting formats is compelling. When organizations incorporate asynchronous dialogue into their decision-making process, they experience benefits that extend far beyond just better ideas.
At Circlelytics, we enable organizations to structure these dialogues. Thus giving participants time to reflect, refine their thoughts, and build on each other’s differing input. This leads to deeper insights, more effective collaboration, and highly actionable priorities and recommendations.
And when leaders move from standard brainstorming, strategy, and other meetings to structured asynchronous dialogue, research shows:
- Asynchronous work often leads to better solutions, as team members have more time to think and develop thoughtful and effective ideas.
- Companies that promote participatory decision-making and cross-silo collaboration see up to a 50% increase in productivity.
- Organizations that engage people in change are 14 times more likely to succeed.
This isn’t about abandoning meetings altogether—it’s about being more intentional about when and how we use them.
By using a structured approach, organizations can make collaboration more meaningful and decisions more effective. And at CircleLytics, we can help guide this process through our six-step dialogue model. Because leadership is not about having all the answers—it’s about asking the right questions and engaging your network.
Taking action
So the next time you face a complex challenge, resist the automatic meeting response. Instead:
- Identify what kind of challenge you’re facing and what type of input you need
- Choose the format—or combination of formats—that will best deliver both quality thinking and implementation support
- Design your approach with intention, considering who needs to be involved and how they can best contribute and collaborate with others.
This thoughtful approach to selecting your working format will lead to better decisions, faster implementation, and more engaged teams.
By expanding beyond default meeting settings, you unlock your organization’s full collaborative potential—capturing not just the loudest voices, but the full spectrum of valuable insights your people can provide.
Your team has all the wisdom you need to solve your most complex challenges. The right working format is how you access it. Contact us here or read more about our approach.
