Trust and control are often falsely portrayed as polar opposites, with control being associated with authoritarianism and micromanagement that stifles autonomy and creativity. What is often ignored, however, is the other side of control: it is a leadership tool that helps managers collect information, gain an overview of the team’s state, and maintain focus on strategic goals. If control disappears entirely or occurs only sporadically, leaders may become partially “blind,” which affects both decision quality and team functionality. The real question is not “whether to control,” but “how and why control should be applied.”

In recent years, many managers have stopped holding regular meetings or one-on-ones, arguing that necessary information reaches them on the go. They prefer an “open-door” policy, relying (or rather hoping) that employees will proactively bring up important topics. At the same time, there is growing pressure to reduce time spent in meetings and avoid “meetings for the sake of meetings.” This approach sounds efficient and flexible — less formality, more action. But do leaders who rely entirely on ad hoc communication truly get enough information to make strategic and operational decisions?

The answer lies in the nature of leadership. A manager’s role is not only to lead people but to manage information. Gathering, directing, interpreting, and structuring information allows leaders to respond appropriately to a changing environment. If a manager relies only on what employees bring forward or what is gathered through ad hoc interactions, much of the picture remains unseen — especially what employees are unwilling to share or don’t recognize as important. Regular, structured communication is not total control; it is a trust-building mechanism. It is a tool that enables the leader to develop an informed understanding of the situation and make decisions based on reality, not assumptions.

The Pitfalls of Ad Hoc Communication

When a leader abandons regular check-ins and instead leans on spontaneous, needs-based communication, it may initially seem liberating and time-saving. Ad hoc communication allows for quick reactions, flexibility, and minimal formality — for example, a situation where a manager simply walks up to an employee and asks how things are going. The intuitive appeal is strong: less time wasted in meetings, no long agendas, and the right information seemingly reaching the manager at the right moment.

In practice, however, this approach has several critical drawbacks. First, communication can become fragmented and inconsistent. Without regular conversations, managers may suddenly find themselves unaware of key issues — not because they’re unimportant, but because they’re not urgent. Second, the context of the situation can easily become blurred. For example, employees may fail to share what’s happening across the team, and certain patterns go unnoticed. If the manager is only collecting disconnected pieces of information on an as-needed basis, it’s impossible to build a strategic overview.

Third, while ad hoc conversations may appear time-efficient, they can be disruptive. If a manager constantly interrupts workflows to check in with multiple team members, this causes cognitive switching, breaks focus, and leads to inefficient multitasking. Important matters may go undiscussed because the employee wasn’t ready, the timing wasn’t right, or something else got in the way. This results in gaps in awareness about what’s truly happening within the team.

Finally, decision quality suffers. If a manager does not receive consistent, comprehensive updates, decisions are made based on incomplete information or assumptions. This often leads to the need for corrections later or even full course reversals. The ad hoc system places a heavier burden on the employee — they must decide which information is worth reporting. This increases the risk of late, inaccurate, or filtered information.

Ad hoc conversations may give the illusion of freedom, but they can cost the leader situational awareness — the understanding of what’s truly happening in their area of responsibility. Without regularity, structure, and a systematic flow of information, trust doesn’t become a strength — it becomes a vulnerability. In such cases, only the information the leader wants to hear may get through.

One-on-Ones and Team Meetings as Tools of Conscious Leadership

Regular meetings — for example, 30-minute one-on-ones with each employee and weekly team check-ins — can be highly effective for helping leaders gauge team morale, surface hidden issues, and maintain a clear strategic focus. Studies show that consistent one-on-ones increase employee engagement and motivation. Similarly, regular team meetings are positively correlated with higher team performance compared to sporadic or missing communication altogether.

Structured dialogue creates time and space for the manager and employee to systematically discuss work projects, results, development, and potential obstacles. This enables tracking of longer-term trends — like growing workloads, emerging tensions, or changes in team dynamics — allowing the manager to intervene before these become problems. Regular routines also build trust: the employee knows the manager is present as a partner, not just when something goes wrong.

Additionally, 30-minute meetings don’t have to be a major time drain if they’re purposeful, well-scheduled, and follow a structure. In fact, they often save time in the long run: fewer surprises, fewer disruptions, and fewer “fire-fighting” sessions. With a steady flow of information, leaders can make faster and better decisions rooted in reality.

Just as importantly, regular communication helps surface hidden topics — those things employees might not bring up unless asked. For example, a decline in job satisfaction, interpersonal tensions, or broken processes often emerge in structured conversations before they evolve into crises. A manager who listens regularly is better positioned to notice early warning signs and act proactively.

Control as Awareness, Not Restriction

It’s time to expand the definition of “control.” Rather than focusing on authority or surveillance, we should talk about “information gathering” and “conscious leadership.” Control doesn’t have to mean rigid metrics or total oversight — it can be a way for leaders to gather the insights they need, interpret them meaningfully, and apply them strategically. From this perspective, all regular meetings, one-on-ones, and even certain forms of control mechanisms are not indicators of mistrust but signs of transparent, intentional leadership.

For example, research shows that well-run meetings — those with clear goals, discussion of solutions, and defined action plans — are strongly linked to higher team performance and organizational success. A leader who establishes a consistent flow of communication is not a “controller,” but a guide who understands the real dynamics and helps navigate forward. This enables decision-making that takes into account systems, processes, and human realities — not just surface-level outputs.

Situational awareness — understanding what is happening, why it’s happening, and what the implications are — is a critical advantage. It leads to faster, better, and more targeted decisions. A leader who recognizes signs of team burnout early can act before the crisis. One who detects broken processes can course-correct before damage escalates. Control mechanisms, when reframed as tools for awareness, unlock insight, prevention, and smarter solutions — not restriction.

Time Efficiency and Thoughtful Communication: The Paradox Resolved

Many managers argue that meetings and regular check-ins are time-consuming and decrease productivity. They say it’s better to trust people and approach them only when needed. But has anyone actually calculated whether fewer meetings lead to better time use?

If information doesn’t flow systematically, gaps in understanding and communication arise. Unforeseen problems develop. These in turn lead to reactive meetings and crisis management that consume far more time and energy. Studies indicate that well-conducted meetings significantly reduce the need for unplanned follow-ups and make leadership more efficient.

For example, a structured 30-minute one-on-one can yield far better results than daily informal check-ins. It provides space to align on the employee’s current state, goals, and blockers. It sets expectations and defines priorities. This not only improves decision quality and speed but also gives the leader control over when and how essential information will be delivered.

While structured communication may seem time-consuming at first, in the long run, it saves time and resources. The key lies in the approach: shifting meetings away from formality toward purposeful interaction. Communication methods like one-on-ones should not be rigid control rituals, but open dialogues where leaders and employees co-create clarity. When the goal is awareness — not just reporting — structured communication becomes an investment, not a burden.

Practical Recommendations for Awareness-Driven Leadership

To close, here are practical recommendations for leaders who want to use meetings and control mechanisms not as limitations but as enablers of situational awareness:

• Set clear frequency and structure: For example, 30-minute one-on-ones every one or two weeks, plus weekly department check-ins. Routine creates rhythm, which in turn allows the leader to track the team’s “pulse.”

• Create a short, clear agenda: Each meeting should intentionally cover: “How are you doing right now?”, “What are your current obstacles?”, “What support or decisions do you need?”, “What are the next steps?”

• Make room for hidden topics: Many important signals are not immediately visible — such as dissatisfaction, tension, or increasing workload. Ask questions like, “What’s holding you back right now?” or “Is there anything you’re concerned about that we haven’t covered?”

• Build a psychologically safe space: If meetings feel like performance reviews or control sessions, employees may withhold information. Emphasize that the purpose is partnership — to maintain focus and prevent problems, not to monitor every move.

• Measure awareness, not just output: Ask yourself: “Do I know what’s actually happening?” “Do I understand my team’s mood, workload, and bottlenecks?” If not, the flow of information needs recalibration.

• Optimize meeting time and content: Research shows that meeting effectiveness depends on having clear goals and time discipline. Avoid overly frequent or lengthy meetings without purpose — they erode autonomy. Every meeting should end in clear decisions.

• Balance flexibility and structure: Autonomy is vital — employees need freedom to manage their work. But that doesn’t mean leadership disappears. The best model preserves only the routines that enhance awareness and decision quality.