Most workplace check-ins are ineffective time-wasters. They're either status updates masquerading as “collaboration” or rambling sessions that leave everyone thinking “this meeting could have been an email.”
This is particularly true in today's distributed work environments, where our teams struggle to stay connected without drowning in meetings.
The solution isn't more meetings, it's better, more intentional communication. And that starts with questioning our reflexive dependence on synchronous interaction.
Our default response to workplace coordination is synchronous communication: pulling everyone into a room or Zoom call, regardless of whether real-time interaction is necessary.
This approach is increasingly outdated and problematic for several reasons:
As Sumeet Moghe points out in "The Async-First Playbook," we've got the equation backward.
The principle should be "async-first, sync-next," making synchronous communication a deliberate choice rather than an unconscious default.
Asynchronous check-ins aren't just "meetings in writing," they represent a fundamental change in how information flows through an organization:
They demand clarity. Vague updates don't cut it when there's no opportunity for immediate clarification. This forces (at least in theory) more precise thinking and communication.
They create transparency by default. Unlike conversations that vanish into thin air, written check-ins generate a searchable record that's accessible to current and future team members.
They respect cognitive boundaries. Context switching is one of the biggest productivity killers for us knowledge workers. Async check-ins allow us to process and respond when we’re mentally ready.
They equalize participation. The loudest voice in the room no longer dominates; thoughtful contributions get equal visibility regardless of communication style.
🤔 “But how do we build trust without face-to-face interaction?"
This common objection misunderstands what actually creates trust in professional relationships.
According to research on "Trust Through a Screen," trust isn't built through physical proximity, but through consistent demonstration of three critical factors:
Poorly executed synchronous check-ins often undermine these factors by wasting people's time (disrespecting their interests) and focusing on activity rather than outcomes (obscuring actual ability).
Well-structured async check-ins, by contrast, can strengthen trust by creating regular, visible evidence of progress, blockers, and needs.
They make work observable without making workers feel observed.
Most organizations that try async check-ins fail for entirely predictable reasons:
They lack structure. "Just post your updates somewhere" isn't a system, it's basically an abdication of process design. Effective async check-ins need clear templates, examples, and expectations.
They don't close the loop. Updates without responses create the sensation of shouting into the void. Acknowledgment, questions, and offers of help are essential components.
They exist alongside redundant meetings. Adding async check-ins without removing synchronous ones just creates duplicate work. Teams need to explicitly identify which meetings become unnecessary.
Leadership doesn't participate. When executives continue demanding synchronous meetings while preaching async work, they signal that written communication is less important.
Here's how to implement async check-ins that actually work:
The real challenge with async check-ins isn't technological, it's cultural. Many managers have built their identity around being "in the room where it happens."
Async-first work requires confidence in your team's ability to make progress without your constant presence.
For individual contributors, it demands stronger writing skills and more disciplined communication. You can no longer rely on charm, quick thinking, or physical presence to convey your contributions, your work must speak for itself through clear, consistent documentation.
This represents a fundamental change in power that many organizations resist, consciously or not. The distributed, async-first workplace is inherently more meritocratic and less hierarchical. Information becomes a shared resource rather than a hoarded commodity.
In our next installment, we'll tackle specific async check-in frameworks for different team types and contexts. We'll explore how engineering, design, product, and cross-functional teams can tailor their approaches while maintaining the core principles that make async check-ins effective.
The best teams aren't the ones with the most face time, they're the ones with the clearest communication. As we continue to navigate the evolution of work beyond physical boundaries, mastering async check-ins becomes less of a nice-to-have skill and more of an essential practice.
The organizations that thrive won't be those that cling to industrial-era notions of presence equals productivity. They'll be those that recognize the power of intentional, asynchronous communication to build stronger, more resilient, and more human-centered workplaces.
.jpg)
.jpg)
