What if I told you most of your meetings are unnecessary? Async work is built on that premise — is the operating model of the most productive remote companies. GitLab (1,500+ employees, fully remote, no offices) and Automattic (WordPress, 1,900 employees, async-first) have demonstrated that async-first organizations can outperform office-based competitors.
The average knowledge worker spends 31 hours per month in unproductive meetings. Meetings have a hidden cost beyond the scheduled time: they fragment focus, create context-switching overhead, and synchronize teams in ways that prevent distributed work. The question isn't "how do we run better meetings?" but "which meetings should exist at all?"
Written documentation (Notion, Confluence) replaces verbal communication. Loom replaces status update meetings — a 3-minute video communicates more than a 30-minute meeting. Linear or Jira replace daily standups. The principle: everything that can be written should be, because written communication is searchable, shareable, and doesn't require simultaneous attention. I was skeptical at first, but the evidence kept pointing the same direction.
Some work genuinely requires synchronous communication: building relationships (especially with new team members), resolving conflicts with significant emotional stakes, complex creative brainstorming where real-time iteration matters, and genuine emergencies. The discipline is reserving synchronous time for these cases rather than defaulting to meetings for everything.
My take after all of this: Build something actually useful. Everything else is secondary.
Async-first organizations document decisions in writing rather than communicating them through meetings, default to asynchronous communication unless synchronous is genuinely necessary, and trust employees to manage their own time toward agreed outcomes rather than monitoring presence. The companies that do this best — GitLab's handbook is the most comprehensive public documentation of async culture — have discovered that writing forces clarity of thought in ways that verbal communication allows you to avoid. The person who cannot write a clear document explaining a decision often did not have a clear decision in the first place.
Not all meetings should be eliminated. The meetings that cannot be replaced by async communication: genuine creative collaboration (brainstorming and ideation that benefits from real-time building on each other's ideas), relationship-building (trust and social connection that requires shared presence to develop fully), and true emergencies that require immediate collective decision-making. The test for whether a meeting is necessary: could the outcome be achieved by everyone reading a document and commenting asynchronously? If yes, the meeting is optional. Most status updates, information sharing, and minor decision-making pass this test.
The async toolkit that high-performing distributed teams use: Loom or similar tools for video messages that replace quick questions that would have been asked in person, Notion or Confluence for documentation that is searchable and updatable rather than buried in email threads, Linear or Jira for project management that makes work visible without status meetings, and Slack or Teams used asynchronously (not as a synchronous chat tool that creates response-time pressure). The tools are secondary to the cultural commitment to documentation and asynchronous communication; no tool set compensates for a culture that expects immediate responses.
From experience: Working across businesses at different stages reveals a consistent pattern: the strategies that work long-term are almost always simpler and less glamorous than what business media tends to celebrate.
Research from Harvard Business School and McKinsey Global Institute consistently identifies operational discipline and customer focus — not innovation or disruption — as the primary predictors of sustained business success across industries and economic cycles.
Survivorship bias shapes most business advice dramatically. The strategies described as successful are those that worked — but many identical strategies have failed in different contexts. Market timing, competitive dynamics, team fit, and factors entirely outside any founder's control play larger roles than most success narratives acknowledge. The honest answer is that execution and adaptation matter more than any strategy.
Honest Bottom Line: Async-first organizations document decisions in writing, default to async unless synchronous is genuinely necessary, and trust employees to manage their own time toward outcomes. Writing forces clarity that verbal communication allows you to avoid. The meetings that cannot be replaced: genuine creative collaboration, relationship-building, and true emergencies. Most status updates and minor decisions can be handled async. The cultural commitment to documentation matters more than any specific tool.

Nathan Brooks is a business journalist and former startup founder who has launched two companies, one of which reached Series B funding before being acquired. He covers entrepreneurship, business strategy, and the startu...