Asynchronous Meetings: Are They Still Relevant in 2026?

If you worked through the pandemic, you probably remember when "async" became everyone's favorite workplace buzzword. Suddenly, every productivity blog was telling you to cancel your meetings and replace them with Loom videos, Slack threads, and shared documents.

The logic seemed bulletproof: Why force everyone onto a video call when they could contribute on their own time? Why interrupt deep work for status updates that could be written down? Why make your colleague in Singapore join a 6 AM call when she could watch the recording later?

Five years on, the async revolution hasn't quite played out as predicted. Meetings didn't disappear. In fact, research shows weekly meetings have increased 153% since 2020. But something else happened that changed the equation entirely: AI meeting assistants became genuinely good.

Today, an AI meeting assistant like Fellow can automatically transcribe, summarize, and make every conversation searchable. Start your free trial →

When did asynchronous meetings become popular?

The term "asynchronous communication" has existed since the early days of email, but "asynchronous meetings" as a distinct practice emerged primarily during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020. When offices closed overnight and distributed teams became the default, organizations scrambled to find alternatives to the endless Zoom calls that were exhausting everyone.

The concept built on decades of remote work evolution. Jack Nilles coined "telecommuting" in 1973 while working at NASA. IBM experimented with remote workers in 1979. Slack launched in 2009, fundamentally changing how teams communicated asynchronously. But it took a global pandemic to make "async meetings" a mainstream practice.

Several companies became poster children for async-first culture. GitLab, operating with over 2,000 employees across 65 countries, documented their async approach extensively. Buffer famously switched their mobile team to fully asynchronous standups when time zone differences made live meetings impossible. Basecamp, Doist, and Automattic built entire organizational philosophies around minimizing synchronous communication.

The pandemic accelerated adoption dramatically. Between March 2020 and late 2021, tools like Loom saw explosive growth as teams recorded video updates instead of scheduling meetings. The appeal was clear: async communication promised to solve time zone conflicts, reduce Zoom fatigue, protect deep work time, and create automatic documentation of decisions and updates.

Why did async meetings gain traction?

Asynchronous meetings addressed real problems that became acute during the shift to remote work. Understanding these problems explains why async practices spread so quickly and why some remain relevant today.

• Time zone coordination became impossible. When teams went remote, many discovered their colleagues were scattered across continents. A single team might span San Francisco, London, and Singapore, making any meeting time painful for at least one participant. Async communication let everyone contribute during their normal working hours.

• Zoom fatigue reached crisis levels. By mid-2020, "Zoom fatigue" had its own Wikipedia entry. Back-to-back video calls proved more draining than in-person meetings, partly because of the cognitive load of processing faces on a screen and partly because remote work eliminated the natural breaks of walking between conference rooms. Async offered relief from the camera.

• Documentation was always the afterthought. In traditional meetings, capturing decisions and action items depended on someone volunteering to take notes. Often no one did, or the notes were incomplete, or they lived in a personal document no one else could access. Async meetings created written records by default since the entire communication happened in text or recorded video.

• Deep work time disappeared. Cal Newport's concept of deep work resonated with knowledge workers who found their calendars fragmented into unusable chunks. Every meeting broke concentration and required costly context-switching. Async promised to restore control over the workday by eliminating the need for real-time attendance.

• Participation inequality persisted. Synchronous meetings tend to favor fast talkers and extroverts. Async formats gave everyone equal space to contribute thoughtfully, without being interrupted or overshadowed.

These weren't imaginary problems. They were real pain points that millions of workers experienced. The async movement offered genuine solutions, which explains its rapid adoption.

What changed between 2020 and 2026?

The async vs. sync debate assumed a fundamental trade-off: synchronous meetings offered real-time interaction but created documentation burden and scheduling headaches, while async meetings created automatic records but sacrificed spontaneity and connection. AI meeting assistants have largely eliminated this trade-off.

When AI meeting notes became reliable, synchronous meetings suddenly gained the key advantage that made async attractive: automatic documentation. Every conversation gets transcribed, summarized, and organized without anyone taking manual notes. The meeting recording becomes searchable text that anyone can reference later.

The evolution happened faster than most predicted. In 2020, automated transcription was often comically inaccurate. By 2023, it was good enough for most purposes. By 2025, AI could not only transcribe but also extract action items, identify key decisions, and generate summaries that captured the substance without requiring anyone to watch the full recording.

This shift changed the calculus. The async approach said: "Don't meet synchronously because documentation is too hard." The AI-enabled approach says: "Meet however makes sense for this conversation, and let AI handle the documentation either way."

Consider the original async use case of a distributed team standup:

The async argument was compelling: why schedule a 9 AM call that's midnight for your Singapore colleague when everyone could just post their updates in writing? But with AI, a different option emerges: hold the standup at a reasonable time for most participants, record it, and let AI generate a summary that the Singapore colleague can consume in five minutes instead of attending a thirty-minute call. She can even use Ask Fellow to query the recording if she has specific questions.

If you're still running async standups through manual updates in Slack or shared docs, Fellow can modernize your approach. Capture conversations across Zoom, Google Meet, Teams, and even in-person meetings, then let AI make everything searchable. Start your free trial →

Are async meetings still relevant in 2026?

Yes, but the use cases have narrowed. Asynchronous communication remains valuable for specific situations where real-time interaction genuinely isn't needed. However, the blanket advice to "make that meeting an async update" deserves more scrutiny now that AI has removed the documentation burden from synchronous meetings.

Where async still wins:

Async remains the better choice when the communication is purely informational with no discussion needed, when participants span extreme time zone differences (more than 8 hours), when the update benefits from careful composition rather than off-the-cuff responses, or when the topic is sensitive and people need time to process before responding.

Weekly FYI announcements, detailed project status reports, and requests for written feedback on documents all work better async. The recipient can consume the information when they're ready, reference it later, and respond thoughtfully rather than reacting in the moment.

Where sync with AI now wins:

Synchronous meetings with AI capture have become the better choice for standups and status updates where brief discussion adds value, collaborative problem-solving where ideas build on each other, any meeting involving relationship-building or team cohesion, topics where tone and nuance matter, and situations requiring rapid iteration or decision-making.

The key insight is that AI has given synchronous meetings the advantages that drove async adoption without sacrificing the benefits of real-time interaction. You get automatic documentation, searchability, and reduced manual overhead while still enabling spontaneous discussion and human connection.

The hybrid approach:

Many teams now use what might be called "async-informed sync" patterns. Meeting agendas are populated asynchronously before the meeting. Participants add their updates and questions in advance. Then a shorter synchronous meeting focuses only on items requiring discussion. AI captures everything, generates summaries, and distributes action items automatically.

This pattern extracts maximum value from both modes: async for preparation and documentation, sync for the conversations that genuinely benefit from real-time interaction.

What should you consider when deciding between async and sync?

Rather than defaulting to one format, evaluate each recurring meeting against specific criteria. The goal is matching the communication mode to what the conversation actually requires.

Choose async when:

• The purpose is one-way information sharing

• No decisions require real-time discussion

• Participants span more than three time zones

• The content benefits from careful composition

• Recording and searchability are the primary goals

Choose sync (with AI capture) when:

• Discussion will surface better outcomes than individual contributions

• Relationship-building or team cohesion matters

• The topic involves nuance that written communication might miss

• Rapid iteration or back-and-forth is valuable

• Participants are within reasonable time zone overlap

Red flags that you've chosen the wrong format:

• Async threads that spawn dozens of clarifying questions (should have been sync)

• Sync meetings where most attendees are silent (should have been async)

• Updates that no one reads or references (format doesn't matter; question whether the update is needed)

• Meetings that could have been emails and emails that spawn meetings

The format matters less than the intention. A well-run async update and a well-run synchronous standup both achieve their goals. The dysfunction comes from format mismatch: synchronous meetings that should be async, or async communications that desperately need real-time discussion.

How do you run effective meetings in 2026?

Whether you choose async or sync, modern meeting effectiveness depends on three principles that AI has made dramatically easier to implement.

Capture everything automatically

Manual note-taking is obsolete. Use an AI meeting assistant that records across all your meeting platforms and creates searchable transcripts. This applies to sync meetings (automatic transcription) and async updates (organized in a queryable system). Fellow works across Zoom, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, in-person conversations, and Slack huddles with botless recording options for situations where visible AI isn't appropriate.

Make meeting content queryable

The value of meeting documentation compounds when it becomes searchable organizational knowledge. Individual meeting notes help; the ability to query across months of conversations transforms how teams access institutional memory. Ask Fellow lets you pose natural language questions like "What did we decide about the pricing strategy?" or "What blockers did the engineering team report last month?" and get answers drawn from your meeting history.

Connect insights to action

Meetings without follow-through waste everyone's time regardless of format. AI can now automatically extract action items, assign owners, set due dates, and integrate with project management tools through 50+ native integrations or 8,000+ apps via Zapier and n8n. The accountability gap that plagued both async and sync meetings closes when AI handles the administrative layer.

Teams at Shopify, HubSpot, Vidyard, and Motive have implemented these principles to transform their meeting culture. See their stories →

What meetings should never be async?

Some conversations should always happen synchronously, regardless of how good your async tools are. These aren't matters of efficiency; they're matters of human connection and appropriate gravity.

One-on-ones between managers and direct reports. The purpose of a one-on-one extends far beyond status updates. These meetings build trust, surface concerns that wouldn't appear in written form, and demonstrate that a manager values the relationship enough to dedicate undivided attention. Async one-on-ones miss the point entirely.

Performance reviews and substantive feedback. Delivering feedback, especially constructive criticism, requires reading reactions, adjusting tone, answering questions in real time, and ensuring the message lands as intended. Written feedback can be misinterpreted, feel cold, or leave the recipient without opportunity for clarification.

Sensitive personnel matters. Any conversation about job changes, compensation, organizational restructuring, or personal circumstances deserves a real-time interaction with appropriate privacy and empathy.

Conflict resolution. Written communication escalates conflicts more often than it resolves them. Tone is easily misread. Responses get crafted for maximum rhetorical impact rather than mutual understanding. Synchronous conversation, ideally with video or in person, allows the de-escalation that text rarely achieves.

Exit interviews. When someone leaves, you have a brief window to understand why. That understanding comes through conversation, follow-up questions, and creating space for honest reflection. An async exit survey captures a fraction of the insight.

For these interactions, the question isn't about documentation or scheduling convenience. It's about what the conversation deserves.

Frequently asked questions

What is an asynchronous meeting?

An asynchronous meeting is a form of collaboration where participants contribute at different times rather than gathering simultaneously. Instead of a live video call, team members share updates, feedback, and decisions through recorded video messages, written documents, shared agendas, or threaded discussions. The defining characteristic is temporal flexibility: each person contributes when it works for their schedule, and the communication happens over hours or days rather than in real time. Async meetings became widely adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic as distributed teams sought alternatives to endless Zoom calls.

When did async meetings become popular?

Asynchronous meetings gained mainstream popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, though the underlying concept of async communication dates back to email in the 1990s. The specific practice of replacing synchronous meetings with structured async alternatives emerged as remote teams struggled with time zone coordination, Zoom fatigue, and calendar fragmentation. Companies like GitLab, Buffer, and Basecamp had pioneered async-first practices earlier, but the pandemic forced widespread adoption as organizations discovered that not every conversation required real-time attendance.

Are async meetings still useful now that AI can take meeting notes?

Async meetings remain useful for specific scenarios, but AI meeting assistants have narrowed the use cases significantly. The original appeal of async included automatic documentation, which synchronous meetings now achieve through AI transcription and summarization. Async still excels when participants span extreme time zones, when communication is purely informational with no discussion needed, or when careful composition matters more than spontaneous interaction. However, for many meetings that went async during the pandemic, synchronous meetings with AI capture now offer the best of both worlds: real-time discussion plus automatic documentation.

How do I decide between async and sync for a recurring meeting?

Evaluate each meeting against what the conversation actually requires. Choose async when the purpose is one-way information sharing, no decisions need real-time discussion, time zone differences exceed eight hours, or content benefits from careful composition. Choose sync with AI capture when discussion improves outcomes, relationship-building matters, topics involve nuance that text might miss, or rapid iteration is valuable. Watch for red flags: async threads spawning dozens of clarifying questions (should be sync) or sync meetings where most attendees stay silent (should be async).

What tools do I need for effective async meetings?

Effective async meetings require a centralized system where updates stay organized and searchable rather than scattered across email, Slack, and random documents. Look for platforms that provide structured templates for common async formats, automatic organization of contributions, and the ability to search across historical content. Modern AI meeting assistants like Fellow add significant value by letting you query async content with natural language and connecting async updates to synchronous follow-ups. The tool matters less than the discipline: clear deadlines, structured prompts, and accountability for participation.

What's the future of async vs. sync meetings?

The binary distinction between async and sync is becoming less relevant as AI handles the administrative layer for both formats. The emerging pattern is "async-informed sync": agendas populated asynchronously before meetings, shorter synchronous sessions focused on discussion items, and AI capturing everything for later reference. Rather than asking "should this be async or sync?", teams are asking "what does this conversation actually need, and how do we minimize overhead regardless of format?" AI meeting assistants are making it possible to choose based on communication needs rather than documentation burden.

The question has changed

Five years ago, the async vs. sync debate centered on documentation and scheduling. Async won on those fronts but sacrificed spontaneity and connection. Today, AI has changed the equation. Synchronous meetings can now capture everything automatically, generate searchable summaries, and extract action items without anyone taking notes.

The question isn't which format creates better documentation. Both can, with the right tools. The question is what each conversation actually needs: real-time interaction or time-shifted contribution? Human connection or composed reflection? Immediate iteration or careful consideration?

Fellow gives you flexibility for both. Record synchronous meetings across any platform with or without visible bots. Query your meeting history with natural language. Automatically extract and track action items. Connect everything to your existing tools through 50+ integrations.

Your meetings already contain the answers. Fellow helps you find them, whether they happened live or async.

Start your free trial →