I have worked with teams that loved stand-ups, teams that tolerated them, and teams that would probably celebrate if they disappeared from the calendar forever.
After working across different projects and ways of organising work, I still cannot say I am completely convinced by them.
That probably sounds like a strange thing to say after seeing them work so many times. But that is also the point: I have seen them work, and I have seen them become noise.
The useful version
A good stand-up gives a team a moment to reconnect.
What are we working on? Is anything blocked? Does someone need help? Has the plan changed since yesterday?
Those are useful questions. They can help a team notice problems early, especially when people are working across different time zones or on parts of a product that do not always overlap.
The best stand-ups I have joined were short and relaxed. Nobody was performing progress for a manager. Nobody needed to explain every tiny task. We were simply checking whether the team was moving in the same direction.
That is a valuable habit.
The noisy version
The problem starts when the meeting becomes a report.
Someone talks. Everyone else waits for their turn. The same updates are repeated every day, even when nothing has changed. A question creates a discussion that should probably happen somewhere else, and a 15-minute meeting quietly becomes 40 minutes.
At that point, the stand-up is no longer helping the team coordinate. It is interrupting the work it is supposed to support.
There are also people who find these meetings overwhelming. Speaking in front of a group first thing in the morning is not equally easy for everyone. Some people communicate better in writing, where they have time to gather their thoughts without feeling watched by a grid of tiny video rectangles.
That does not mean they have less to contribute. It means the format might not be helping them contribute.
There is no perfect schedule
I have worked with teams that met every day, teams that met three times a week for around 20 minutes, and teams that mostly used async updates with occasional calls when something needed attention.
Different approaches worked for different teams.
The daily meeting made sense for one team because the work changed quickly and dependencies appeared often. Another team worked better with fewer meetings because their tasks required long periods of concentration. A third team used video stand-ups a few times a week because they wanted the human connection without turning the calendar into a picket fence.
None of these teams had discovered the universal answer. They had found something that matched their product, workload, communication style, and current stage of work.
So, stand-up or not?
It depends.
The important question is not whether stand-ups are good or bad. It is whether this stand-up is helping this team right now.
If the meeting helps people find support, notice blockers, and understand what is happening around them, keep it. If it has become a daily performance where everyone repeats information that already exists somewhere else, change it.
Try fewer meetings. Try async updates. Try reminders or small automations. Try making the conversation more focused, or removing the meeting for a couple of weeks and seeing what happens.
The team’s performance still needs attention, of course. But measuring progress should not create unnecessary work or make people feel like they are constantly proving that they are working.
The best method is the one that gives you useful information without disturbing the people producing it.
So yes, you might not be a fan of stand-ups. I understand that. I am not fully convinced either.
But if they work for your team, stay open to them. And if they do not, stay open to changing them.
The calendar is not the product. The team is.