Written by Sai Patil
In today’s workplace, meetings about work are increasingly crowding out the work itself. Many are too busy attending meetings that drain their energy and bandwidth to do the work those meetings are about.
The meeting trap is a pervasive norm across teams and industries. What was once an earnest attempt at collaboration has become a cultural reflex. We collectively spin up meetings about everything from efficiency initiatives to quarterly goals to the competitive landscape. Not only is this reality a scheduling nightmare (and time suck), but it’s also a strategic failure.
The shift to remote work during the pandemic exacerbated the problem. Many leaders decided they needed to see their employees on screen to feel confident everyone was truly working together at home.
“The way we meet is on autopilot. Not well planned, not thought through. People throw meetings at problems instead of thinking…in part because of a false notion of inclusivity or in part because of a confused notion of participation.”
Priya Parker, Author of The Art of Gathering
A real-world example
A major retailer realized that one of their competitors outperformed them during a promotion cycle. Their first response was to assemble a large task force that met weekly for one hour over a two-month period. Unfortunately this resulted in driving 120 hours of leadership time towards an outcome that was particularly underwhelming: the same promotion as the prior year, but with a slightly deeper discount. Everyone at the meetings was responsible for input, but nobody was responsible for a meaningful outcome.
Three ways to have fewer, better, shorter meetings
To break out of the cycle of too many meetings, you need to move from a culture of presence to one of decision-making. Here’s how we recommend reclaiming your employees’ time and driving momentum:
1. Fewer meetings: The two-week kill switch
If a meeting exists purely to “check in” or “give an update,” it should be an email, not a meeting. Try killing all recurring meetings for a two-week period, then adding back in only if there is a clear decision owner and a defined system for documenting decisions. If no one is driving an agenda, hit decline.
You can also replace status meetings with a structured thread on any number of productivity apps (like Slack). It’s faster, provides a proverbial paper trail, and leaves space for introverts to participate.
2. Better meetings: Name the decision, not the topic
No more meetings titled “Supply Chain Update” or “Marketing Workshop.” Instead title them with a name that shifts from discussing to doing, like “Decide on Q3 Logistics Provider.” Every meeting should have a brief agenda that is designed around the decision(s) being made.
Meetings should wrap with action, not just alignment. At the end of every meeting, it should be clear: What decision was made? Who was assigned ownership to follow through? Or, if a decision wasn’t made, give a clear explanation of why and map out a plan to land on one.
3. Shorter meetings: Choose depth over duration
Our brains were not designed for long meetings. That’s why the default 60+-minute meeting length is less than ideal, as prolonged meetings or meeting-heavy days can measurably tax attention.
Instead, try reducing the length of your current meetings by 50% to ensure time is spent on decision-making, not progress updates. Hour long meetings shorten to 30-minute meetings, and 30-minute meetings reduce to 15-minutes.
A different real-world example
As the new CEO of Intel, Lip-Bu Tan was charged with turning around the company’s performance. He set off on a radical restructuring of company operations, including how Intel runs meetings. On meetings, Tan sent a companywide message:
“It has been eye-opening for me to see how much time and energy is spent on internal administrative work that does not move our business forward…I am instructing our leaders to eliminate unnecessary meetings and significantly reduce the number of meeting attendees. Too much valuable time is being wasted.”
Of course, we can’t attribute Intel’s efficiency gains and financial turnaround solely to Tan’s meetings approach, but it does illustrate how a more efficient approach is an important lever for organizational speed.
In a world where focus is scarce and momentum is a competitive advantage, the organizations that win are those that treat meetings as a tool, not a substitute for action.
