Getting a grip on ‘meeting culture’

Anatomy of meeting dysfunction

The dysfunction begins with fundamental misunderstandings about when meetings are actually necessary. Organisational psychologist Adam Grant identifies only four legitimate reasons to convene a meeting, “to decide, learn, bond, and do” [5]. If a meeting doesn’t accomplish any one of these objectives, Grant offers blunt advice: “Cancel it” [6]. Yet organisations routinely schedule gatherings that could be replaced by a simple email, consuming valuable time that could be devoted to substantive work.

Recent research illuminates the scope of this problem. When asked about work meetings, 29% of respondents said they were often very long and unproductive, whilst 42% reported that no decisions were made during these gatherings [7]. This tendency to “gather” leads to enormous waste of time and prevents organisations from capitalising on opportunities to align teams and set guidelines for improving business performance.

The problem extends beyond mere inefficiency. As José Luís González Rodriguez, Partner of ActionCOACH Spain, notes, “Any activity that is unproductive involves a no-return expense for the company. To the extent that there are several people gathered using part of their working day without adding value to the company, we are incurring an unnecessary and absurd expense, which makes the company less efficient and less competitive — not to mention the demotivating effect of attending meetings that waste their time” [8].

The executive trap

Perhaps nowhere is meeting dysfunction more pronounced than at the executive level, where the very structure of one-on-one meetings works against organisational interests. Writing in Harvard Business Review, Ron Carucci, cofounder and managing partner at Navalent, argues that the proliferation of executive one-on-ones creates four core problems: fragmented governance, functional bias, decision repackaging, and executive rivalry and collusion [9].

Carucci documents the experience of Melissa, a CEO of a tech company in the healthcare sector, who discovered that her well-intentioned one-on-ones were creating organisational dysfunction. Despite priding herself on being a transparent, inclusive leader, she learned that critical decisions affecting multiple departments were being made in isolation, with affected parties learning about changes from their peers rather than directly from leadership [10]. The VP of engineering learned about a deprioritised product feature from the VP of marketing, whilst the VP of quality discovered a new project to accelerate product delivery from the VP of operations.

This fragmentation occurs because “each one-on-one functions like a mini steering committee, but with no one else in the room. Governance becomes informal and duplicative, requiring rework and follow-up meetings just to keep others up to speed” [11]. The result is not efficiency but rather a multiplication of meetings and misalignment that could have been avoided through more thoughtful meeting design.

Meeting hangovers

The impact of dysfunctional meetings extends far beyond the conference room. Assistant Professor of Psychological and Organizational Science at the University of North Carolina Brent N. Reed identifies the phenomenon of “meeting hangovers”, the lingering effects of bad meetings that drain productivity and morale long after participants have returned to their desks [12]. These hangovers manifest when meetings lack clear objectives, include unnecessary participants, fail to produce actionable outcomes, or run over their allocated time.

To prevent these productivity drains, organisations must focus on fundamental meeting hygiene. This includes facilitating rather than dominating discussions, cutting guest lists to include only essential participants, transforming agendas into action plans, and demanding accountability for follow-through [5]. As the research suggests, “Fewer attendees mean more-focused conversations — and ultimately better outcomes” [13].

The importance of disciplined meeting management becomes even more critical in hybrid work environments. Mike Tolliver and Jonathan Sass, Director of Product Management and Vice President of Product and Marketing at Vyopta, note that “hybrid work has changed meetings forever,” with participation rates declining and virtual fatigue becoming widespread [14]. Their research reveals that 54% of all meetings are hosted by just 10% of employees, suggesting that targeted training for these “power users” can help promote a healthier meeting culture across entire organisations [15].

Reclaiming meeting culture

Transforming meeting culture requires a fundamental shift from viewing meetings as default activities to treating them as strategic investments. Forbes writer Caroline Castrillon advocates for implementing a “meeting budget system” that treats leaders’ time as finite resources, quantifying available meeting hours and prioritising only those gatherings that create genuine value [16]. This approach has shown remarkable results. Netflix’s implementation of strict meeting disciplines, including a 30-minute maximum duration, has reduced meetings by more than 65%, with over 85% of employees reporting improved productivity [17].

The key lies in recognising that different types of meetings serve different purposes and require distinct approaches. McKinsey research identifies three categories. They are decision-making meetings that result in final decisions, creative solutions and coordination meetings that generate potential solutions, and information-sharing meetings that should be the first target for elimination [18]. By clearly defining the purpose of each gathering, organisations can ensure that participants arrive with appropriate expectations and are prepared to contribute meaningfully.

Curiosity and structure

Global CEO coach and keynote speaker Sabina Nawaz advocates for using curiosity as a tool to keep meetings focused and engaging [19]. Rather than dominating discussions, meeting leaders should ask participants to define the goal in one sentence, actively listen to diverse perspectives, and provide feedback without judgmental language. This approach not only maintains meeting momentum but also empowers participants to contribute more authentically.

The structural elements of effective meetings cannot be overlooked. President and CEO of Tech Alpharetta Karen Cashion emphasises five critical attributes. She recommends advance preparation with clear agendas, punctual starts that signal respect for participants’ time, staying on agenda whilst maintaining control, having materials ready before the meeting begins, and ending precisely on schedule [20]. These seemingly elementary points address fundamental failures that plague most organisational meetings.

Accountability systems

The true measure of meeting effectiveness lies not in what happens during the session but in what unfolds afterward. Too often, meetings generate good intentions that dissipate amidst other pressing demands. Successful organisations implement robust accountability systems that include ending each meeting with clear action plans, documenting and distributing action items within 24 hours, and beginning subsequent meetings by reviewing progress on previous commitments [21].

This accountability loop ensures that meetings drive real progress rather than becoming isolated events disconnected from actual work. As González Rodriguez notes, “Meetings should be short and very executive. The leader of the meeting must know how to handle very well the contents of the meeting, as well as the time allocated to each item on the agenda” [22].

How to have productive meetings

The organisations that thrive moving forward will be those that master the art of productive meetings by treating them not merely as efficiency exercises but as demonstrations of respect for their teams’ most valuable resource –– time and attention. This requires moving beyond traditional approaches to embrace new models that prioritise quality over quantity.

For senior executives, this may mean shifting from frequent one-on-ones to quarterly development conversations and implementing “capability meetings” that bring together cross-functional leaders around specific business outcomes [23]. For all leaders, it means developing the discipline to ask hard questions about meeting necessity, designing gatherings that serve clear purposes, and creating systems that ensure follow-through on decisions and commitments.

The cost of maintaining the status quo is too high to ignore. When meetings consume significant portions of working time without delivering proportionate value, they represent a form of organisational self-sabotage that undermines competitiveness and employee engagement. By implementing strategic meeting disciplines, leaders can reclaim their organisation’s most precious resource and create environments where focus, innovation, and execution can flourish.