Monday morning, 9 a.m. Your calendar shows six meetings until 5 p.m. Between appointments: 30 minutes for “real work”. You already know that at least three of these meetings are a waste of time. Yet you still go. In the evening you ask yourself: What did I actually get done today?
Most meetings should not exist. And the ones that should exist run too long and deliver too little. The average manager spends 23 hours a week in meetings. Something is fundamentally wrong.
A managing director I supported ran an experiment: for one week, she cancelled all meetings that did not require a clear decision. Of 28 weekly meetings, seven remained. Not a single cancelled one was missed. “The frightening part wasn’t that we cancelled them,” she said. “The frightening part was that nobody had questioned them for years.”
If meetings are so unproductive, why do we not stop? Meetings feel like work, a full calendar signals importance, and that is more comfortable than asking whether this activity produces results. Meetings avoid responsibility: if everyone was there, no one alone bears responsibility for the decision. Meetings replace trust: if you do not trust that information will get through, you call a meeting. And declining feels impolite, so we say yes and get annoyed afterwards.
What nobody calculates: a one-hour meeting with eight people costs eight working hours. Plus preparation time, plus context switching. Would anyone approve eight hours of work time for this topic? Probably not.
Peter Drucker put it succinctly: by definition, meetings are a concession to poor organisation. Because you either work or you meet. You cannot do both at the same time.
Meetings are the only activity where organisations routinely pay eight people to do the work of two.
Not every meeting is bad. But the distinction needs to be sharper. A meeting is necessary when a decision must be made that requires multiple perspectives, when complex topics must be discussed in real time, when conflicts must be resolved that would escalate in writing, or when creative collaboration is required.
A meeting is not necessary when information is merely being distributed, when updates do not require discussion, when one person can and should decide, when the topic concerns only two people, or when nobody is prepared.
| Needs a meeting | Does not need a meeting |
|---|---|
| Decision with multiple stakeholders | Status update without discussion |
| Complex discussion | Distribute information |
| Conflict resolution | Topic for two people |
| Creative collaboration | Nobody is prepared |
You should consciously distinguish three types: information meetings (sharing knowledge—often no meeting is needed at all; a video will do), discussion meetings (exchanging perspectives—needs structure, otherwise it drags on), and decision meetings (making a decision—needs prepared participants and an executive who actually decides). Do not mix these types. A meeting that starts as information, turns into a discussion, and ends without a decision is a wasted meeting.
Most bad meetings fail before the meeting—due to lack of preparation. From the organiser: no clear agenda, no defined objectives, the wrong or too many participants, no materials shared in advance. From participants: materials not read, no position prepared.
A simple rule: no meeting without an agenda and an objective. Anyone who shows up unprepared should not be allowed to attend. Better still: introduce a policy—no agenda in the calendar invite means automatic decline. That sounds radical, but it enforces discipline. If you cannot formulate an agenda, you probably do not need a meeting.
If nobody is prepared anyway, use the first 15 minutes for silent reading: distribute the document, everyone reads in silence, then discuss. This “silent meeting” format solves the preparation problem in a pragmatic way. And always check asynchronous alternatives: a short video replaces the information meeting; a collaborative document with comments replaces some discussions.
The start shapes the entire meeting. Start on time, not “let’s wait two more minutes.” Clarify purpose and objective: “We are here to decide X. By the end we will have Y.” And check whether the right people are present—if someone critical to the decision is missing, it is better to postpone than to discuss without results.
The more participants, the less productive it becomes. The two-pizza principle as a rule of thumb: if two pizzas are not enough, there are too many people in the room. Five to eight people is the maximum for productive work. Every participant needs a reason—not “for information”; that is what the minutes are for.
Use the RACI principle: Who is responsible for the outcome (Responsible)? Who makes the decision (Accountable)? Whose input is needed (Consulted)? And who needs to know the outcome but does not need to be there (Informed)? The I group does not belong in the meeting. With AI-powered meeting summaries, they can genuinely stay away today without missing anything. That solves the FOMO problem—fear of missing out—that pulls many into meetings even though they are not needed.
Have the courage to decline. If you do not know why you are supposed to be there, if there is no agenda, if you cannot contribute anything that others could not as well: decline. Honestly and politely: “I do not think my contribution is necessary here. Could you keep me informed via the minutes?” What happens? Usually nothing. The meeting takes place; you are not missed. That shows your presence was not necessary.
And regularly question recurring meetings. A weekly jour fixe sounds sensible, but is there enough to discuss every week? Often not—so the time gets filled. A radical option: delete all recurring meetings once per quarter. Anyone who truly needs them can set them up again.
Take five minutes and answer three questions:
First: Which three meetings in your calendar could be emails, and what is stopping you from cancelling them?
Second: How many meetings have you left in the past two weeks without a result, and what does that say about your meeting culture?
Third: Which recurring meeting has lost its original purpose, and what would be the effect if you cancelled it tomorrow?
If the answer to the third question is “probably nobody,” cancel it.
Meetings are a symptom. The real problem runs deeper: lack of trust, unclear responsibilities, lack of willingness to decide, a cover-your-back mentality. Anyone who tries to solve these problems with more meetings makes them worse.
The managers who make the biggest impact are rarely the ones with the fullest calendars. They are the ones who have time to think, decide, and act. You have to take that time—against the tide of invitations.
Open your calendar for next week now. Cancel one meeting that does not require a clear decision. And observe whether anyone misses it.
Twenty priorities are not priorities – Too many priorities create too many alignment meetings. The two go hand in hand.
The art of saying no – Cancelling meetings requires the same skill as strategic saying no. Creating focus means saying no.
All Insights can be found in the overview.
Proven tools and models for self-application are available under Solutions.
If you want to take these thoughts further for your company, a no-obligation initial conversation is worthwhile.
