When we think about the madness of meetings, especially bad meetings that generate even more meetings to make up for the previous ones, it all starts with a simple but often forgotten question: why are we meeting?
Anyone who works in an organization knows the phenomenon well: meetings follow each other at a frenetic pace. On average, managers spend 23 hours a week in meetings. Much of what happens in them is perceived as having little value or even being completely counterproductive.
The paradox is that bad meetings create even more meetings…in an attempt to repair the damage caused by the previous ones.
For a long time, meetings were not even the subject of management research, but a , published in 2015, laid the foundation for the nascent field of so-called “Meeting Science”.
Among other conclusions, the manual points out that the real problem may not be the number of meetings scheduled, but rather a forma how they are designed, the lack of clarity regarding its purpose and the inequalities which, often unconsciously, they reinforce.
A series of meetings held during and after the Covid-19 pandemic concluded that meetings can either promote or harm the well-being of participants.
In fact, it explains Willem Standaertprofessor at the Université de Liège, in an article in , attend excessive meetings can lead to burnout and increase intention to leave the organization. At the same time, meetings can also reinforce engagement and the commitment of workers.
The time of virtual meetings
The widespread adoption of teleworking and virtual meetings, accelerated by the pandemic, has introduced new sources of fatigue: cognitive overload, hyperconnection and lack of clear boundaries between professional and personal life. But virtual meetings also allow for continuous social interaction and a better understanding of each person’s role in the organization.
These new meeting formats, however, are not experienced in the same way for everyone. One of the most striking findings of recent studies concerns the speaking time in virtual meetings.
One to hundreds of workers, the result was quite clear: the women reported having more difficulty intervening in online meetings than in face-to-face meetings.
Several factors help to explain this phenomenon: more frequent interruptionsinvisibility on shared screens, greater difficulty reading non-verbal signals or the double mental burden when meetings take place from home.
In short, virtual meetings, although they can theoretically democratize access, can, in practice, reinforce gender inequalities if they are not carefully managed.
Design, not simply endure
In the face of what we call meeting madnessthe solution is not to eliminate them, but to design them better. It all starts with a simple but often forgotten question: why are we coming together?
Based on a series of studies conducted by Willem Standaert and his colleague Arnaud Stiepenspecialist in Communication Science, who has covered thousands of meetings, it is possible to identify four major types of goals:
- share information
- make decisions
- express emotions or opinions
- build working relationships
Each of these objectives requires different things of participants: see faces, hear intonations, observe reactions or share a screen. And there is no one meeting format (audio only, video, hybrid, in-person) that is universally best for all types of goals.
The type of meeting must be chosen depending on your objective main, and not out of habit or technological convenience. The research goes further and identifies simple but powerful levers to improve the collective experience of meetings:
- share a clear agenda and relevant documents in advance, so participants feel they can contribute in an informed way
- use voice request tools, anonymous chats or systematic intervention rounds (“round robin”)
- actively moderate – organizers must balance contributions, encourage participation and avoid leaving anyone out
Mirror of organizational culture
The meetings are not neutral. They reflect, often unconsciously, the organization’s culture, power dynamics and implicit priorities. The data is clear: There are ways to improve meetings. Companies and managers lack recognition of the transformative power they have.
A company where, in meetings, only the loudest voices can be heards unlikely to be inclusive outside the meeting room. On the contrary, well-run meetings can become co-construction spacesrespect and collective innovation.
The goal should not be to have fewer meetings, but rather better meetings. Meetings that respect everyone’s time and energy. Meetings that give each participant a voice. Meetings that strengthen the connection between people.
