Why So Many Meetings?

Welcome back to Everyday Leader. Shannon and Conrad here. I have been hearing a lot from clients and colleagues lately about meetings -- how many there are, how much time they take, and the feeling that we are still somehow not getting anything done. So today we are going to dig into this. Not just as a time management problem, but as a leadership question.

When I think about meetings, three things need to happen -- in this order. Connection first. Context second. Content third. Most meetings go straight to content and skip the first two entirely. That is often why they feel flat, inefficient, or like a broadcast rather than a conversation.

I love those three C's. And the other framing I keep coming back to is: form follows function. A meeting is a tool. The question is whether it is the right tool for what you are actually trying to do. Before defaulting to a meeting, ask: is there a way we could get this done without one? Can updates go by email? Can a decision be made asynchronously? That question alone starts to break the habit.

And time is the only finite resource. Every meeting is a claim on the time of everyone in the room. That means the filter for calling a meeting should include: is this the best use of this team's collective time right now? If the answer is not clearly yes, it is worth pausing.

Even inside a meeting you did not call, you can take a stand. If you walk in and see that the agenda has a major decision buried at the bottom with five minutes allocated, name it. Say: we only have fifty minutes together, and I know item four is going to need most of that -- can we restructure the agenda? That is a leadership move. You do not have to be running the meeting to do it.

A clean start and a clean landing. At the beginning, get everyone's voice in the room -- a brief check-in, a one-word share, something that orients people to each other before the content starts. At the end, leave time for closing: action items, a word on how the meeting landed, or even a quick rating. One to ten -- how was this meeting for you? That creates accountability and gives the meeting leader real data.

And the signal that something needs to change: if you are in an online meeting and participants are consistently muted and off camera, that is information. It does not mean they are bad participants. It means something about how the meeting is designed is not inviting contribution. Get curious about it rather than frustrated by it.

One practice I would encourage every leader to do: audit your standing meetings. Go through each one and ask -- is this still serving the need it was designed for? Is there anything on the agenda that does not need to be there? Could this meeting be shorter, less frequent, or replaced with something else entirely? Do this once a quarter. You will be surprised what you find.

The goal is to leave people feeling like the time flew -- that they got what they came for, or that they know it is coming. Connection, context, content. Ask whether there is another way. Take a stand for the time. That is what good meeting leadership looks like.

Do not let the meeting run you. Until next time -- be well.