This meeting could have been an email. And everyone knows it.

There's a special kind of workplace frustration that begins with a calendar notification.

"Quick catch-up."

Thirty minutes.

Eight attendees.

No agenda.

No explanation of what needs to be discussed.

You join the meeting.

Someone spends five minutes explaining why the meeting was arranged.

Another person asks whether everyone has seen the email sent yesterday.

The organiser reads the email aloud.

Then somebody says, "We should probably schedule another meeting to discuss next steps."

And just like that, an hour of collective working time has disappeared.

This meeting could have been an email. And everyone knows it.

The problem isn't that meetings exist.

It's that too many organisations have confused meetings with work.

When did attending meetings become a measure of productivity?

Look at a manager's calendar.

Back-to-back meetings.

Project updates.

Operational reviews.

Weekly check-ins.

Monthly check-ins.

Pre-meeting preparation meetings.

Follow-up meetings.

Meetings to discuss the outcomes of previous meetings.

The calendar is full.

The manager is exhausted.

And somewhere in the organisation, the actual work is waiting to be completed.

We've developed a strange workplace culture where being busy is often treated as evidence of being effective.

But those are not the same thing.

A full calendar demonstrates that time has been allocated.

It doesn't demonstrate that anything useful has happened.

The hidden financial cost of meetings

Meetings consume more than time.

They consume paid working hours.

Imagine an organisation holds a weekly meeting involving ten employees.

The meeting lasts one hour.

Assume the average employment cost of each attendee is £30 per hour.

The direct staff-time cost is:

10 employees × £30 = £300 per meeting.

Across 48 working weeks:

£300 × 48 = £14,400 per year.

That's the approximate employment cost of one recurring meeting.

And it doesn't include preparation, follow-up work or the disruption caused by switching between tasks.

Of course, a meeting costing £14,400 in staff time could still provide excellent Value for Money if it supports important decisions, prevents mistakes or improves coordination.

But what if the meeting achieves nothing that couldn't have been accomplished through a short written update?

Then the organisation is paying people to sit in a room while information is repeated.

And that deserves scrutiny.

The meeting that exists because it always has

Some meetings continue for years without anyone questioning their purpose.

They were introduced by a previous manager.

They became part of the weekly routine.

The original reason may no longer exist.

But the calendar invitation remains.

Everyone attends because everyone has always attended.

This is particularly common with status meetings.

Each person provides an update.

Most updates have little relevance to the other attendees.

There are no decisions to make.

No meaningful problems to resolve.

No actions that require collective discussion.

Yet the meeting continues.

Because cancelling it would require someone to admit that it wasn't particularly useful.

And apparently that's more uncomfortable than wasting ten people's time every Tuesday.

Not every update needs an audience

Meetings are valuable when people need to work together in real time.

They can help teams:

• Make complex decisions.
• Resolve disagreements.
• Discuss sensitive issues.
• Generate ideas.
• Coordinate interdependent work.
• Build relationships.
• Respond to urgent problems.

But simply distributing information doesn't always require a meeting.

If the purpose is to tell employees that a deadline has changed, a written update may be sufficient.

If the purpose is to share project progress, a shared dashboard may be more effective.

If the purpose is to confirm that everyone has read a document, the organisation probably doesn't need a room full of people to watch that happen.

Communication doesn't become more important just because it happens on a video call.

The problem with inviting everyone

Some meetings have far more attendees than necessary.

People are invited because they might be interested.

Because they were involved in a previous stage.

Because their manager thinks they should be kept informed.

Or because nobody wants to risk excluding someone.

The result is a meeting where most attendees have little opportunity to contribute.

They listen.

They wait.

They occasionally nod.

And they wonder whether they could have spent the time completing the work that will inevitably be discussed in their next meeting.

Before inviting someone, ask:

"What do we need this person to contribute?"

If the answer is simply that they should know what happened, consider sending them the outcome afterwards.

Not everyone needs to attend the conversation to benefit from the decision.

The false comfort of constant check-ins

Managers sometimes schedule frequent meetings because they want reassurance that work is progressing.

That's understandable.

They have responsibilities, deadlines and expectations to manage.

But when every task requires an update meeting, the process can become counterproductive.

Employees spend more time explaining what they're doing.

Which leaves less time to actually do it.

And because they have less time to complete the work, managers become concerned about progress.

So they schedule another check-in.

The cycle continues.

Effective oversight requires clear objectives, reliable information and appropriate accountability.

It doesn't necessarily require constant interruption.

Meeting fatigue is a real workplace problem

Meetings can be mentally demanding.

Employees may need to switch rapidly between different subjects, absorb information, contribute ideas and respond to questions.

Back-to-back meetings leave little time to process decisions or complete follow-up work.

For employees whose roles require concentration, interruptions can be particularly disruptive.

A developer working through a complex technical problem may need uninterrupted time.

A teacher planning lessons may need sustained focus.

A manager preparing an important report may struggle if their day is divided into fifteen-minute fragments.

And frontline employees may find that meeting attendance reduces the time available for customers, patients, learners or other service users.

Meeting design should reflect the work people actually need to do.

The camera-on obsession

Remote working has introduced another dimension to meeting culture.

Some organisations expect cameras to remain on throughout every virtual meeting.

Sometimes seeing colleagues is useful.

It can support relationship-building and make certain discussions easier.

But mandatory camera use for every routine update can create unnecessary pressure.

Employees may have accessibility needs, technical limitations, shared working environments or other legitimate reasons for preferring audio-only participation.

The important question is whether people can contribute effectively.

Not whether their face is visible in a small square on somebody else's screen.

Attendance, attention and contribution should not be treated as identical concepts.

Meetings can exclude people too

Poorly planned meetings can create accessibility and inclusion barriers.

Consider:

• Employees working different shifts.
• Part-time colleagues.
• Remote workers.
• People with hearing impairments.
• Employees who need accessible materials.
• People who benefit from processing information before responding.
• Staff with caring responsibilities.
• Colleagues working across time zones.

An organisation that relies exclusively on spontaneous verbal discussions may unintentionally disadvantage some employees.

Providing agendas, accessible materials and written summaries can improve participation.

It can also make meetings more effective for everyone.

How to tell whether a meeting is actually necessary

Before sending a calendar invitation, ask five questions.

1. What is the purpose?

Can you explain why the meeting needs to happen in one sentence?

If not, the purpose may need clarifying.

2. What decision or outcome is required?

Is the meeting intended to make a decision, solve a problem, develop an idea or coordinate action?

If there is no meaningful outcome, reconsider the format.

3. Who genuinely needs to attend?

Invite the people required to contribute.

Keep others informed through appropriate updates.

4. Could the objective be achieved asynchronously?

Would an email, shared document, recorded update or project management tool work just as well?

5. What happens afterwards?

Will there be clear actions, owners and deadlines?

If nobody can explain what changed because of the meeting, its value is questionable.

The case for shorter meetings

Not every meeting needs an hour.

Some discussions can be completed in fifteen minutes.

Others require thirty.

Complex decisions may genuinely need longer.

The appropriate duration should reflect the objective rather than the default calendar setting.

Consider:

• Starting with a clear agenda.
• Sharing relevant information in advance.
• Keeping discussions focused.
• Recording decisions.
• Assigning actions.
• Finishing when the objective has been achieved.

And yes, it's perfectly acceptable to end a meeting early.

Nobody needs to invent another discussion topic just because there are twelve minutes remaining.

Managers: try cancelling one recurring meeting

Here's a simple experiment.

Choose one recurring meeting.

Review its purpose.

Ask attendees what value it provides.

Consider whether the same objective could be achieved through a different approach.

Then cancel it for a short trial period.

Replace it with a written update or another suitable communication method.

Monitor whether anything important is missed.

If performance, communication and coordination remain effective, you may have discovered that the meeting wasn't necessary.

If problems emerge, you can reinstate it with a clearer purpose.

The aim isn't to eliminate meetings.

It's to ensure that the meetings you keep are worth the time invested.

Employees have a part to play

Managers aren't the only people responsible for meeting culture.

Employees can contribute by:

• Preparing for discussions.
• Reading materials in advance.
• Keeping contributions relevant.
• Respecting other people's time.
• Following through on agreed actions.
• Suggesting alternatives when a meeting seems unnecessary.

And if you accept an invitation to a decision-making meeting, it's reasonable to arrive prepared to participate.

Good meeting culture requires shared responsibility.

When meetings are absolutely worth it

Some conversations should not be reduced to an email.

Sensitive employee matters often benefit from direct, respectful discussion.

Complex decisions may require debate.

Creative work can improve through collaboration.

Difficult conversations need appropriate care.

And relationships can be strengthened through genuine human interaction.

A meeting that resolves a serious issue, supports an employee or prevents an expensive mistake may be worth every minute.

The argument isn't that meetings are bad.

It's that meetings should earn their place in the working day.

The bottom line

Time is one of the most valuable resources an organisation has.

Once it's spent, it cannot be recovered.

Every unnecessary meeting takes time away from something else.

Customer service.

Planning.

Problem-solving.

Learning.

Focused work.

Or simply the opportunity to finish the working day without taking unfinished tasks home.

If a meeting has a clear purpose, the right people and a meaningful outcome, hold it.

If it doesn't, reconsider it.

And if the entire agenda consists of reading aloud information that everyone already received yesterday?

Please.

Send the email.

A meeting isn't productive because everyone attended. It's productive because something worthwhile happened.

---

WorkplaceHero Unfiltered is our opinion and commentary series exploring the habits, assumptions and decisions that shape working life.