Improving Meetings

Intro – The broken Meeting

Meetings are supposed to drive alignment, create clarity, and move projects forward. But for many knowledge workers, they’ve become the exact opposite: costly time sinks that disrupt focus, drain energy, and often accomplish very little.

In this article, we explore the problem behind ineffective meetings and then dig into science-backed methods to fix them.

The Problem

Meetings Waste Time (and Money)

Studies estimate that unproductive meetings cost companies hundreds of billions of dollars annually. A frequently cited survey from Harvard Business Review found that 71% of senior managers said meetings are unproductive and inefficient [Perlow 2017].

Further, Doodle’s 2019 State of Meetings report calculated that poorly organized meetings cost U.S. businesses alone $399 billion per year [Doodle 2019]. That’s not just time lost, it’s a direct hit to productivity and profits.

Meetings Interrupt Deep Work

Meetings break up the workday and make sustained focus difficult [Kauffeld 2012]. According to research by Leroy (2009), each task-switch, such as going from deep work to a meeting, carries a cognitive cost that impairs performance [Leroy 2009].

The cost is higher when the meeting has no clear agenda or relevance, leaving participants struggling to return to meaningful work afterward.

Meetings Dilute Responsibility

Bad meetings blur decision-making. When roles, goals, and responsibilities aren’t defined, no one feels accountable—and everyone leaves unsure about what happens next.

The phenomenon is sometimes called the “diffusion of responsibility,” a concept in social psychology first described by Darley and Latané (1968) and is as true for emergencies as for task management [Darley 1968].

Meetings Decrease Morale

Meeting overload is one of the leading causes of workplace dissatisfaction. A Microsoft study of over 30,000 workers found that excessive meetings contribute to employee burnout and decreased well-being [Microsoft 2021].

But it’s not just the quantity of meetings. Poorly run meetings themselves cause harm. Research shows that disorganized, unclear, or unnecessarily long meetings create psychological strain, increase stress levels, and lead to negative workplace attitudes. A 2010 study by Rogelberg et al. found that perceptions of meeting quality are negatively correlated with employee well-being, even after controlling for how long or frequent meetings are [Rogelberg 2010]

Workers aren’t just tired, they’re tired of too many badly organized meetings.

Improving Meetings

It’s not all bad news. A growing body of organizational research outlines what makes meetings effective and how to improve them.

Meet with purpose

If we want to fix our meetings, we first need to ask a deceptively simple question: Why are we even meeting?

Not every question, update, or decision needs a 30-minute slot on someone’s calendar. In fact, many meetings happen simply out of habit and typically meetings are not the best place to deliver information. We have Documentation for that.

But when done right, meetings serve very specific purposes, ones that can’t be achieved as easily by email, Slack, or a well-written document.

Meetings are best to co-create, decide, align, or unblock.

Have a clear agenda

Agendas increase perceived meeting effectiveness, reduce time waste, and help participants prepare. Research by Rogelberg et al. showed that agenda use correlates strongly with positive meeting outcomes [Rogelberg 2006].

Bonus: sharing the agenda beforehand also increases participant engagement [Cohen 2011].

Start on time, end on time

Punctuality sets the tone. In their 2015 study, Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock, and Rogelberg found that late-starting meetings significantly reduce perceived effectiveness, disrupt group cohesion, and decrease task performance [Allen 2015]. Starting on time isn’t just polite—it’s productive.

Smaller Meetings yield better results

Smaller is smarter. According to a three-wave study by Allen, Tong & Landowski (2020), the positive effects of meeting engagement on end-of-day task performance only held in smaller meetings. As headcount rose, engagement dropped and with it, the meeting’s influence on productivity. In other words: once a meeting grows past a certain size, it stops delivering real value [Allen 2021].

Additional insight comes from the well-documented Ringelmann effect, which shows that as group size increases, individual effort decreases. This phenomenon is rooted in diminished accountability and increased social loafing [Ringelmann 1913].

Stick to defined Roles

Assigning clear roles, such as facilitator, note-taker, and timekeeper, is more than just good practice: it’s rooted in communication science and team effectiveness research. An overview of “planning and leading effective meetings” highlights that assigning these administrative roles prevents wasted time, keeps discussions focused, and ensures decisions are captured and followed through [LeBlanc 2019].

Similarly, empirical findings show that well-defined roles enhance group coordination and clarity. For instance, UNC’s facilitator–recorder–timekeeper model outlines how each role directly maintains structure and fairness in discussion, preventing domination, managing time, and capturing decisions—critical elements for productive outcomes. [UNC nd 1]

End With Action Items

Meetings should create motion. Assigning tasks with owners and deadlines ensures decisions lead to progress. Research in project management confirms that this “action-closure” increases follow-through and satisfaction with meeting outcomes [Mroz 2015]

Tools for better meetings

Improving meetings isn’t just about changing habits—it’s about changing systems. Frameworks, templates, and digital tools help structure how meetings are planned, conducted, and followed up. Research supports this: structured meeting practices and the use of facilitation tools are linked to increased satisfaction, efficiency, and follow-through. A study by Romano and Nunamaker (2001) found that meetings with predefined agendas, role structures, and support tools led to significantly better decision quality and participant engagement compared to unstructured ones [Leach 2009].

Conclusion: Don’t Just Meet—Meet Better

Meetings aren’t inherently bad. In fact, they can be powerful drivers of collaboration and progress, when designed well. But most aren’t.

The problem isn’t the meeting itself—it’s how we plan, structure, and follow through.

Sources

Key	Citation
Allen 2015	Allen, J. A., Lehmann‐Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2018). Let’s get this meeting started: Meeting lateness and actual meeting outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(8), 1008-1021.
Allen 2021	Allen, J. A., Tong, J., & Landowski, N. (2021). Meeting effectiveness and task performance: meeting size matters. Journal of Management Development, 40(5), 339-351.
Cohen 2011	Cohen, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., & Luong, A. (2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 15(1), 90.
Darley 1968	Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 8(4p1), 377.
Doodle 2019	Doodle. (2019). The state of meetings report 2019: The cost of poorly organized meetings. Retrieved June 11, 2025, from https://doodle.com/en/resources/research-and-reports-/the-state-of-meetings-2019/
Kauffeld 2012	Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small group research, 43(2), 130-158.
Leach 2009	Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 65-76.
LeBlanc 2019	LeBlanc, L. A., & Nosik, M. R. (2019). Planning and Leading Effective Meetings. Behavior analysis in practice, 12(3), 696–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00330-z
Leroy 2009	Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168-181.
Microsoft 2021	Microsoft. (2021). The next great disruption is hybrid work – Are we ready? Work Trend Index: 2021 Annual Report. https://assets-c4akfrf5b4d3f4b7.z01.azurefd.net/assets/2023/09/a0e43841-2ef2-4ec4-b6d6-5a53a346e9b3-2021_Microsoft_WTI_Report_M.pdf
Mroz 2015	Mroz, J. E., & Allen, J. A. (2015). It’s all in how you use it: Managers’ use of meetings to reduce employee intentions to quit. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 67(4), 348.
Perlow 2017	Perlow, L. A., Hadley, C. N., & Eun, E. (2017). Stop the meeting madness. Harvard Business Review, 95(4), 62-69.
Ringelmann 1913	Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animés: Travail de l’homme. Annales de l’Insitut National Agronomique, 12(1), 1-40.
Rogelberg 2006	Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2006). “Not another meeting!” Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 83.
Rogelberg 2010	“Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L. R., Scott, C. W., & Shuffler, M. (2010). “Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction.” Human Resource Management, 49(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20339″
UNC nd 1	University of North Carolina Center for Faculty Excellence. (n.d.). Facilitator, recorder, and timekeeper roles. https://cfe.unc.edu/leadership-resources/facilitator-recorder-and-timekeeper-roles/