“If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be meetings.”—Dave Barry
Few things unite the working world like a shared loathing for meetings. If you’ve ever heard someone say, “I love my job, but I hate the meetings,” you’ve just met an honest person. If you’ve heard, “I love meetings!” you’ve just met someone trying to boost morale.
Have you ever been in a recurring meeting where someone asks about your deliverables, and you realize that you haven't even been back to your desk since the last time this meeting happened? Now, here you are, facing the same expectant stares, scrambling to sound like you’ve made progress, while internally wondering if this meeting is the very thing preventing you from actually doing the work. It’s a vicious cycle—meetings about work that leave no time for work.
And yet, meetings are an unavoidable part of modern business. Patrick Lencioni put it bluntly in Death By Meeting: “For those of us who lead and manage organizations, meetings are pretty much what we do.” Love them or hate them, meetings are where teams align, decisions get made, and strategies are set. The trick is making them worth the time spent—and that, unfortunately, is where most meetings fail spectacularly.
Too Many People in the Room
Meetings often resemble wedding guest lists: some people absolutely need to be there, some people are only there because they’d feel left out, and some people show up just to be there. The larger the meeting, the harder it is to keep everyone engaged—and the more likely it devolves into a chaotic mess of side conversations, tangents, and people pretending to take notes while actually scrolling their phones.
I once sat in a meeting with 25 people. Five knew what they were talking about. The other 20 were just there to complain. At one point, after yet another round of “we should really do something about this” with no actual plan forming, I said, “The airing of grievances phase is now over.” I’m pretty sure only five people realized I wasn’t joking.
The best way to fix this is the two-pizza rule—if two pizzas can’t feed the group, the meeting is too big. Only invite people who absolutely need to be there, and let others opt-in if they believe their input is necessary. If the meeting organizer isn’t sure why someone is on the invite list, that’s a good sign they shouldn’t be.
The Wrong People in the Meeting
There are two types of people in meetings: the ones who make decisions and the ones who provide information. The mistake is assuming both types need to be there at the same time.
I was once invited to a meeting along with one of my best product managers. I asked the organizer, “Which one of us is leaving?” He looked confused. “We need Bruce because he knows things.” [I guess, as a VP, I don’t know things.] The organizer continued, “We need you because you’re the decision-maker.” I turned to Bruce. “You are now empowered to make decisions.” Then, I walked out.
Too often, companies treat decision-making like a sacred ritual where the highest-ranking person must always be present, even if they add no value. If someone is in the room just to approve what everyone else already agrees on, then congratulations—your meeting just got hijacked by hierarchy. Instead, empower the people closest to the work to make decisions. It’s faster and more efficient, and it saves everyone unnecessary calendar invites.
The Wrong Reason for the Meeting
Not every problem requires a meeting. In fact, most don’t.
A product management team I knew spent 90 minutes every single day reviewing bug severity ratings with QA. Instead of using a standard system, they debated each bug like it was a court case. “This one seems really bad—should we make it a ‘1’?” “Well, that other one was also bad, so maybe that’s a ‘1’ too?” The result: wasted hours, arbitrary decisions, and endless frustration.
This entire process could have been replaced with a clear rating system:
1: Critical—customers cannot perform a core activity (fix immediately).
2: High—customers cannot perform a secondary activity (prioritize for work).
3: Medium—a feature isn’t working as designed (backlog).
4: Low—a feature isn’t working as expected (backlog).
5: Enhancement—customers request a new feature (wishlist).
With this system in place, a 90-minute daily meeting was reduced to a single message.
Before scheduling a meeting, ask: “Can this be solved with an email, document, or Slack thread?” If the answer is yes, cancel the meeting. If it’s something that requires input but not immediate discussion, consider asynchronous updates—short video messages, collaborative documents, or team check-ins.
Bad Meeting Hygiene
The only thing worse than an unnecessary meeting is a poorly run one. And I have to admit, I do this fairly often. Poor organization; sloppy timekeeping.
The first major problem is lack of a clear purpose. If the meeting invitation doesn’t explicitly state why it exists, it shouldn’t happen.
The second issue is that many meetings start late and run over time. Make it a rule: Start on time; end on time. Remember, everyone’s schedule is packed, and we need a few minutes between meetings to take a break.
There’s also the classic trap of spending 80% of the time on minor details and rushing the decision-making in the last few minutes.
And, of course, there’s the biggest problem of all: no clear next steps. People leave the meeting without knowing what was actually decided or who’s responsible for what. A week later, someone says, “Did we ever agree on that?” and another meeting gets scheduled to discuss the meeting.
The fixes for this are simple:
Set a strict time limit and stick to it. If a meeting is scheduled for 30 minutes, it shouldn’t take 45. If discussions drag, park them for offline follow-ups.
Use a facilitator to keep things on track. If nobody is steering the conversation, expect it to go in circles.
Summarize key takeaways at the end. What was decided? Who is doing what? When is it due? And most importantly, does everyone actually agree on those answers?
Follow up in writing. A quick email or Slack message recapping the decisions and next steps ensures that everyone is on the same page.
Use a meeting monitor, such as Zoom’s AI companion or Fathom, to keep notes on what was discussed and follow-up items. This might show patterns for better meeting management. When reviewing the notes, look for lack of focus, side conversations, and divergence from the agenda.
Types of Meetings and How to Run Them Well
Not all meetings are bad. Some are actually necessary—if they’re done right.
Decision-making meetings should be kept small, focused, and structured around clear choices. Alignment meetings should be short, to the point, and followed up with written summaries. Brainstorming sessions should have a framework to keep ideas flowing without going off the rails. And daily standups should last no longer than 15 minutes—if people start giving TED Talks about their work, they’re doing it wrong.
The key is being intentional about meetings. If you’re calling one, make sure it has a purpose. If you’re attending one, make sure you actually need to be there. And if you’re trapped in a meeting that has lost its way, it’s perfectly acceptable to ask, “Do we really need to keep talking about this, or can we just decide?”
If you can master the art of running effective meetings, you’ll not only save time but also earn the admiration of every exhausted coworker who has ever sat through a two-hour status update that could have been an email.
Meetings should be a tool for productivity—not an obstacle to getting real work done.
Do you want more practical methods about managing products? Learn more about our Fundamentals of Managing Products program.
