Less Talk, More Action: Making Meetings Productive

Everybody loves meetings, right? I am pretty sure I know your answer.

The main problem related to most of meetings is that most of people truly believe that meetings play a core role in decision making. However, the reality is opposite. In majority of companies, a meeting is not where good or even any decision is made, but a point where all participants, if even involved, pronounce their opinion trying to figure out who can make a decision instead of them.

Imagine the common situation: 10-15 people on a zoom call discussing a problem. Who exactly among them is responsible for decision making? Usually, nobody. People just share opinions, discuss risks, and write down meeting notes.

But, why does it happen?

There are multiple reasons, and I am going to list only few the most obvious of them grouped by categories.

Group 1: No dedicated decision maker.

This category combines several reasons underlying the same problem – When you have no person authorized to make a decision, you have no decision.

Blurry responsibility

Making a decision is a risk. Taking a risk means taking responsibility for errors. However, nobody wants to be “that guy who made the error”. And finally, responsibility is blurred among everybody so that everyone can shift personal responsibility to someone else.

Initiator is not authorized to make decisions

When a meeting initiator is not a decision maker, then he or she just hopes that everything will be solved automatically. But it does not happen. If a person authorized to make decisions is not delegated, no decisions can be made at all.

No clear agenda

The majority of meetings are scheduled with the idea “need to discuss”. Because of that agenda, the outcome is anticipated – no decision made.

Over-democratisation

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.”
Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

This might seem obvious, but it’s worth stating: while we all agree that democracy is good, we must also admit that someone has to take responsibility for the decisions made. Democracy shines when we need to hear different opinions to arrive at a balanced choice. However, every specific decision is ultimately made by an individual. When we say, “we decided”, it often means nobody is responsible.

Group 2: Lack of preparation for meetings

How often have you seen meetings without any description having only a title? I see it quite often. In the Internet, there are countless recommendations saying that you can just decline a meeting if you do not see a reason to attend. However, let’s be honest – Who actually does that? What if you are invited by your supervisor? Personally, in such situations, I often end up in a position that I can neither decline nor contribute efficiently, because I need time to figure out the agenda, grasp the context, and prepare relevant questions.

On the opposite end, when a meeting has a clear agenda and attached documents, participants who skip reviewing them (assuming everything will become clear during the meeting) often fail to contribute useful.

This is a classic productivity trap: without proper preparation, meetings become a waste of time, both for the individual and for the group.

Group 3: Meetings turn into therapy sessions

Instead of focusing on action and results, meetings often devolve into what I call therapeutic sessions, because people start:

• explaining why things didn’t work out,
• defending themselves,
• looking for someone to blame,
• arguing over wording and minor details.

In these moments, expecting any real decision is unrealistic. The emotional unpacking consumes the time and energy of everyone involved.

This happens for several reasons:

Psychological fear of responsibility:

People prefer to talk about problems rather than propose solutions that might fail.

Ego and hierarchy

In larger groups, individuals often protect their status or avoid admitting mistakes, turning the discussion into a subtle power play.

Lack of facilitation

Without a strong moderator guiding the meeting, conversations drift into personal or political territory.

Social dynamics

Some groups unconsciously encourage heated debates, mistakenly treating them as structured discussions.

Whichever reason you face, the result is the same every time – the meeting feels productive because everyone talked, but nothing actionable actually happens.

Researches on the effectiveness of meetings (and why they often fail)

Studies consistently show that most meetings are less productive than we assume. Key findings include the following:

• Frequency matters: Too many meetings drain energy and reduce productivity. For example, in a study of 76 companies implementing “meeting‑free days”, productivity rose by up to ~73 %. [1]
• Clarity of purpose: Meetings without clear goals or agendas are largely ineffective. According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development [2] review “Productive meetings: An evidence review”, unnecessary or poorly planned meetings are detrimental to employee wellbeing and performance.
• Preparation and structure: Clear agendas, supporting documents, and defined roles increase contributions and focus. [2]
• Right participants only: Only those who can influence decisions should attend; too many people dilute accountability. [2]
• Physical and psychological environment: Comfort, lighting, air quality, and a safe atmosphere for speaking up improve engagement. For instance, the “ComFeel” study found meeting‑room environment and psychological safety significantly affected perceived productivity. [3]
• Balance with asynchronous work: Tools and practices that link meetings to follow‑up tasks and asynchronous collaboration boost impact. For example, “Meeting Bridges” research discusses how information artifacts help meetings lead to actions. [3]
• Coordination in distributed teams: In the study “Understanding coordination in global software engineering …” it was found that planned + unplanned meetings can consume more than 16 hours per week in distributed software teams, pointing to a need for rethinking meeting culture. [3]
• Cost and efficiency: Meetings are expensive in both time and money; unproductive meetings are a direct loss. (Multiple sources)

Bottom line: Well‑prepared, goal‑oriented, and properly sized meetings improve productivity. Overuse, lack of clarity, or poor preparation turns meetings into a costly distraction.

How to make your meetings better and to get the most out of them?

Prefer async-first approach over meeting-first mindset. Sharing documents, using team channels, and preparation of alternatives before gathering everybody on a meeting helps to build a constructive communication with efficient results. Leveraging the async-first communication, decision are usually made asynchronously before meetings, whilst meetings are used merely to clarify some specific aspects.

If a decision cannot be made ahead of time due to missing information, then the meeting should serve its fundamental purpose – to discuss the remaining uncertainties. After the meeting, the initiator or authorized decision-maker should finalize and communicate the decision.

Practical recommendations based on common meeting aforementioned problems can be the following:

1. Ensure a clear agenda and purpose
   • Every meeting should have a defined goal: decision, discussion, or information-sharing.
   • Communicate the agenda in advance so participants can prepare.
2. Limit participants to decision-makers or contributors
   • Avoid inviting everyone “just in case.” Too many people loosen responsibility and slow down discussions.
3. Encourage preparation
   • Require participants to read documents and consider options beforehand.
   • Skipping preparation often leads to unproductive discussions or repetitive explanations.
4. Assign a decision owner
   • Even in collaborative discussions, one person should be responsible for finalizing decisions.
   • Avoid the trap of saying “we decided,” which often means no one actually decides and no one is responsible.
5. Keep meetings action-focused
   • Prevent meetings from turning into therapy sessions: avoid blame games, long explanations of past failures, and minor semantic arguments.
   • Use a facilitator to keep discussions on track.
6. Use async follow-up tools
   • Summarize decisions, next steps, and responsibilities in a shared document or team channel.
   • Ensure accountability and that the meeting drives action instead of just conversation.
7. Optimize the environment
   • Ensure psychological safety so people feel comfortable speaking up.
   • Physical or virtual meeting conditions matter: good lighting, sound, and comfortable settings improve engagement.

And finally, my beloved one is: Keep it short and focused.

• Optimal duration for most meetings is 15–45 minutes.
• Longer meetings (>60 minutes) tend to lose focus, and participants’ engagement drops significantly. (MIT, CIPD)

Sources:

[1] Inc.com: How to Boost Productivity at Work by 73 Percent: Ban Meetings 3 Days a Week

[2] CIPD: Productive meetings: An evidence review

[3] Marios Constantinides, Sanja Šćepanović, Daniele Quercia, Hongwei Li, Ugo Sassi, Michael Eggleston: ComFeel: Productivity is a Matter of the Senses Too