The Problem Isn’t the Duration, It’s the Purpose
The most common complaint about meetings is their duration: they go on too long. But according to research by Elise Keith, who analyzed thousands of meetings over the years (Where the Action Is, 2019), more than 50 percent of meetings lack a clear purpose. Shortening the duration doesn’t solve this problem; it just results in a shorter but still aimless meeting.
The problem is one of design.
Meeting Types Are Being Mixed Up
In his book Death by Meeting (2004), Patrick Lencioni argues that different types of meetings must be clearly distinguished from one another. Squeezing them into the same format inevitably leads to inefficiency.
Daily check-in: 10 minutes, coordination-focused, no expectation of decisions. One question: What will you do today?
Weekly tactical: 60–90 minutes, focused on short-term issues, must result in action items.
Monthly strategic: several hours, focused on long-term direction, requires a different focus.
It’s common to cram these three types into a single weekly meeting. The result: strategic discussions get bogged down in tactical details, decisions remain superficial, and everyone leaves exhausted.
Whose Voice Takes Up the Most Space?
In most meetings, speaking time isn’t distributed evenly. Research shows that 70 percent of speaking time in meetings belongs to just 30 percent of the participants. The rest are listening or remaining silent.
This isn’t just a participation issue; it’s an information issue. The things that silent team members don’t say often contain data that would influence the decision.
Adam Grant’s research (Give and Take, 2013) shows that in high-performing teams, speaking time is distributed relatively evenly. Achieving this requires leadership intervention: the question “What do you think?”—especially when directed at someone who speaks little during the meeting.
Is Decision-Making Authority in the Meeting?
Postponing a decision at the end of a long discussion by saying it “needs to be taken up with higher-ups” is one of the most common causes of inefficiency. If decision-making authority isn’t in that room, what’s the point of the discussion?
A clear question before the meeting: Will a decision be made in this meeting, will input be gathered for a decision, or will it be an informational session? The answers to these three questions differ, as do the participant list and the duration.
Meeting Culture Reflects Team Culture
Inefficient meetings are often a symptom of a larger problem. If no one objects during a meeting, it may be a sign of a lack of psychological safety. Postponing decisions indicates uncertainty regarding decision-making authority. Meetings that run long may point to a problem with prioritization.
Improving meetings doesn’t solve these problems, but it makes them visible. And what’s visible can be changed.
“A meeting is the fabric of an organization’s connection and decision-making. If that fabric isn’t healthy, things slow down—even if everything else looks fine.” > Patrick Lencioni, Death by Meeting, 2004
Cevvela’s Perspective
- More than half of all meetings lack a clear purpose; the problem isn’t duration, it’s design (Keith, 2019).
- Different types of meetings should be kept separate: daily check-ins, weekly tactical meetings, and monthly strategic meetings each require distinct structures (Lencioni, 2004).
- When speaking time isn’t distributed equally, those who remain silent miss out on valuable insights; this requires leadership intervention.
- If decision-making authority does not lie with the meeting, the purpose of the discussion should be reevaluated.
- Inefficient meetings are often a symptom: they indicate issues with psychological safety, decision-making authority, or prioritization.
{{contact}} To discuss this topic with Cevvela {{/contact}}