For anyone working in an organisation, the relentless cycle of meetings is a familiar reality. Managers spend an average of 23 hours per week in meetings, much of it on low-value or counterproductive activity. Now, emerging research confirms what many have long suspected: badly run meetings are a direct contributor to employee burnout and high turnover rates.
The Double-Edged Sword of Meetings
A series of studies conducted during and after the Covid-19 pandemic has shown that meetings can either foster wellbeing or actively harm it. Researchers, including Associate Professor Willem Standaert from Université de Liège, found that while excessive, poor-quality meetings lead to burnout and intentions to quit, well-designed meetings can significantly boost employee engagement.
The paradox of modern work is that bad meetings often generate more meetings in a futile attempt to repair the damage caused by previous ones. This cycle contributes to what experts term 'meeting madness'. The field of 'Meeting Science', established around 2015, suggests the core issue isn't necessarily the quantity of meetings, but their design, unclear purpose, and the inequalities they can reinforce.
The Virtual Meeting Problem: Fatigue and Inequality
The widespread shift to remote work and virtual meetings, accelerated by the pandemic, introduced new challenges. Cognitive overload, constant hyperconnection, and the erosion of work-life boundaries have become significant sources of fatigue.
However, these new formats are not experienced equally. One striking finding from surveys of hundreds of employees shows that women report greater difficulty speaking up in online meetings compared to face-to-face settings. Factors like frequent interruptions, invisibility on shared screens, and the difficulty of reading non-verbal cues contribute to this, meaning virtual meetings can unintentionally reinforce gender inequalities if not carefully managed.
Designing Meetings That Work, Not Endure
The solution to meeting madness is not to abolish meetings altogether, but to design them with intention. It starts with a fundamental question often overlooked: Why are we meeting?
Based on studies covering thousands of meetings, researchers identify four primary meeting objectives:
- Sharing information
- Making decisions
- Expressing emotions or opinions
- Building work relationships
Each objective demands different things from participants and technology. No single meeting modality—be it audio-only, video, hybrid, or in-person—is best for all purposes. The format should be chosen based on the primary goal, not habit or convenience.
Research points to simple, powerful levers to improve the collective meeting experience:
- Share a clear agenda and documents beforehand so participants come prepared.
- Use tools like hand-raising functions, anonymous chats, or systematic 'round robin' speaking turns to ensure equitable contribution.
- Active moderation is crucial; organisers must balance input, encourage participation, and prevent exclusion.
Meetings are far from neutral. They act as mirrors, unconsciously reflecting an organisation's culture, power dynamics, and implicit priorities. A company where only the loudest voices are heard in meetings is unlikely to be inclusive outside the conference room. Conversely, well-executed meetings can become spaces for co-construction, respect, and collective innovation.
The data is clear: there are proven ways to improve meetings. The challenge now is for companies and managers to acknowledge the transformational power of getting them right. The goal should not be fewer meetings, but better ones—meetings that respect time and energy, give voice to all, and build genuine connection.
