Meeting culture: Hidden costs, pitfalls and practical guidelines

Do you get meeting invites at short notice, with no agenda or documents? Do your workplace meetings start late and run over their allotted time? Do people “accept” but not show up? You’re not alone. In many organizations, meetings are far from optimal. There is no way to cover all their studied aspects while keeping this a short, light read, but I hope to offer a glimpse into some important angles of meeting science, spiced with examples from my experience. I’ll describe some costs of “happy path” (good) meetings, some of which you may not have considered, then a few common implementation problems and their effects, and conclude with practical implementation guidelines.

I recall that in a Fortune 100 company I worked for, meeting practices could generally be described in two words: a mess. Frequently, large meetings appeared on my calendar minutes before their start time. No agenda or documents were communicated in advance (and even if they had been, there was no time to prepare). Waiting long after the scheduled start time for additional invitees to join was the norm, and some invitees did not show up at all, even if they had “accepted” the invitation. I remember a specific case in which tens of people, including senior managers, waited 18 minutes (yes, I counted) for others to join, before the meeting was cancelled due to missing attendees. Perhaps the meeting was rescheduled, but there was no assurance that the situation would not recur on the next attempt, and finding a time slot that suits all invitees likely means a delay of at least a few days. Not only did that attempted meeting fail to achieve its goals, but it also caused significant disruption and waste.

Meetings also frequently extended beyond their scheduled end time, causing disruptions (e.g., participants not attending or arriving late at subsequent meetings, creating a loop of problems or leaving while the discussion was still ongoing). Average workdays were meeting-heavy, sometimes with back-to-back meetings, which, as will be described, also have adverse consequences (other than meeting time).

In short: a mess. Now, let’s talk about desired and undesired approaches, but first, set the stage:

The costs of an effective & efficient meeting (the ‘happy path’)

• Average cost of an hour. The average hourly salary of software developers in the U.S. is approximately $69.5, according to data released in 2025 by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2024. However, the employer’s cost (including benefits, etc.) is much higher, likely approximately $97.3 per hour. Naturally, managers’ (who are usually part of meetings) salaries are higher, so for convenience, I’ll conservatively round up to $100/hour per person.
• Preparation cost. As explained later, meeting preparation is important. However, it also takes time (which can vary significantly between more passive attendees and those who need to develop plans, assessments, presentations, etc.). Preparation time is generally estimated to be comparable to the time required to attend a meeting.
• Context switching cost. Meetings can be disruptive and stressful, and require recovery time. They often interrupt a task we are doing, which we later need to resume. A study examining context switching (not necessarily meetings) suggested that it takes about 25 minutes to fully resume what we were doing before an interruption.
• The cost of focus, decision-making and self-control. We have a limited “budget” of focus, high-stakes decision-making and self-control, and these abilities degrade with use until we take a break to recharge. This means that when we exercise focus, self-control and decision-making for a meeting, we will need a break afterward, without engaging in other activities that significantly require these skills, to recharge (see here, here and here). The exact duration of the break is unknown in these studies. I’ll take a conservative approach and assume that a brief 15-minute coffee or bathroom break will be sufficient after the preparation hour and another 15 minutes after the meeting, thus a total of 30 minutes. I elaborated on these aspects in a separate article.

To sum up the “happy path” (a well-organized and conducted meeting): A 1-hour meeting will require about 2 hours and 55 minutes per person, thus almost 3 times the meeting time, translating to an average of approximately $300 per person; accordingly, a meeting of 10 stakeholders will cost roughly $3000 excluding additional costs that exist (e.g., for follow up discussions and clarifications, room/facility costs, the time it takes to arrive to/from a meeting, etc.), so probably ~$3,500. That’s the “happy path”. Less well-planned & executed meetings (which are very common) can cost significantly more:

The costs of inefficient/ineffective meetings

Lacking a pre-communicated agenda and related materials makes it problematic for invitees to assess their relevance for a meeting, prioritize it against other meetings or activities, decide whether to forward the invitation to someone else on their team, or decline with an explanation. Of course, it can also hinder their ability to come prepared (e.g., by filling any knowledge gaps or generating insights and recommendations). Frustrating or unproductive meetings place an emotional and cognitive toll on employees. Meetings that are ineffective (have lower outcomes), unfocused, and do not maintain continuous relevance to all participants tend to cause attendees to experience an increased level of fatigue, and increased fatigue may lead to a higher recovery time needed post-meeting. Furthermore, employees tend to have positive feelings toward meetings that share important and relevant information, and negative feelings toward meetings that lack an agenda or structure, decision-making or follow-through.

Talking about lack of structure: starting meetings late can, besides directly wasting attendees’ time while waiting, create a norm of lateness (e.g., if it’s normative to show up 10 minutes late to a meeting because people will wait, then stakeholders will assume that the actual start time is actually a few minutes after the scheduled start time, and try less to show up on time). Ending meetings later than scheduled can, as mentioned earlier, directly affect other activities, make the “stretched” part of meetings less effective or even counterproductive, with stakeholders dropping off, and create a norm of unpunctuality, where a set “deadline” does not mean much. Meetings that start or end late are also key drivers of dissatisfaction with meetings, which in turn influences attitudes toward the work and the organization. Meetings that spill over time or deviate from their primary purpose also contribute to reduced engagement. Accepting a norm in which invitees “accept” a meeting and do not show up is also problematic, as it creates unpredictable attendance (leading to reschedules and delays, or discussions that lack important viewpoints) and a culture of low meaning and accountability for saying “yes” to something.

Both over-inclusion and under-inclusion can have adverse consequences: over-inclusion can, of course, waste attendees’ time and, as mentioned above, lead to the meeting not being continuously relevant to all stakeholders and cause increased fatigue. Such less engaged attendees will also set a poor example for others and establish a harmful norm for themselves, which may also result in feelings of self-deprecation. Over-inclusion can also be damaging due to social loafing: As meetings grow larger and responsibility is diffused across a larger group, individual effort and participation tend to decrease, with lower perceived responsibility for outcomes. Furthermore, hidden profile studies indicate that larger groups are more prone to redundant discussion, superficial consensus and failure to surface minority or unique points of view, while tending to focus more on shared knowledge. Larger meetings may also reduce attendees’ psychological safety, leading them to speak up less. Such meetings are also more prone to agenda drift and incur higher administrative costs (e.g., finding a time suitable for all participants).

On the other hand, under-inclusion can lead to reduced perceptions of legitimacy and commitment to the outcome, overlooked viewpoints, misalignment and, in turn, additional meetings, reversal, rework, erosion of trust and frustration. Meetings’ platform/media should also be considered and aligned with the nature of the meeting. I’ll explain about it when discussing implementation guidelines below. Of course, there are more aspects that can’t be covered in a short read. However, I believe we have enough for some general guidelines:

Implementation guidelines

Before a (potential) meeting

• To meet or not to meet? Given all the mentioned costs, consider whether a meeting is necessary. Many things can and should be better addressed offline. Be selective and ensure you can justify why a meeting is likely to provide significantly more value than an offline approach. If you decide that a meeting is justified, treat it as a valuable resource for you and others, and prepare and conduct it accordingly:
• Whom to invite? As described earlier, there is a delicate sweet spot of “the right forum” balance, while both over- and under-inclusion can be damaging. Invite only stakeholders who are significantly relevant to the meeting, but, on the other hand, aim to include all significantly relevant stakeholders.
• The media/platform. “High-stakes” meetings benefit from richer formats, such as in-person or videoconferencing, rather than audio-only, to convey trust and nonverbal, nuanced signals effectively. Larger or longer meetings also benefit from richer communication methods, which promote engagement and cohesion. In-person meetings support team-building, conflict resolution, brainstorming, creativity, social referencing, group identity and shared norms. A hybrid approach, in which some participants are physically present or join via videoconferencing while others participate by phone, can fragment interaction (though, of course, life has its constraints and flexibility is valuable, too). [see here and here regarding the points in this bullet]
• Fire drills. Except for emergencies, schedule the meeting well in advance. Meetings scheduled on short notice can disrupt other tasks, lead to stakeholders attending unprepared or result in nonattendance due to scheduling conflicts. It can also lead to a sense that the workday is less predictable, which may have adverse consequences (though the workday is sometimes justifiably unexpected, overdoing that needlessly may be problematic). Additionally, it can create an “emergency mode” feeling, which can lead to frustration and burnout, as well as the “wolf wolf” effect (a less emergency-meeting attitude when a real fire drill happens).
• Maintain freshness. Allow significant breaks between (or within) long meetings, and avoid scheduling meetings immediately before or after existing lengthy meeting blocks.
• Meaningful preparation. Communicate a clear agenda along with any relevant background documents or information well in advance. Enforce accountability if stakeholders attend unprepared (it should not be accepted as a norm).
• Organizational culture alignment. As a one-time or occasional communication (rather than before each meeting), employees should be informed of the expected norms, such as those described in this article, and of the organizational costs of deviations. Deviations should be justified, and repeated unjustified deviations should be handled.

During meetings

• Schedule. Begin and end meetings on time. Hold invitees accountable for being late (if organizational reasons are the root cause of repeated delays, these causes may need to be addressed). If the allocated meeting time has elapsed and further discussion is required, schedule a follow-up.
• Attendance. Invitees who “accepted” an invitation but did not show up should be held accountable for failing to follow through. Invitees are also expected to justify their rejection or “maybe” response. A lack of response should generally not be the norm.
• Structure. Adhere to the communicated agenda and structure. Avoid significant deviations. If justified, another meeting should be scheduled to discuss other topics that arise.
• Ensure desired behaviors in meetings. “Behaviors” is a big topic, but here are a few examples: Openness to feedback, meaningfully addressing it and encouraging voice can promote multi-angled opinions, work engagement and satisfaction (e.g., here & here). Non-aggressive humor and shared laughter foster positive perceptions and performance; ensuring turn-taking facilitates perceptions of fairness and inclusivity; constructive debates, managed within a respectful frame, support better decisions; and question-asking and active listening are linked to team learning and critical thinking.
• Cultural and generational norm differences. These can also play a role (e.g., in the proactive exercise of voice, direct vs. indirect feedback), especially in the U.S. Tech industry, where nearly 40% of software developers are migrants, particularly from countries with very different norms across various aspects. See my separate article about this.

After meetings

• Communicate a summary and a list of action items. Include their assigned owners and expected completion times to clarify responsibilities and align on the schedule.
• Follow-up. If a follow-up meeting is needed, for example, to discuss deliverables from action items from the previous meeting, send the invitation for that session as soon as possible. Not only will it follow the “well in advance” guidance and block all invitees’ time (without later struggling to find a time slot that fits all), but it will also signal to invitees that there is a set deadline for which they need to be prepared (of course, things happen, so that deadline can move if justified, but moved deadlines, without justification, shouldn’t become the norm).
• Ensure follow-through. Monitor action items and communicate progress (or communicate why some decisions or timelines changed, or were delayed). This is important for getting things done, maintaining accountability and demonstrating to stakeholders that their input was not in vain (which can be counterproductive).
• Reflection and improvement. Reflect and get feedback from others (such as using a quick poll — yes, it costs a few minutes, but the value may be much higher), about what went well and what should be improved, and adapt accordingly.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?