By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this article:
Abstract: This article explores the psychological factors contributing to "meeting fatigue" in many organizations and offers recommendations for restructuring meeting culture in a more sustainable way. Meetings are increasingly used by companies as a collaboration tool, but can satisfy deeper human drives for involvement, approval, and control rather than just productivity. However, over-reliance on frequent and back-to-back meetings takes a psychological toll by disrupting focus, activating stress responses, and reducing autonomy. Though intended to increase productivity, excessive scheduling often backfires as overstressed employees are less effective. The article recommends guidelines for purposeful meetings, empowering employees to consider alternatives, limiting back-to-backs, using timeboxes and clear agendas, and fostering well-being. A case study demonstrates reductions in staff meeting time and improvements in productivity after implementing norm changes. Overall, the article makes the case that rethinking meeting culture grounded in behavioral science can boost employee engagement and company performance.
As a management consultant who works closely with organizational leaders, one of the most common challenges I see companies facing relates to meetings. Countless leaders report feeling overwhelmed by never-ending calendar requests and back-to-back video calls. Employees complain of burnout from endless hours spent in unproductive meetings. As someone who has researched behavioral science and organizational psychology for years, I've come to understand why so many people have developed "meeting fatigue."
Today we will explore the psychological factors driving overscheduling and how leaders can approach meetings in a more sustainable way.
The Allure of the Meeting
On the surface, companies increasingly rely on meetings as a way to collaborate, problem-solve, and drive work forward. However, at their core, meetings satisfy deeper human drives beyond productivity (Janis, 1972). Psychologists have long studied how people use meetings to feel involved, gain approval from others, and reduce uncertainty (Rogelberg et al., 2006). For leaders especially, calling frequent meetings can fulfill an innate drive to feel in control and like an active manager (de Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2005). Unfortunately, technology has only exacerbated this tendency by making it trivially easy to schedule digital gatherings with just a few clicks. As a result, meetings have become the default activity rather than an optimal solution.
The Psychological Toll of Overscheduling
While useful in moderation, relying too heavily on meetings takes a psychological toll. First, constant back-to-back sessions disrupt employees' ability to truly focus (Kirsch, 2000). With little time for deep work between calls, quality and productivity suffers (Wiesender, 2020). Additionally, the stress of never-ending notifications and reminders activates the body's stress response. Over time, chronic low-level stress leads to burnout as the mind and body become exhausted (Maslach et al., 2001). Meetings also disrupt the autonomy and sense of control people need for well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). With calendars tightly scheduled by others, employees have little say over how they spend their days.
The Productivity Paradox
Ironically, while meetings aim to drive work forward, excessive scheduling often backfires and reduces overall productivity. When people feel overloaded and stressed, their cognitive abilities diminish as attention and willpower fade (Baumeister et al., 1998). Additionally, studies show diminishing returns when more than five people participate in a single meeting (Doyle & Straus, 1976). With large groups comecoordination challenges, social loafing, and diffused responsibilities that inhibit decision making (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Further, endless preparatory work like pre-reads, agendas, and notes prevents employees from focusing on their real job duties (Rogelberg et al., 2006). In many cases, quick phone calls or email could address issues more efficiently than lengthy in-person meetings.
Rethinking the Meeting Culture
Given these psychological realities, companies must rethink how they approach and schedule meetings as part of the overall work culture. As a consultant, here are some best practices I recommend to leaders looking to combat meeting overload:
Establish clear meeting guidelines on purpose, participants, and protocols to streamline interactions and focus discussions (Allen et al., 2014).
Empower employees to question whether meetings are truly needed and encourage alternative collaboration methods like written updates when appropriate (Rogelberg et al., 2010).
Limit back-to-back scheduling to allow for focus time between interactions (Kirsch, 2000). Schedule breaks or individual work periods regularly.
Set clear agenda templates requiring objectives, action items, and owners to increase accountability and prevent meetings from dragging on aimlessly (Van Vree, 1999).
Consider timeboxing meetings to a maximum of 30-60 minutes to increase pace and focus (McGinn & Tempest, 2000).
Opt for video calls selectively and encourage in-person interaction only when truly important to foster connection and dialogue (Kraut et al., 1990).
Collect post-meeting feedback to evaluate effectiveness and continually enhance the meeting experience (Allen et al., 2014).
Beyond these practices, leaders must model responsible meeting behaviors themselves. Overscheduling often stems from the top-down, so leadership commitment is crucial for normalization. I've seen remarkable shifts at companies that make well-being a priority by limiting their own back-to-backs and encouraging employees to protect focus time.
Case Study: A Media Company's Journey
To illustrate these best practices in action, consider the case of a large media company I recently consulted for. Reporting over 50% of employees feeling overwhelmed by meetings, the executive team made changes a top priority. We began by surveying employees on pain points and time spent in various activities. Data showed staff averaging 3-4 hours daily in meetings despite only 30% finding them highly productive. We then partnered with departments to analyze calendar data, interview key personnel, and evaluate interactions. Across the board, we found minimal pre-planning, unlimited back-to-backs, and unclear discussion goals.
Armed with these insights, the leadership team rolled out new guidelines around templated agendas, timeboxing norms, reduced group sizes, and protocols for cancelling low-value sessions. Additionally, they encouraged alternates like written status updates and limited daily video calls to two hours maximum. To foster accountability, they introduced a post-meeting feedback survey and quarterly reviews of department metrics. Just three months later, surveys showed staff meeting time reduced by 35% on average while productivity and well-being sharply increased. Morale boosted as people gained back hours each week for focused work.
The Benefits of a New Approach
Through empirically-grounded changes like those above, companies see remarkable benefits to their culture and bottom line performance. Freed from constant interruptions and stress, employees are more focused, collaborative and engaged in their work (Rogelberg et al., 2006; Allen et al., 2014). With clearer goals and procedures, meetings become more targeted discussions that truly advance initiatives instead of wasting valuable time. Leadership's commitment to well-being also strengthens employee commitment in return (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Financially, decreased overtime from long and unproductive sessions as well as reduced training costs on new hires offset any initial investments (Rogelberg & Leach, 2007). Ultimately, a company rethinking its relationship with meetings sets itself up to optimize productivity, connection and innovation for decades to come.
Conclusion
In today's digital workplace, relying too heavily on meetings as a default interaction mode fails to consider human cognitive limits and well-being needs. While useful tools when properly focused, overscheduling often stems from psychological drives for involvement and control more than productivity alone. Leaders therefore must take a measured, empirical approach to restructuring meeting culture grounded in behavioral science best practices. With changes like templated agendas, reduced back-to-back sessions, accountability, and alternative collaboration methods, companies see remarkable results in reduced fatigue, increased focus, and even financial performance. By prioritizing well-being and effectiveness over instinctive over-scheduling habits, organizations empower employees and maximize their greatest asset - human potential. When thoughtfully streamlined, meetings can become targeted interactions that truly move important work forward.
References
Allen, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., & Scott, J. C. (2014). Evaluating two causes of meetings: Elevating the importance of planned agendas. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9315-2
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1252
de Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Cooperation as a function of leader self-sacrifice, trust, and identification. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(5), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510607833
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
Doyle, M., & Straus, D. (1976). How to make meetings work. Jove.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink; a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
Kirch, D. M. (2000). Enhancing attention and concentration through mindfulness meditation. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9(3), 317-325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009400717457
Kraut, R. E., Gergle, D., & Fussell, S. R. (2002). The use of visual information in shared visual spaces: Informing the development of virtual co-presence. proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, CA, United States, 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1145/587078.587082
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
McGinn, K. L., & Tempest, S. (2000). Towards effective meetings with internal and external stakeholders: Evidence from four UK universities. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800050024008
Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L., Scott, C., & Shuffler, M. (2010). Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 149-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20339
Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2006). "Not another meeting!" Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.83
Rogelberg, S. G., & Leach, D. J. (2007). Time to meet: Designing meetings that enhance productivity. Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, 6, 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3555(06)06004-6
van Vree, W. (1999). Meetings, manners and civilization: The development of modern meeting behaviour. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(2), 108-115. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739910259272
Wiesenberger, E. (2020). Deep work: Rules for focused success in a distracted world. Grand Central Publishing.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Beyond Back-to-Back: Rethinking Meetings for Well-Being and Productivity. Human Capital Leadership Review, 12(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.12.3.6
Comments