Picture this: a 90-minute meeting, seven people in the room, and a decision that one person had the authority to make. By the end, nothing is decided. A follow-up meeting is scheduled. If you’ve been in that meeting, you know the feeling.
This isn’t a productivity problem. It’s a culture problem. And it tells you more about your organization than any engagement survey will.
Why we default to meetings
Meetings feel productive. You’re in a room with people, talking about work. It looks like progress. But most meetings aren’t where work gets done. They’re where work gets discussed, delayed, and then discussed again.
The real reason people call meetings is because they’re afraid to make a decision alone. If the whole team was in the room, nobody’s individually accountable. It’s organizational self-defense disguised as collaboration.
The three-question test
Before I schedule any meeting, I ask three questions. Is a decision being made? Does it require more than two people’s input? Can this be resolved with a 5-minute phone call instead?
If the answer to the first question is no, it’s not a meeting. It’s an update, and it should be an email. If the answer to the second question is no, it’s not a meeting. It’s a conversation between two people. If the answer to the third question is yes, pick up the phone.
What bad meetings reveal about your culture
Early in my current role, I walked into a meeting cadence that had multiple recurring weekly meetings built into the calendar. My team was spending more time talking about work than doing it.
I cut it significantly: a Monday morning alignment, a midweek pipeline review, and a Friday wrap-up. Everything else happens through direct communication, messages, phone calls, a quick walk to someone’s desk.
The pushback was immediate. “But how will we stay aligned?” We stay aligned by trusting each other to do our jobs and speaking up when something’s off. That’s what adults do.
How to run a meeting that’s actually worth having
Start with the decision, not the background. Everyone in the room should know what we’re deciding before the meeting starts. If you need 20 minutes of context, send it in advance.
End 10 minutes early. Use those 10 minutes for people to write down their action items. If nobody has action items, the meeting didn’t need to happen.
Cap attendance at five people. From 20 years of watching this play out, every person above five makes a real decision harder to reach. The dynamic shifts from decision-making to performance.
The uncomfortable truth
If your calendar is full of meetings, someone in your organization doesn’t trust someone else to do their job. That’s not a scheduling problem. That’s a leadership problem. Fix the trust, and the meetings fix themselves.
About Khary Penebaker
Khary Penebaker is Division President at MetalMaster-RoofMaster, the Upper Midwest division of Wolkow Braker Roofing Corp. He previously built Roofed Right America from startup to $35M+ in revenue with 180 employees (2014-2025) and founded Penebaker Enterprises, growing it from $1.5M to $15M. A gun violence prevention advocate and former Everytown for Gun Safety Fellow, Khary brings two decades of leadership in commercial roofing, architectural sheet metal, and civic engagement.
Common questions
How do you reduce unnecessary meetings?
Start by asking what decision this meeting is supposed to produce. If nobody can answer that, cancel it. Replace status updates with async written updates.
Why do companies have too many meetings?
Fear. Managers who do not trust their teams need to see them performing. Meetings become surveillance disguised as collaboration.
What is a healthy number of meetings per week?
It depends on the role, but most people are productive with two to four scheduled meetings per week. Anything beyond that cuts into the time they need to actually do their work.
Keep Reading
Last updated: June 28, 2026