When I worked for HP, I typically had 4-8 meetings a day. It was a lot! Then, when I left, it dropped off dramatically - sometimes zero meetings in a week. But, as I’m growing my company, I’m holding more and more meetings. Yet, this time round, it feels different. And part of it has to do with this quote from the book Traction:
What makes for great meetings is solving problems. Patrick Lencioni says it best: “Your meetings should be passionate, intense, exhausting, and never boring.” (p. 190)
There were times when my HP meetings were forgettable, dull, draining, and boring. They were typically larger group updates. I’m sure they were great for some people, but I loathed them. HP would hold quarterly all-company meetings, and I usually only stayed on for the first 10 minutes (if not skipping it entirely and only reading the follow-up email).
And yet, I had other multi-hour-long meetings that I loved. Those were the ones where we tackled tough forecasting problems. Or, sometimes it was finding yet another way to say people were printing less (“printing growth is attenuating” was my favorite).
But today, I enjoy most of my meetings. I find many of them directionally similar to what Lencioni described. I had a meeting with the executive director of Love INC to discuss a proposed budget change that wasn’t explicitly addressed in the financial policy document. She wanted my interpretation (as the treasurer) of the policy’s spirit and assistance in updating the relevant section to clarify its application in this situation.
You’d think that would be a horribly tedious meeting, but I enjoyed it. Why?
Rat Race Meetings
One reason people hate meetings is the lack of autonomy.
There’s a neuroscience study called “The Effects of Voluntary, Involuntary, and Forced Exercises on Brain Function after Cerebral Ischemia,” which looked at two groups of rats. In one group of rats, they ran on a wheel whenever they wanted. In the second group, they were forced to run on a treadmill. Both groups ran the same amount. So you’d think, physically speaking, they would have similar effects.
But no.
- The voluntary runners had higher hippocampal BDNF (a brain health marker), better motor recovery, and lower stress hormone (corticosterone) levels.
- The forced runners showed higher corticosterone (stress) and lower BDNF, with poorer recovery outcomes, typical of chronic stress exposure.
Yikes!
No matter how amazing a meeting might be, if you’re “forced” to go (by, say, a manager), there are built-in negative headwinds. And let’s be honest, most meetings are middling, so in reality, they’re a net negative.
And unfortunately, the person who called the meeting — usually the manager — was the voluntary runner and, therefore, enjoyed it.
I think this explains why I enjoyed my financial policy meeting: I volunteered to join the board. So, even nit-picky policy meetings like that are fun. But I think there’s more to it than just autonomy.
Asymmetric Meetings
Many times, the outcomes are asymmetric. I remember once complaining to my HP boss that our weekly update meeting felt like a waste of time for me (except for my 5-10 minute part, of course). I appreciated her response, “Well, the meeting isn’t for you; it’s for me. By doing it this way, I can get updates from the entire team in a single one-hour meeting instead of holding 7 half-hour meetings. It’s not perfect, but it lets me spend an extra two and a half hours each week tackling other problems. Feel free to multitask when it’s not your turn.”
I think we attend many meetings where the benefits are much greater for the leader than for the attendee. Fundamentally, you have to care about the outcome, or the meeting will feel like a waste of time.
Type II Meetings
Perhaps one way to think of meetings is using the three different types of fun framework. In the same way that there are three types of fun, I think there are three types of meetings.
Type I Meetings:
These are enjoyable in the moment. They might be quick (who doesn’t love it when a meeting ends early?!), energetic, or insightful. I think of meeting someone new for coffee as a perfect example.
Type II Meetings:
These meetings aren’t necessarily fun while in the meeting, but are fun in retrospect. These meetings are what Patrick Lencioni is referring to. You’re solving a problem. Some examples are strategy sessions or negotiations. I find myself wanting to have more of these types of meetings.
Type III Meetings:
These are the worst. They’re not enjoyable during or after. There’s no progress, insight, or closure — it’s just a soul-sucking slog. Ugh! I think group update meetings can get this way if you’re not careful. So can meetings that turn into a one-person monologue, or where the leader is unprepared.
My multi-hour forecasting meetings and that finance meeting were type II meetings - hard in the moment, but fun in retrospect.
Predictable Meetings
In the book Hooked, Nir Eyal explains that “Experiences with finite variability become less engaging because they eventually become predictable” (p. 127). If you’ve ever binge-watched a pre-streaming-era TV show, you notice the show’s pattern, and it quickly becomes predictable and less interesting.
But there’s nuance. Simply changing up the format probably won’t work because only the leader has true autonomy. Eyal continues:
Remember, variability is only engaging when the user maintains a sense of autonomy. People will stand in line for hours to ride the twists and turns of a roller coaster but are panic stricken when they experience a bit of turbulence on an airline flight. Therefore, the job of companies operating in conditions of inherent variability is to give users what they desperately crave in conditions of low control—a sense of agency. (p. 129).
Instead, you want the content of the meeting to be variable. This is probably why weekly team update meetings are the worst: they’re highly repetitive, predictable, and forced.
In my company, I avoid group check-ins and instead do one-on-ones. And, for the most part, I let the other person drive the discussion because I’m already interested in what they’re doing. It’s my small attempt at sharing autonomy. Yes, I’m in four times as many meetings versus doing it as a group, but I find the experience is better for everyone.
And, of course, if you change up the order or topics, some people will enjoy it and others won’t. You’ll never have everyone fully on board unless it’s something where everyone volunteered to attend.
Less Meetings
Another way to limit meeting predictability is to reduce the number of meetings. Here’s the advice from the folks at [37Signals, who only hold meetings as a last resort. In their book Remote, they write:
Meetings. Ah, meetings. Know anyone out there who wishes they had more meetings? We don’t either. Why is that? Meetings should be great—they’re opportunities for a group of people sitting together around a table to directly communicate. That should be a good thing. And it is, but only if treated as a rare delicacy.When meetings are the norm, the first resort, the go-to tool to discuss, debate, and solve every problem, they become overused and we grow numb to the outcome. Meetings should be like salt—sprinkled carefully to enhance a dish, not poured recklessly over every forkful. Too much salt destroys a dish. Too many meetings can destroy morale and motivation. (pp. 114-115)
They also recommend hiring only smart people who get things done. I mean, obviously, that’s what you want to do, but it’s much harder to do in practice, so the advice isn’t super helpful. “Just have fewer meetings” can also sound like a great theory that’s hard in practice, especially if the alternative is sending more emails. Still, it’s worth remembering and striving for fewer meetings if possible.
Better Meetings
Alright, let’s land this plane. Here’s how I try to make meetings better.
If you lead meetings...
- Recognize that everyone else will be walking in with the negative consequence of being a “forced attendee.” You don’t need to apologize; just do the work ahead of time to make the meeting meaningful.
- Hold fewer group updates. Go asynchronous or default to 1-on-1s.
- Focus your meetings on solving meaningful problems.
- End with a “meeting rating” (1–10) to improve feedback loops. I don’t do this often, but I’m trying out Slido.
If you attend meetings...
- Find your autonomy: suggest time slots (I blocked out maker hours in Outlook when at HP), ask for the agenda, or volunteer for a meaningful role (like capturing action items).
- When possible, choose meetings where you solve problems that you care about. It may not be fun in the moment, but in retrospect, you’ll appreciate them. If you don’t care about the problem, consider not going.
- If you’re in a group update, give yourself guilt-free permission not to be 100% engaged because the meeting isn’t for you.
- If possible, earn yourself positions where you get to decide if there’s a meeting or not.
Passionate. Intense. Exhausting. Never boring. Meaningful meetings aren’t effortless — they’re earned. Keeping these points in mind can dramatically improve your meeting experience.