This article is based on the Allwork.Space Future of Work Podcast episode “The Future of Work Demands Fewer, Smarter Meetings with Rebecca Hinds.” Click here to watch or listen to the full episode.
Meetings have become one of the most expensive habits in modern work. They dominate calendars, consume hours of payroll, and yet rarely receive the same scrutiny as other business operations. In a recent episode of The Future of Work® Podcast, organizational behavior expert Rebecca Hinds makes a clear case: meetings persist not because they work, but because they satisfy human instincts — and those instincts are now colliding with how work actually gets done.
At the center of her argument is a simple idea: meetings should move work forward. In practice, they often do the opposite.
The Visibility Trap Driving Calendar Overload
One of the most powerful forces shaping meeting culture is what Hinds describes as visibility bias. Work that matters — thinking, planning, problem-solving — is largely invisible. Meetings, on the other hand, are easy to see.
That visibility creates a false signal. A packed calendar can look like productivity, even when it produces little value. Employees, especially those newer to organizations or working remotely, often lean into meetings as a way to demonstrate contribution.
The result is a system where attendance becomes a proxy for output.
Over time, this reinforces the wrong behavior. Meetings are scheduled not because they are necessary, but because they are visible. And once they exist, they tend to stay.
Meeting Debt Is Real, and It Compounds
Most organizations are not intentionally designing their meeting culture. They are accumulating it.
Recurring meetings stack up over months and years, even as the work itself changes. What remains is what Hinds calls “meeting debt” — a calendar filled with obligations that no longer reflect current priorities.
This is why many employees describe their “real work” as happening outside meetings. It’s a signal that meetings have drifted away from their purpose.
To reset, Hinds introduces a concept she calls “Meeting Doomsday” — a structured reset where teams clear their calendars and rebuild only what is necessary.
The exercise is less about deletion and more about permission. It gives employees a way to remove low-value meetings without the social friction that typically comes with declining them.
Not Everything Deserves a Meeting
A core mistake organizations make is treating meetings as the default solution for communication.
Hinds offers a simple filter: a meeting should only exist if it is used to decide, debate, discuss, or develop. If the goal is simply to share updates or pass along information, it does not require real-time interaction.
This distinction matters. When status updates and briefings are moved out of meetings, what remains is higher-value time — focused on decisions, problem-solving, and meaningful dialogue.
It also changes how teams prepare. For example, brainstorming tends to be more effective when done individually first. The meeting then becomes a place to challenge and refine ideas, not generate them from scratch.
Measuring Meetings Like Any Other Investment
Despite the time and cost involved, most organizations do not measure whether meetings are worth it.
Hinds points to a simple approach: ask participants whether a meeting justified the time invested. This concept — Return on Time Investment (ROTI) — forces a more honest assessment of value.
It also helps counter a common bias. People often say meetings are ineffective in general, but they are better at judging whether a specific meeting was useful. That transition — from abstract frustration to concrete evaluation — creates more actionable feedback.
Another overlooked cost is what happens after meetings. Hinds describes “meeting hangovers,” which is the cognitive drain that lingers even after a meeting ends. Back-to-back scheduling compounds this effect, leaving little room for recovery or deep work.
AI Is Adding Friction, Not Fixing It
There is growing optimism that AI will improve meetings. Hinds is more cautious.
In many cases, AI is being layered onto already broken systems. Note-taking bots, automated scheduling, and meeting assistants can create new problems when used without clear purpose. Multiple bots in a single meeting, conflicting records, and increased distraction are becoming common.
More importantly, AI can encourage disengagement. When participants assume they can review a transcript later, they are less present in the moment. In reality, most never go back to review it.
The issue is not the technology itself, but how it is deployed. Tools designed to increase individual efficiency can create friction for the group if they are not aligned with shared goals.
A Different Role for Meetings in the Age of AI
Where Hinds sees real potential is not in automating meetings, but in reducing the need for them.
If AI can handle information exchange, documentation, and routine coordination, meetings can be reserved for work that requires human presence. That includes decision-making, relationship-building, and complex discussion.
This reframes the purpose of meetings. The goal is not to make them faster or more frequent, but more meaningful.
It also introduces a new kind of discipline. Leaders must be clear about why a meeting exists, who needs to be there, and what outcome it is meant to produce. Without that clarity, more technology simply accelerates inefficiency.
The Cost of Getting It Wrong
Collaboration has increased significantly over the past decades, pushing meeting time far beyond that threshold for many roles.
At many large organizations, employees devote roughly 18 hours each week to meetings—close to half their working time — with about a third of those hours delivering little value.
This creates a tension at the heart of modern work. Collaboration is essential, but the systems supporting it are often poorly designed.
When meetings dominate the workday without delivering results, they crowd out the very activities that drive performance — deep thinking, focused execution, and meaningful connection.
Designing Meetings That Actually Work
What emerges from Hinds’ perspective is not a call to eliminate meetings, but to treat them as a system that requires design.
That includes setting clear criteria for when meetings should happen, regularly resetting outdated calendars, measuring their value, and using technology with intention rather than assumption.
Employees need permission — and tools — to push back on meetings that do not serve a clear purpose. Leaders need to model that behavior, not just endorse it.
The Future of Meetings Is More Human, Not Less
As AI becomes more embedded in daily work, the role of meetings becomes more specific.
They are no longer the default container for all collaboration. Instead, they become the place for the parts of work that cannot be automated: trust, judgment, creativity, and alignment.
In that sense, the goal is better meetings that justify the time they take.
Organizations that get this right will reclaim hours as well as rebuild how work actually happens.
