> Talking about stuff is pointless unless it leads to some action.

True, but why do people do it so much? I think it's because meetings are indulgent in several ways: usually you aren't working hard in a meeting, you interact with people you (usually) like, and the organizer gets to feel busy and command attention.

I used to work as an auditor (no idea why they let me) and I feel like we had way more meetings than necessary, and I sort of feel like it was because people were lonely. I could be totally wrong, but I remember concluding that after two years of frequent, pointless meetings.

That's why I like standing up during a meeting (when reasonable), because it mitigates forces that lead toward pointlessness.

Not all meetings are for deciding on action items. Sometimes you have to meet so that everyone is exposed to the same information at the same time. Sometimes, you meet to decide action items, even if everyone already knows what the action items are, so that people know that their input was factored into the action item.

And yes, sometimes you have meetings so you can waste time/spread the blame/look busy.

> so that everyone is exposed to the same information at the same time

Which is usually my least favorite meeting—the one that should have been an email.

In my experience people don't read bulk email. At least not closely. They might not pay attention in a meeting either, but it's more likely especially if you discourage use of electronic devices.

> I think it's because meetings are indulgent

Totally agree. If you fill your day with meetings, you can claim that you were working hard because you were busy. I, and others I have worked with have fallen into this trap. In a culture of overwork and burnout-humblebragging, filling time with meetings is a way to increase status because, as you say; you're commanding attention of those around you, creating flurries of activity, and "working hard".

I am unconvinced that it is because people feel lonely, but this may not be far off. In high stress environments, meetings can be a way to push the stress of whatever you're dealing with into a time box where you can offload it onto other people. This can be helpful in coping with stress.

The reason for meetings: even though you can email everyone in five minutes with a completely clear two paragraphs of what needs done ... they won't do it unless you sit there for half an hour telling them over a table.

This is infuriating and it's also true.

(my job: sysadmin.)

1) Never run a meeting without a clear agenda.

2) Never leave a meeting without agreed upon action items (task, owner, due date).

3) Set a timer 10-15 before the end of the meeting so that point 2 is achievable.

Anything else isn't a meeting - it's an informal discussion.

Have a Chairman or Woman probably ought to be #1

Follow up is also one of the most soul-crushing tasks. The skill to follow up without coming across as bossy, without micro-managing, consistently over months and years is super hard. If you grew and managed a team organically from scratch, the task becomes relatively easier. Perhaps the ability to be successful at following up directly depends on how much your team trusts you as their manager.

Agree. But much easier to know we should follow-up than to actually do it Especially for the more technical minded people (me included). Wish there was an AI that can automate it!

For me though, number of meetings you get pulled into without Agenda or need is the number one time killer!

We used to have this problem at work too. We solved it pretty easily (some people may find it a bit rude), but if the meeting was:

a) going nowhere

b) wasn't relevant to what you do

you would just say "Hey, not sure I'm needed here, I'm going to get back to work". This has worked really well to pare down the number of meetings we have as well as making them more focused.

We've also found that when you have a set length for a meeting you will fill all of that time up. Some of us have started doing a bit more of impromptu meetings that are short and to the point.

Obviously this isn't an easy thing to bring to any workplace, but I sure wish you could.

> For me though, number of meetings you get pulled into without Agenda or need is the number one time killer!

I solved that by just not going to those.

If someone invites me and has no agenda, I reply and ask "What is this about? What are we deciding?". That generally prompts an agenda, but in the rare cases where it doesn't, I will just reject the request and literally not show up. After I've done this once with someone, I generally don't get another invite from them without an agenda and clear purpose. (Maybe they just stopped inviting me, but that's fine with me too).

If the person sending the request is your superior, you have to be a bit more tactful, but it can still be done -- you may have to show up anyway, but really drive hard to get to decisions and/or action items (and get them written down and shared with attendees). If the meeting really does turn out to be useless (no decision, no action items) you can privately meet with your superior to discuss that later, and hopefully convince them it wasn't worth spending hundreds of dollars to do literally nothing.

There is an opposite danger, you skip too many meetings and then you get invited to one, and you go there, and you don't understand much what other people are talking about. And that is because you miss the common vocabulary, approaches, ideas which were discussed on previous meetings.

I send out the agenda in bullet points before the meeting, open the meeting by briefly going through the agenda, then wrap up by going over the answers to each point on the agenda to confirm, then send out an email with the same notes and actions to be taken as discussed in the meeting immediately after.