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.)