That's my take away as well, but I don't think it's a bad read. It shows something about leadership I think. In my experience – in organizations big and small – most meetings have no agenda beyond a subject line in an email. Invitees come in with little idea of what the meeting is about or how to prepare for it, so the first part of the meeting is just pleasentries and trying to figure out why you're even meeting in the first place. Once you start picking up steam, more often than not I find the meeting is cut short by people having to run into another meeting, or find some other (valid or not) excuse to duck out. Follow up meetings are usually scheduled, with an agenda that tries (and often fails) to tl;dr the previous meeting and if you're lucky that meeting actually leads to actionable points.

Having a consistent structure to meetings – with clear requirements such as a two page document in clear no-frills language detailing the reason for the meeting, background, questions and potential solutions etc. – may well seem draconian to many people these days, but I find it helps with focus and clarity. Combined with a clear vision (my number one ask from leadership) I think it really helps boost productivity even if it does take time to prepare. At least that cost is fairly easy to account for, whereas the follow-up cost to bad meetings often isn't. Crucially though, people must read the document prior to the meeting – no excuses – or you'll end up with the first half or third spent on just reading the document or having to recite it to those that haven't read it. It's perhaps still better than the subject line agenda style meetings, but possibly not by much.

This is very much a cultural thing. It's extremely difficult to apply to just your meetings. I've tried.