The autumn peak of activity in the corporate calendar – planning budgets, strategies for 2026 – again highlights one of the most costly and least efficient processes in modern companies: meetings. Employees in Europe spend an average of nearly five hours a week on them.
But market research, including that conducted by Microsoft or the Asana platform, is unforgiving: more than two-thirds of this time is seen as a waste. This is an inefficiency measured in hundreds of billions of dollars a year globally. The problem, however, lies not in the idea of meetings per se, but in their anachronistic form, which is no longer responsive to the needs of a dynamic working environment.
The scenario is familiar in thousands of technology companies. A virtual status meeting, dozens of participants, most with cameras turned off. The presentation scrolls slide by slide, and pro forma feedback questions are met with chat room silence and muted microphones.
After 60 minutes of monologue, the participants’ windows disappear as quickly as they appeared. One hour of information transmission, zero minutes of authentic exchange of ideas. This is a symptom of a deeper, structural deficit. Companies invest in meticulously prepared presentations, but lose sight of the fundamental goal – engagement and dialogue.
As a result, they not only incur financial costs but, above all, lose the innovative potential that lies within their teams.
Experts on the organisation of the working environment are becoming increasingly vocal about the need for a paradigm shift. Rather than being an end in themselves, meetings should become a ‘collaborative operating system’. Like any system, however, they require regular updates and maintenance to operate efficiently.
The transformation of meeting culture from passive reception to active collaboration is based on several key pillars.
The first is a radical focus on purpose. Many meetings, especially cyclical ones, are held out of momentum, without a clearly defined objective. Participants do not know what is expected of them, which leads to passivity.
The solution may be to rethink formats – for example, replacing the hour-long weekly status with a single 30-minute meeting dedicated to solving a specific problem, with rotating responsibility for leading it. Such a change forces focus and naturally raises engagement levels.
The foundation of any productive discussion, however, is psychological safety. Studies, including the famous ‘Aristotle’ project conducted at Google, have shown that teams with a high sense of psychological safety perform significantly better.
Employees who fear criticism or embarrassment keep quiet. A collaborative meeting culture needs to create a space where asking questions, expressing concerns and giving constructive criticism are not only accepted, but even welcomed. This builds trust and significantly speeds up the problem-solving process.
Another element is the conscious flattening of hierarchies and the simplification of communication. In the traditional model, the discussion is dominated by the voices of managers or the most experienced employees, while the rest of the team remains in the shadows.
The modern approach requires the active inclusion of quieter or younger team members in the conversation and the translation of hermetic, technical jargon into understandable language. Loss of engagement often begins where understanding ends.
Perhaps the most important factor, however, is creating space for authenticity. People are more cooperative when they can be themselves and not just a cog in a project.
Some companies successfully introduce short, personal rounds at the beginning of meetings, where everyone has a few minutes to simply say how they are doing – without statuses or reports. This seemingly trivial element builds bonds and openness, which are essential for a constructive exchange of ideas.
Moving to a new model does not have to mean a revolution. Small but conscious changes can produce surprising results. Instead of another PowerPoint presentation, interactive formats can be used.
A tried and tested method is the ‘silent Q&A session’, where participants ask questions anonymously on a shared document or chat room, which significantly lowers the barrier to entry. Another idea is the ‘open mic’ stage, which gives space for topics omitted from the official agenda.
The ‘no new slides’ rule, where materials are sent in advance and the meeting time is devoted solely to discussion, saves time and focuses on the substance. The role of the leader, whose job is to listen and question more and speak less, becomes crucial.
Technology companies, whose success depends on innovation and agility, need to make auditing their meeting culture a priority. A fundamental question needs to be asked: are our meetings still fulfilling their original purpose – facilitating knowledge exchange, providing inspiration and promoting collaborative development?
If the answer is ‘no’, it is a sign that the collaborative operating system needs an urgent reboot. Otherwise, it will remain nothing more than a costly relic of the past that hinders the organisation’s growth instead of driving it forward.
