In this guide 7 sections
Your calendar is full, but “we have too many meetings” is hard to act on. It does not identify which conversation to change, who relies on it or what would replace it.
Start with one recurring meeting. The aim is not to prove that meetings are bad or promise yourself a fixed number of hours back. It is to find a less costly way to do a particular piece of work, and check that the alternative actually works.
Write down the job of the meeting
For the next occurrence, finish this sentence: “By the end, we need…” The answer might be a decision, a shared plan, a resolved question or time to discuss something sensitive. “An update” is incomplete until you know who needs the information and what they will do with it.
Keep a small note of its duration, your preparation and follow-up time, the intended result and the result you actually saw. Do not record colleagues or copy confidential discussion into a personal tool. An ordinary note such as “decision deferred; owner absent” is enough for this exercise.
You are gathering a basis for a conversation, not building a league table of other people’s productivity. A meeting that gives you little new information may still serve an important purpose for another participant.
Ask what requires everyone at the same time
Written communication is one option, not the correct answer by default. An urgent coordination problem, a disagreement that needs discussion or a sensitive one-to-one may deserve live time. Removing the call could create more confusion or make it harder for someone to contribute.
For a routine status round, ask whether a short written update plus a decision discussion would work. For a mixed agenda, perhaps you are needed for only one item. For a decision meeting, a clearer question and the right decision-maker may matter more than a shorter slot.
GitLab’s public meeting handbook asks organisers to consider asynchronous alternatives and provide advance context and an agenda. That is one employer’s documented practice, not proof that copying its approach will suit every team. [1]
Propose a small, reversible trial
Here is fictional wording for a weekly project update: “Could we try posting our status notes before the next two sessions and use the call only for decisions and blockers? I can prepare the first version. If it creates more chasing or leaves people uninformed, we can change it back.”
Agree the trial with the organiser and the people affected. Do not remove someone else’s meeting or stop attending a required session without discussing it. If you cannot influence the format, ask what contribution is expected from you and whether you can prepare that contribution differently.
Keep the proposed update simple: what changed, what is blocked, which decision is needed, who owns it and when an answer is needed. Use an approved shared location people can access during their working time. A document no one can find or read is not an alternative to a meeting.
Count the work you moved, not just the call you removed
Suppose a fictional 45-minute session becomes a 20-minute discussion. That removes 25 minutes from each attendee’s calendar. It does not prove that the team saved 25 minutes per person overall.
Preparation may have increased. Someone may now spend longer collecting responses. A delayed decision may cause extra follow-up. Note these changes before describing the trial as a success. The arithmetic is an illustration, not a claim about typical savings.
Ask the people involved whether they received what they needed, could ask questions and knew what happened next. Check participation as well as duration: quieter contributions, accessibility needs and time zones should not become invisible in the new format.
Design the replacement, not just the cancellation
Imagine a fictional six-person delivery team with a weekly 45-minute status meeting. The real purpose is to identify orders that need a decision before Friday. Most of the call is spent reading updates aloud, but one disputed priority genuinely needs discussion. Removing the whole meeting would remove both the repetition and the useful decision time.
A bounded alternative is a short shared update with four fields: the order or work item, what changed, the decision needed and the decision owner. Agree when people should add their updates, when the owner will review them and how urgent issues should be raised. Do not assume that posting a document means someone has agreed to act on it.
Keep a short live discussion for unresolved choices. End by recording the decision, owner and next action in the same shared location. Someone who could not attend should be able to understand what happened without privately asking three colleagues. If the written update becomes long, simplify the fields rather than assuming everyone needs more reading time.
Check the arithmetic and the quality of the outcome
In this fictional team, reducing the call from 45 to 20 minutes removes 150 attendee-minutes from the shared calendar: six people multiplied by 25 minutes. Suppose each person now spends ten extra minutes preparing, and the organiser spends fifteen extra minutes checking responses. The net reduction would be 75 person-minutes, before counting any change in follow-up work. These are invented figures for explaining the calculation, not a savings forecast.
The result might still be worthwhile if the total time stays similar but decisions improve. Conversely, a shorter call is a poor trade if critical issues are missed or colleagues must chase decisions afterwards. Agree which outcomes matter before judging the trial. For this team, that could mean urgent orders have an owner, disputed priorities are resolved before the deadline and absent colleagues can find the decision.
If you cannot change the format, make a smaller request. Ask whether you can attend only the relevant agenda item, receive a clear question in advance or provide your update in writing. Respect required attendance while discussing whether your contribution could become more useful.
Decide whether to keep, adjust or restore it
At the agreed review point, compare the intended result with what happened. Did the decision get made? Did the owner and next action become clear? Was necessary information missed? Did the total effort feel proportionate to the result?
Keep a useful change, adjust a mixed result or restore the earlier format. An unsuccessful trial is information about the work, not evidence that your colleagues are resistant to progress.
Your next move: choose one recurring meeting and ask its organiser, “What must this meeting accomplish, and what could we test without losing that?” Bring one suggestion and a review date. You do not need permission to dislike your calendar; you do need agreement to change a shared commitment.
Sources and further reading
Optional source checks. External sources open in a new tab.