State of Meetings Report 2025

The Current Meeting Landscape

Meetings consume a significant portion of employees' time each week. With now common hybrid and remote work models, virtual meetings are here to stay, further embedding themselves into daily workflows. However, while meetings serve as critical touchpoints for decision-making and team alignment, their prevalence often leads to inefficiencies and escalating costs.

A typical employee spends 392 hours per year in meetings, with organizations dedicating roughly 15% of their collective time to them. Yet, despite their ubiquity, 67% of meetings are deemed unproductive, and nearly 92% of professionals admit to multitasking during them. These inefficiencies highlight the urgent need to evaluate how meetings are planned, conducted, and managed.

This report dives into the hidden patterns behind meeting culture, exploring how businesses can track meeting efficiency and costs to optimize their practices. By understanding current trends and challenges, organizations can reclaim time, reduce expenses, and foster more impactful collaborations.

* Data in this report is based on Flowtrace analysis of meetings throughout 2024.

Meeting Durations: The Core of Efficiency

Meeting duration is a critical factor in workplace efficiency. Long meetings often lead to disengagement and time wasted, while short, focused sessions can drive productivity. By understanding the trends and patterns in meeting lengths, businesses can pinpoint inefficiencies and make strategic adjustments to reclaim valuable time. Whether it’s trimming unnecessary minutes or reevaluating the structure of recurring meetings, addressing meeting durations is key to fostering a culture of effective collaboration.

Meeting Length

The average meeting length has increased by 10% over the past 15 years.
The steady increase in meeting lengths over the past decade and a half reflects a worrying trend of inefficiency. This rise could be linked to factors like poorly managed agendas, unnecessary participants, or a lack of accountability in meeting practices. Longer meetings not only disrupt workflows but also reduce time available for deep, focused work, emphasizing the need for stricter time management and structure.

The most common meeting length is 30 minutes, accounting for 45% of all meetings. Thirty-minute meetings strike a balance between efficiency and depth, offering just enough time to discuss key topics without dragging on. This trend indicates that businesses recognize the need to keep meetings concise. However, even within this seemingly optimal time frame, the effectiveness of these meetings depends heavily on agenda adherence and participant engagement.

Data shows that 94% of meetings are scheduled for 60 minutes or less. The fact that the vast majority of meetings are capped at an hour or less reflects a growing awareness of the need for time efficiency. Yet, scheduling an hour for every meeting can still result in unnecessary time inflation, where discussions are stretched simply to fill the allocated time. Encouraging shorter durations wherever possible could further improve efficiency and reduce costs.

Other Considerations

• 15% of recurring meetings are scheduled for 15 minutes.

• 8% of one-off meetings are scheduled for over an hour.

• Only 5.4% of meetings are automatically shortened (to 25/50 minutes).

Time in Meetings: Balancing the Load

The distribution of time spent in meetings varies significantly across employees, reflecting disparities in roles, responsibilities, and organizational cultures. While some professionals navigate their workweek with minimal meeting obligations, others find themselves bogged down by excessive meeting hours. Striking the right balance between collaboration and uninterrupted focus time is vital to maintaining productivity and reducing burnout.

The numbers show that 90% of people have less than 10 hours of meetings per week, and 2% exceed 20 hours. We see 3 distinct people groups in the data at 8h, 16h, and 19h of meetings per week points. We can speculate these coincide with ICs, managers, and leaders' calendars. This wide variation in meeting loads illustrates how time is allocated differently across teams and roles.

Employees with fewer meetings are likely able to devote more time to focused, high-impact tasks. In contrast, those attending over 10 or event 20 hours of meetings a week may struggle to find time for deep work, risking decreased productivity and higher stress levels. For companies, these disparities highlight the importance of equitable meeting practices that consider both collaboration and individual productivity needs.

Employees spend 392 hours per year in meetings. When broken down, this amounts to over 16 full days spent in meetings annually. Such a significant investment of time underscores the need to ensure meetings are both necessary and efficient. Inefficient or redundant meetings could cost businesses not only financially but also in terms of employee engagement and morale. Organizations must evaluate whether these hours drive meaningful results or merely fill calendars.

Surprisingly, 0.02% of employees didn’t have a single meeting in 2024. Though the negligible percentage of employees without meetings is likely a data anomaly, it humorously shows how ingrained meetings are in professional culture. On the other hand, 45% feel overwhelmed by the number of meetings they attend, a reminder of the toll excessive collaboration can take. Meeting fatigue can result in reduced engagement and frustration for these individuals, leading to diminished workplace satisfaction and effectiveness.

Punctuality and Scheduling: Starting on the Right Foot

The success of meetings often hinges on how well they are scheduled and whether they start on time. Small inefficiencies in punctuality and planning can compound over time, affecting productivity and creating a ripple effect throughout the day. As organizations adapt to hybrid and remote work, meeting habits have shifted, further emphasizing the need for thoughtful scheduling and adherence to planned times.

Flowtrace found that recurring meetings (52%) start later (>75 seconds) than one-off meetings (48%). Additionally, data shows that 50% of meetings start 75 seconds late, with one-off meetings starting 15–30 seconds late most commonly (mean) and recurring meetings starting 30–45 seconds late most commonly (mean). Although these delays may seem minor individually, they accumulate significantly over time, especially in organizations with high meeting volumes.

Starting late disrupts schedules, delays subsequent meetings, and also leads to financial implications. Recurring meetings, which are slightly more prone to tardiness, may reflect a lack of urgency or familiarity that allows these delays to persist. Addressing punctuality can improve overall meeting discipline and ensure that valuable time is not wasted.

The number of meetings attended per week has increased by over 13% since the COVID-19 pandemic began. The shift to remote and hybrid work models has created an explosion in meeting volume. Virtual meetings have replaced casual desk-side conversations, often resulting in more formalized and scheduled interactions. While technology enables this level of collaboration, it also raises questions about efficiency and the potential for over-scheduling. Organizations must critically evaluate whether every meeting is necessary or if asynchronous communication could suffice.

Scheduling habits are also a highlight with 35% of meeting invites sent with less than 24-hour notice, and 90% of one-off meetings are scheduled within 10 days. These habits highlight a reactive meeting culture, where planning often happens last-minute. Short notice meetings can leave participants unprepared, resulting in less productive discussions. Additionally, the tendency to organize one-off meetings within a tight timeframe might indicate a lack of strategic planning, further emphasizing the need for better foresight in scheduling.

Remote employees attend 50% more meetings than their in-office counterparts. While remote work fosters flexibility, it also encourages over-scheduling. Virtual meetings often replace organic office interactions, leading to a higher meeting load for remote employees. This increase can result in meeting fatigue and reduced productivity, particularly if the additional meetings are not well-structured or purposeful.

Meeting Agendas: The Missing Ingredient

Meeting agendas are the backbone of effective collaboration. They ensure that discussions are focused, objectives are clear, and time is spent productively. Despite their importance, the data reveals a significant gap in agenda usage, with many organizations neglecting this essential tool. This lack of preparation leads to inefficiencies, unproductive conversations, and missed opportunities for decision-making.

Although vital, 64% of recurring meetings and 60% of one-off meetings have no agenda at all, and 7% of meetings include agendas with 1–500 characters. The absence of an agenda leaves participants without clear expectations or direction. In recurring meetings, the lack of structure can perpetuate inefficiencies over time, turning these sessions into routine time-fillers rather than purposeful discussions. For one-off meetings, the failure to include agendas often results in wasted time as participants struggle to define objectives during the meeting itself.

Additionally, only 37% of workplace meetings actively use an agenda. This widespread lack of meeting preparation undermines the effectiveness of meetings, forcing teams to rely on ad hoc discussions that often stray off-topic. The absence of an agenda also discourages accountability, as participants may leave without actionable follow-ups or clear next steps. This cultural issue significantly impacts meeting outcomes, with consequences reverberating across teams and projects.

As only 37% of meetings actively make decisions, the remaining 67% of meetings are deemed unproductive, and executives consider 67% of meetings to be failures. The connection between agendas and outcomes is clear. Meetings without structure are less likely to achieve their intended purpose, whether it’s decision-making, problem-solving, or strategy development. The lack of actionable results from most meetings reflects a broader failure to prioritize planning and preparation. For leaders, this inefficiency represents not only a waste of time and resources but also a missed opportunity to drive progress.

Participants: Optimizing Attendee Lists

The people in a meeting are its most valuable resource, and also its most significant cost. Striking the right balance between including essential stakeholders and avoiding overstaffed sessions is key to improving productivity and reducing unnecessary expenses. Despite this, the data suggests that many organizations struggle with optimizing attendee lists, leading to wasted time and resources.

49% of one-off meetings have only 2 participants, while 90% of these meetings have 2 to 6 participants. Smaller meetings often facilitate focused, productive discussions. There's a case to be done for prevalence of "sync up" meetings taking place via calendar, when they used to be chance encounters at the office desk. When only two participants are present, it’s easier to dive deep into issues and make quick decisions. However, these numbers also suggest that one-off meetings may be underutilized as opportunities for broader collaboration. Balancing the need for inclusivity with the efficiency of smaller groups is essential.

29% of recurring meetings have 7 or more participants. In contrast, recurring meetings often include large attendee lists, which can dilute discussions and prolong decision-making. Having too many participants can lead to disengagement, as individuals may feel their presence is unnecessary. This also increases the financial burden of meetings, as more attendees mean higher cumulative costs. Regular audits of recurring meetings can help identify where attendee lists can be trimmed.

Optional invites allow for greater flexibility, enabling employees to focus on their priorities instead of attending every meeting. However, data shows that only 12.6% of meeting invitees are marked as “optional.” However, this practice can lead to confusion about who is truly expected to participate, potentially impacting the quality of discussions. Clear communication about meeting roles and expectations is vital to make optional invites effective.

Also, 71% of meetings are considered unproductive, while 73% of professionals admit to doing other work during meetings. The disconnect between participation and engagement is clear. When meetings are overstaffed or attendees are not directly involved in the topics being discussed, the likelihood of multitasking and disengagement increases. This leads to unproductive meetings that fail to deliver meaningful outcomes, further emphasizing the need to refine attendee lists.

Companies waste an estimated $37 billion annually on unproductive meetings. This staggering figure underscores the importance of optimizing meeting participation. Every additional, non-essential attendee adds to the financial burden, especially when their contributions are minimal. Organizations can significantly reduce this cost by ensuring that every participant is essential to the meeting's objectives.

Video Calls: The Role of Virtual Meetings

Virtual meetings have become a cornerstone of modern workplace collaboration, but their efficiency often leaves much to be desired. Video calls, in particular, present unique challenges in terms of duration, engagement, and productivity. Understanding the trends and behaviors surrounding video calls can help organizations manage these meetings more effectively and minimize wasted time.

5% of video calls are less than 5 minutes long, while 10% extend beyond 60 minutes. These extremes highlight the variability in virtual meeting practices. Short calls may indicate quick check-ins or updates, which are often productive but underutilized. On the other hand, extended video calls lasting over an hour can cause fatigue and reduce participant engagement. Striking a balance by setting clear expectations for call durations can help ensure meetings remain efficient.

One-off video calls run 5 minutes longer on average than recurring meeting video calls. This trend suggests that one-off calls often include more complex or urgent topics, which require additional discussion time. While this may be necessary in some cases, organizations should monitor these calls to ensure that the extra time is spent meaningfully rather than drifting off-topic.

92% of workers multitask during virtual meetings. This statistic reflects a critical issue with engagement in video calls. The ease of multitasking during virtual meetings, such as checking emails or completing unrelated tasks, undermines the effectiveness of the discussion. Clear agendas, focused participation, and interactive meeting formats can reduce this behavior and keep attendees engaged.

The average employee spends about 31 hours per month in unproductive meetings. Virtual meetings contribute significantly to this alarming figure, especially when they lack structure or overrun their intended durations. Time spent in unproductive video calls not only impacts individual workloads but also translates to considerable organizational costs. Streamlining virtual meeting practices can help recapture this lost time and redirect it toward more valuable tasks.

The Financial Toll of Inefficient Meetings

Meetings are a necessary part of organizational life, but they often come with hidden overhead costs that can strain resources and reduce productivity. Beyond direct expenses like salaries and technology, poorly managed meetings lead to opportunity costs, lost focus, and diminished engagement. By understanding and addressing these challenges, businesses can significantly reduce meeting costs.

Organizations spend approximately 15% of their time in meetings, a staggering proportion when considering the cumulative costs of unproductive sessions. While meetings are essential for collaboration, this significant time investment also represents an area ripe for optimization. Even small improvements in meeting efficiency can yield substantial savings across teams.

On average, time spent in meetings costs employers over $29,000 annually per employee. This includes the time employees spend in meetings and the subsequent work required to prepare for and follow up on them. For businesses with large teams, these costs can quickly scale into millions, underscoring the importance of implementing structured, efficient meeting practices.

Frequent rescheduling of internal meetings adds to the problem, costing employers over $5,000 annually per employee. This administrative burden not only consumes valuable time but also disrupts workflows, further compounding the costs of inefficiencies.

Inefficiencies in meetings have broader financial implications as well. In the U.S., poorly planned or unnecessary meetings collectively cost companies approximately $25 million a day, a number that highlights the widespread nature of the issue. For large enterprises, this figure can balloon significantly; unnecessary meetings can cost up to $100 million annually, according to a recent survey. These statistics drive home the point that addressing meeting inefficiencies should be a top priority for organizations.

Opportunity Costs

The inefficiencies in meetings extend beyond financial costs. 52% of employees lose attention in meetings within the first 30 minutes, revealing how unproductive sessions can waste not just time but also focus and energy. Meetings that lack structure or clear objectives are particularly guilty of this, leaving participants disengaged and unmotivated.

Compounding the problem is the fact that 67% of meetings are deemed unproductive, a significant majority. This lack of value erodes trust in the process and creates frustration among employees who feel their time is being wasted. For many professionals, this frustration leads to multitasking or disengagement, further undermining the purpose of the meeting.

Organizations can achieve notable savings by reassessing their meeting culture. Reducing the number of meetings per person by just three per week could cut company costs by 15%, according to industry estimates. This demonstrates that even small changes, such as consolidating recurring meetings or replacing low-value sessions with asynchronous updates, can have a profound impact.

Future of Meetings

The future of meetings lies in intentional, efficient, and purposeful collaboration. As this state of meetings report highlights widespread inefficiencies, such as unstructured agendas, overstaffed meetings, and excessive durations, organizations must adopt data-driven strategies to reduce costs and improve outcomes. This includes enforcing agenda policies, leveraging analytics to streamline practices, and embracing asynchronous communication for routine updates. Discover how Flowtrace can support a cost-effecive and productive meeting culture.