Work meetings: long durations and irrelevant information are biggest causes for distraction

Employee collaboration, especially in hybrid and remote workplaces, often happens through meetings. However, do meetings in companies function in a way that’s practical and engaging for team members to work together most effectively? 

Company meetings are part of most people’s day-to-day and can be the primary way for cross-team collaboration. Technology such as online meeting software has changed the way many people interact with colleagues and has made international teams and hybrid work more feasible. However, it’s not time to prepare an obituary for the in-person meeting just yet.  Organising meetings that are effective, communicative, and —most importantly— well-planned can play a part in whether staff are fully engaged. Furthermore, knowing when, where, and how to conduct productive meetings can play a part in maintaining good levels of workplace collaboration, employee engagement, and motivation, especially with a distributed team. 

To understand how collaboration among employees is managed, Software Advice conducted a global survey in 13 countries across a total sample of 6,490 participants. In this study, we analysed the findings of 496 employees from the UK working in hybrid and remote companies and compared findings with other countries where relevant. By doing so, we hoped to learn more about whether companies are approaching meetings in the digital workplace in a way that promotes collaborative work and meets employee needs.

The full methodology can be found at the bottom of the page.

24% of respondents find that meetings drag  

The quantity and quality of meetings can be the factor that dictates whether getting a calendar invite is a cause for anticipation or frustration. 

Too many meetings that last too long could harm the collaborative effort and stress employees’ schedules. Some employers have even taken this to its logical conclusion by experimenting with ideas like banning meetings entirely. However, it is also possible that with too few meetings engagement amongst different teams and colleagues alike may decline.

Fortunately, meeting numbers seem to be just right for most of our sample. 73% said they have the appropriate number of scheduled get-togethers, whilst only 19% felt that they have too many and 8% have too few. 

However, this was not quite the case when it came to meeting length, where almost a quarter of respondents (24%) said they find meetings in their company went on for too long.

This seemed to be a problem especially for UK companies compared to other countries where the survey was conducted. The UK had the highest proportion of respondents saying they found meetings too long in comparison to the US (where 19% said meetings were too long), France (23%), Australia (22%), and Canada (20%).

Whilst it is not entirely clear if fewer meetings would make things more productive, it is worth assessing and reviewing how much time is spent in meetings regularly. As seen in the findings, most companies currently appear to get meeting length near spot on. However, it is important to keep track of time spent in meetings to avoid falling into the trap of disengaging meetings that drag.   

Are meetings properly planned and organised in UK companies?

The planning and organisation of meetings in a company will also play a big part in whether the number of meetings or their duration comes under scrutiny. When meetings are planned with a coherent point and common goal, take place within reasonable working hours, and allow for staff members to contribute, they are more likely to have a positive reception.

We investigated these factors by asking respondents whether they felt their companies were following best practices in the planning and management of meetings. As the graph below demonstrates, most feel these considerations are taken into account.  

However, there were still areas where organisations were more likely to fall short. This seems to be especially the case in terms of start and end times, providing summaries after the meeting has ended, or a clear agenda before starting. 

Managers and company heads should consider these factors when trying to improve meeting participation and engagement. By making the purpose of the session clear, keeping to the correct schedule, and following up with staff with key details of what was discussed after, there is a greater chance of improving the impact of a meeting.   

Long meetings are the number one cause of disengagement

We’ve already seen how long meetings affect a significant chunk of our respondents. However, what are the impacts that extended sessions can have on staff?   

From our findings, it seems that a loss of focus is one of the key problems with meetings that run on for too long. This was the biggest cause of lost focus amongst respondents in the UK. 

The UK also appears to be one of the countries where this is an especially notable problem. Amongst other surveyed countries, the UK came second only to Canada in this context, where 46% of respondents felt long meetings are harming engagement. Participants from both countries were much quicker to highlight this issue compared to peers in the US, where only 31% named this cause for a loss of focus. 

A personal touch still counts in meetings

The use of video conferencing tools and technological aids such as team collaboration software can do much to help team members feel like they’re together, even if they’re geographically apart. However, there are some occasions when employees may want —or need— face-to-face time with a manager or fellow staff members.

Nearly half the employees in our sample (46%) said they mostly have a balance of virtual or in-person meetings, compared to 35% who said they have mostly virtual gatherings. On the other hand, just 19% said they mostly have meetings in person.

Of course, there are a few technological advantages to virtual meetings that allow them to improve information sharing and engagement. The five most engaging features of virtual meetings chosen by the 81% of our sample where employees meet virtually at least half of the time included:

1. Screen sharing (62%) - allowing speakers to present information more easily.  
2. In-meeting chat features (58%) - giving participants an opportunity to interject without interrupting the main speaker.
3. Content sharing (49%) - allowing speakers to distribute content needed for projects and tasks.
4. Recording and transcription (27%) - so staff members who miss the meeting can review the material covered. 
5. Visual collaboration such as drawing on the screen (26%) - giving presenters and participants an opportunity to highlight important information.

Employees seem to be attending many of their meetings virtually overall. However, we found that preferences for whether a meeting is held in person or not depends highly on the type of gathering being called.

As the graph above demonstrates, context is everything when it comes to whether a meeting should be in-person or not. The trend in the data appears to show that employees prefer events that are more social or that involve direct team interaction to be carried out in-person.

The lesson to take away here appears to be that in a hybrid environment where both types of meetings are common, it is important to play to the strengths that in-person and virtual meetings can bring. If a meeting requires a team bonding element, it can be advantageous to gather in person. However, when information is shared widely, details need to be delivered, or cross-functional collaboration is necessary, virtual meetings can prove more effective.  

Employees still favour tried and tested means of communication at work

Meetings are, of course, an essential way for colleagues to share information with one another. However, there are many other ways that staff may contact each other during the working day.

When looking at the tools the employees we surveyed currently use, older more familiar channels of internal communication still rank highly. Email and telephone calls remain some of the top ways staff use to collaborate with coworkers, along with video meetings.

It was also interesting to note that collaboration software (tools that combine functions such as communication and file sharing into one system) designed for cross-team cooperation, still isn’t considered essential by many, with 25% saying they never use it. What seems to come across from the findings is that familiarity is a big driver of whether a communication tool is used or not. 

It is, however, worth reflecting that many companies may also set policies on communication channels employees should use for gatherings such as meetings, brainstorming, and employee collaboration. It can be helpful to implement guidelines in this way to help unify company communications.  

Meetings matter but good organisation is key to their success

A common theme that can be seen in these findings is that hybrid workplaces are still figuring out the sweet spot of how to organise in terms of meetings. However, there are some trends emerging that should be considered to improve meetings in a mixed-attendance environment.

1. It is important to monitor meeting length and frequency to ensure that staff remain engaged and ready to participate. 
2. Longer meetings and those that minimise participation and lack relevance can lead to a drop off in focus.
3. The decision on whether a meeting should require in-person or virtual attendance ultimately depends on the type of collaboration necessary.

Naturally, the question of whether meetings and collaborations can be conducted in person or virtually is a question of geographic location and when teams are far away from one another, other approaches might be needed. As we investigate in part two of this look into our 2024 Collaboration and Productivity Survey findings, this can prove particularly vital when working with colleagues based overseas.