Meetings That Should Have Been Emails (And the Test)

"Let's schedule a meeting." How many times have you heard that phrase? It's become almost automatic, a knee-jerk reaction when we need to discuss something. Yet, research suggests that a staggering number of meetings could be replaced by a simple email. In fact, studies show that nearly 50% of meetings might not be necessary at all. The challenge lies in discerning which meetings earn their hour and which ones are simply wasting our time. Fortunately, a four-question test can help you make that distinction in under 20 seconds.

What This Skill Actually Saves You

Recognizing when a meeting is justified can lead to considerable time savings. Consider this: a 30-minute meeting often costs around 75 minutes when you account for the time it takes to prepare, recover, and switch contexts. For example, a senior product manager attending 22 weekly meetings could potentially reclaim about 12 hours each month by converting just 25% of them into well-crafted asynchronous messages. This isn’t just a productivity tip; it’s a significant portion of professional life.

The benefits extend beyond individual time savings. According to Microsoft's 2024 Work Trend Index, organizations that practice strong meeting hygiene—defaulting to asynchronous communication unless a meeting is warranted—report 21% higher engagement scores than those entrenched in a meeting-default culture. The impact compounds at an organizational level, leading to heightened productivity and morale.

Why Most People Get This Wrong

Despite knowing the value of effective meetings, many still struggle with this skill. The first common pitfall is defaulting to meetings. When there's something to discuss, the instinct is often to schedule a meeting rather than take the time to formulate a clear asynchronous message. Meetings are generally easier to organize than to think critically about the most effective communication method.

Conversely, some teams swing too far in the opposite direction, defaulting to asynchronous communication for everything. This can lead to lengthy documents that only a few people read, generating countless comments and delaying decisions that could have been made in a brief conversation.

Another frequent misstep involves hybrid mistakes—scheduling a meeting to "get aligned" on a clear topic or sending an asynchronous message when a real-time discussion is warranted. The choice isn't binary, but making the wrong decision in either direction can result in wasted time and effort.

Lastly, many gatherings attempt to tackle too many topics at once. A one-hour meeting that combines status updates, decision-making, brainstorming, and problem-solving often leaves participants confused and unproductive. Each of these elements deserves separate attention, and some could easily be communicated through email.

The Four-Question Test

Before scheduling your next meeting, ask yourself these four questions:

Question 1: Is the goal a decision, alignment, or a conversation?
Decisions can often be made asynchronously if you have a clear options document. Status updates and informational messages should almost always be handled asynchronously. Real-time conversations are reserved for open-ended discussions or sensitive topics where body language plays a crucial role. If you're unclear about the goal, don’t schedule the meeting. Take the time to define it first.

Question 2: Will more than 30% of attendees actually contribute?
Assess the invite list. How many participants will provide meaningful input? If it's a large group but only a few people will speak, cut down the invitees. Research consistently indicates that meetings with more than seven people yield diminishing returns. If only one person needs the information, communicate it through email or a quick message.

Question 3: Is the discussion better with reading time?
Some topics benefit from pre-meeting reading. Strategy proposals, budget reviews, and major organizational changes might require participants to gather their thoughts in advance. If you find yourself wanting attendees to read a document during the meeting, you've likely set up an asynchronous task that doesn’t need a meeting wrapper.

Question 4: Is real-time clarification needed because the topic is complex or sensitive?
Topics concerning performance feedback, difficult decisions, or conflict resolution often require real-time conversation to avoid misinterpretation. Additionally, complex subjects that would involve lengthy back-and-forth communication in writing also merit a meeting. If you anticipate an email thread spiraling into multiple replies, opt for a meeting instead.

Once you've answered these questions, if three out of four point toward asynchronous communication, send an email. If three indicate the need for real-time discussion, hold the meeting. For mixed cases, trust your instincts, always leaning toward the option that consumes fewer person-hours.

A Practical Example

Imagine a project team planning a product launch. They have a weekly meeting to discuss updates and decisions. Before scheduling the next meeting, the team leader runs through the four questions.

1. The goal is to make decisions on the launch timeline and marketing strategies.
2. Only three out of eight team members will actively contribute to these discussions.
3. Key marketing material needs to be reviewed in advance for effective feedback.
4. There are no sensitive topics requiring a real-time discussion.

Based on this assessment, the leader decides to send an email with a clear agenda and accompanying documents instead of holding a meeting. They include deadlines for feedback and ensure everyone feels engaged and informed.

Building It as a Daily Practice

The beauty of this four-question test is its simplicity—it takes only 20 seconds. Make it a habit. Each time you are about to schedule a meeting, pause and run through the questions. Most of the time, meetings will still take place, but you’ll likely catch a few that should have been emails, saving valuable time.

To reinforce this habit, review your past week's meetings. Which ones, in hindsight, should have been emails? Which emails should have been meetings? This reflection sharpens your foresight for future decisions.

Encourage a culture of effective communication by naming it when you replace a meeting with an asynchronous message. For example, "Switching this to async; see thread for the proposal." This small change can lead to a significant cultural shift in your team, resulting in fewer unnecessary meetings over time.

Conclusion

You'll know when you’ve mastered this skill: your week will feel lighter, not because there’s less to do, but because the meetings you do hold genuinely matter. Status updates and unnecessary discussions will fade away, leaving space for meaningful conversations. Your team will begin to internalize the principles of effective communication, leading to clearer documents and shorter meetings.

In a world where time is precious, remember: meetings need to earn their hour—most don't. To further refine your meeting hygiene and improve your communication skills, consider taking our Omie Skill Assessment today.