Make more meetings to make up for the delay: the illusion of reactive management
50 % of the time spent in a meeting, and yet the produced roadmap accuses several weeks late. This observation, running in hypercroissance scale-ups, translates a managerial drift: believing that the accumulation of synchronization points will solve delivery problems. In fact, she aggravates them.
Alignment, false remedy for disorganization
When the teams are late, reflexes are often the same: multiply the committees, establish extended stand-ups, create intermediate validation points. The intention is clear-to improve coordination-but the effect is counterproductive. More meetings mechanically means less time to execute.
“It is not because we talk more about a problem that we solve it faster”. Alignment does not replace clarity or decision. It sometimes even becomes a toxic substitute.
An ineffective governance indicator
Réunion often reflects deeper dysfunction: blurred governance, moving priorities or an absence of ownership. In some organizations, no team can decide without crossed validation, transforming collaboration into an ineffective choreography. Each suspended decision calls for an additional meeting.
In these contexts, the time spent in a meeting becomes an inverted performance indicator: the more it increases, the more the company reveals its inability to decide quickly. Vélocity decreases, not for lack of resources, but by dilution of responsibilities.
Real cost: velocity, commitment, quality
The consequences are measurable. According to a study conducted by Atlassiana tech employee devotes on average 31 hours per month at meetings which he deems unnecessary. If this time is not converted into executable decisions, it becomes an organizational debt.
On the ground, the technical teams testify to a loss of meaning: “We spend our time talking about Delivery, but no one code”. The fragmentation of working time weakens concentration, pushes to superficiality in tasks, and ends up altering product quality.
Reunion is not the problem, that’s what we do with it
The challenge is not to eliminate meetings, but to redefine their use. An effective meeting is used to decide, not to inform. It is based on three principles: a clear objective, a limited agenda, an actionable outcome. Without this, it becomes an endless discussion loop, often extended by post-reunion meetings.
In the most efficient companies, the standard becomes the writing: Amazon requires for example six -page preparatory memos for each strategic meeting. Gitlab, in Full Remote, structures all of his decisions produced by written comments in Git. The meeting is then only the terminal stage of an asynchronous process, not its starting point.
Restore the value chain of time
To get out of the illusion of reactive management, you have to replace working time in a value chain. Each hour spent coordinating must generate a lever effect on delivery. This presupposes:
-
- A firm prioritization by the leadership produced,
- A Clarity of roles (those who decide, those who execute),
- A Memo cultureto prepare and document the action,
- A Discipline in the calendarto sanctuarize the periods of Deep Work.
The objective is not to make fewer meetings in principle, but to remember that Reunion is a tool, not a solution. When she becomes the reflex answer to each problem, she herself becomes a problem.
