The Meeting That Should Have Been an Email Was Probably Also a Bad Meeting
The standard complaint about unnecessary meetings misses the more interesting problem. Most bad meetings are bad because of what happened before anyone entered the room.
The complaint about meetings that should have been emails has become so common in professional culture that it has turned into ambient background noise: present in every workplace, acknowledged by everyone, acted on by almost nobody. The complaint is also slightly wrong, or at least incomplete. The meeting that should have been an email is a symptom. The underlying condition is the absence of clarity about what the meeting is for, which is the same condition that produces bad emails, bad presentations, and bad briefs.
A meeting without a clear decision to make or a clear problem to solve is not a meeting. It is a gathering. Gatherings can be valuable: they build relationships, create alignment, and give people a sense of shared context. But a gathering scheduled in the format of a decision-making meeting produces a specific kind of frustration: the people who came expecting to decide something leave without having decided anything, and nobody is quite sure whose fault that is.
The fix is not to replace the meeting with an email. The fix is to answer one question before scheduling anything: what specific outcome will exist after this interaction that does not exist before it? If the answer is a decision, a meeting with the right people and a clear agenda is probably correct. If the answer is that someone will be informed, an email or a document is almost certainly better. If the answer is that people will feel more connected or aligned, a meeting might be right but should be framed honestly as what it is: a gathering, not a decision session.
The email that should have been a meeting is also real. The thread that has accumulated fourteen replies and still has not resolved a decision that needed three people in a room for twenty minutes: that is a meeting that should not have been an email. The format is the last question, not the first. What outcome do we need? Who needs to be involved to produce it? How much synchronous interaction does that require? The format follows from those answers. Most workplaces get this backwards.
→ Short reads like this land in your inbox monthly on The Briefing. Subscribe using the link at the top of the page.
Frequently Asked Questions
When should a meeting have been an email instead?
A meeting should have been an email when the purpose is one-way information transfer, when no decision needs to be made in real time, when the participants are not all required to hear each other, or when the output is a status update rather than a conclusion. If you cannot name a decision the meeting exists to make, the meeting is probably an email.
Why do bad meetings persist even when everyone complains about them?
They persist because meetings are measured by presence rather than outcome. The status meeting that accomplishes nothing is still on the calendar next week because cancelling it would require someone to admit it accomplishes nothing, and the cost of that admission is higher than the cost of another hour of everyone’s time. This is a communication and incentive problem.
What makes a meeting actually worth holding?
A meeting is worth holding when a specific decision needs to be made, when real-time disagreement needs to surface, when relationship-building requires physical or video presence, or when the information is sensitive enough that it should not exist in written form. Outside those cases, most meetings can be replaced with a well-structured document or email.
How do I propose turning a recurring meeting into an email?
If you want to tighten the written communication you do send, the Copy Checker is worth a run — or work with Matthew on the communication systems that determine how your team’s time actually gets used.
Propose it as an experiment, not a permanent change. Something like: for the next two weeks, let us trial replacing the Monday status with a written update, and reconvene to decide. This reframes it as a low-cost test rather than a challenge to the meeting’s necessity. Most teams discover the email serves them better and quietly keep it.
STAY SHARP
Get career frameworks, not career advice.
Practical tools and structured thinking for your next career move. New posts, tools, and resources — no fluff, no filler.
Get updates →
