This meeting could have been an email…..…but should it have been?

“This meeting could have been an email.”

We have all said it.

Sometimes it is completely true.

Some meetings are unnecessary, badly planned and far too long. They exist because they have always existed.

They have no clear purpose, nobody knows what decision needs to be made, half the people in the room do not need to be there.

And everybody leaves with less time, less energy and no greater clarity than when they arrived!

Those meetings should probably have been emails. Or documents. Or five-minute conversations between the two people who were actually involved.

But I think our enthusiasm for condemning meetings has started to flatten an important distinction.

Some communication can be transferred efficiently - and other communication needs to be experienced together.

There are conversations that should not be compressed into a string of messages, a shared document or a carefully worded email.

Not because they need more words, because they need more HUMAN.

WHEN AN EMAIL IS ENOUGH

Email is useful when the purpose is straightforward transmission.

A factual update, a confirmation, a deadline, a clear request that needs to be answered or provided in writing.

A decision that has already been made or information that people need to absorb in their own time.

A well-written email can be precise, efficient and respectful of everybody’s attention.

But not every piece of information requires a gathering.

We should NOT drag people into a room merely to read information aloud to them.

That is not collaboration! It is live distribution (ick!)

And…the opposite mistake is assuming that every complex or emotionally loaded issue can be resolved through written communication. It cannot. Hmmmm….what to do.

WHEN THE CONVERSATION MATTERS

Some conversations need nuance, questions, space for people to respond, challenge, clarify and think aloud.

They need the ability to notice hesitation or confusion, or frustration, or energy!

Some conversations demand agreement that is genuine rather than merely polite.

Where people need to not only hear the words being spoken, but the understand the meaning underneath them.

This matters when:

• A team is navigating change.

• Priorities are competing.

• Trust has weakened.

• Roles or expectations are unclear.

• A decision will significantly affect people.

• Different functions are working from different assumptions.

• A difficult issue has been circling without resolution.

• A leadership team needs to align before communicating more widely.

• A group needs genuine ownership rather than passive compliance.

These are not simply communication tasks - they are relational and strategic tasks.

And they are difficult to complete effectively and efficiently through fragmented messages.

THE COST OF COMMUNICATING AROUND THE ISSUE

Modern work gives us endless ways to communicate without having the conversation.

Email! Chat! Voice notes! Comments in documents! Project-management platforms! Meeting follow-ups! Side conversations!

Private messages sent immediately after the public discussion! The dreaded whats app group sub group. WHAT IS HAPPENING.

We can exchange an enormous amount of information while still avoiding the actual issue or making traction.

A misunderstanding remains or an expectation stays unclear.

The decision is repeatedly revisited. and gradually, the organisation accumulates what I think of as “conversational debt.”

Conversational debt is the cost of the things people have not said, clarified or resolved, and just like financial debt, it compounds.

A small misunderstanding becomes frustration > frustration becomes assumption > assumption becomes mistrust > mistrust begins affecting behaviour, decisions and performance.

Eventually, a problem that could once have been resolved through one direct conversation requires significantly more time, energy and repair. THIS is why efficiency cannot be measured only by the amount of time a meeting takes.

A 20-minute conversation that resolves a recurring issue may be significantly more efficient than six weeks of emails, duplicated work and quiet frustration.

THE PROBLEM IS OFTEN NOT THE MEETING

It is the design. Too many meetings begin without clarity about what they are for.

Are we sharing information? Generating ideas? Making a decision? Solving a problem? Creating alignment? Building understanding? Addressing tension? Reviewing progress?

These are different purposes and they require different structures.

A meeting designed to share information should be brief and tightly controlled.

A meeting designed to make a decision needs the right information, the right decision-maker and a clear method for reaching a conclusion.

A meeting designed to build alignment needs enough space for people to expose differences in understanding before committing to a shared direction.

A meeting designed to address tension requires trust, skilled facilitation and the willingness to deal with what is actually happening.

You get my gist.

When every meeting uses the same format — updates, discussion, more discussion, vague actions — it is unsurprising that people lose confidence in them.

THE MYTH OF “WE TALKED ABOUT IT”

Talking about something does not mean it has been resolved -many people often leave meetings believing they are aligned because nobody openly disagreed.

But silence is not alignment! Politeness is not commitment! Nodding is not ownership!

And “we discussed it” is not the same as:

We made a decision > we understand why > we know what happens next > we know who owns it > we have discovered the risks > we have dealt with meaningful disagreements and moved on.

A good conversation creates movement.

Movement can be a decision, yes, but it can also be clearer understanding or a repaired relationship.

Something should be different because the conversation happened. Otherwise, it was simply time spent talking.

WHAT MAKES A MEETING WORTH HAVING?

A useful meeting needs five things.

A clear purpose : people should understand why they are there and what the meeting needs to produce. Start your meetings saying ‘the purpose of this meeting is xyz’ and state the desired outcomes!

The right people : not everybody needs to attend every conversation. But the people affected, accountable or required for a decision need to be represented. If they aren’t there and you can’t effectively re-purpose the time, cancel the meeting from EVERYONE’s calendars.

Honest contribution: people need enough trust and permission to say what they genuinely think, not merely what feels safest in the room. If the conversation skirts into uncertain waters, ‘take it offline’ and ‘circle back’. (ick! but you all know what I mean)

Structure : the conversation needs a process that helps people think, contribute, challenge and decide. Who is running the timekeeping, agenda, and minutes.

Clear movement: people should leave knowing what has been understood, decided or committed to and their next steps.

This sounds straightforward, but in practice, it is where many teams struggle.

The most senior person may unintentionally dominate the conversation.

A confident speaker may shape the direction before quieter thinkers have processed the question.

Historic tension may influence how people interpret one another.

The group may rush towards action before reaching genuine clarity.

THIS is where facilitation becomes valuable.

A facilitator is not there merely to manage the agenda. They create the conditions for the right conversation.

They notice what the group is moving past too quickly, and help people separate fact from assumption.

They make room for different voices and hold the purpose of the conversation when the group becomes distracted, defensive or overly detailed.

AND they help translate discussion into meaningful outcomes.

MEET LESS. CONVERSE BETTER.

I am totally on the team of less pointless meetings. What do we want? time and energy back! When do we want it! YESTERDAY!

I am team ‘protect people’s attention’ , ‘share information clearly’ , ‘cancel gatherings that have no purpose’ , ‘stop inviting twelve people to a discussion that requires three’ !

But do not confuse efficiency with avoidance.

DO NOT compress an important human issue into an email because a real conversation feels uncomfortable or inconvenient.

And do NOT assume that more written communication will resolve a problem caused by weak understanding, unclear expectations or diminished trust.

Sometimes the meeting could have been an email, sometimes the email should have been a conversation.

The skill lies in knowing the difference.

So before you schedule the meeting — or cancel it — ask:

What does this communication need to achieve?

Does it require information transfer, or shared understanding?

Is there a decision to make?

Is there tension, ambiguity or meaningful disagreement?

Do people need to hear from one another, not simply hear the update?

And what needs to be different afterwards?

Meet less. But when the conversation matters, make it count.

Thank you for reading and see you next time!

Heather x