The feeling of being over-scheduled is a symptom of running ineffective meetings with no clear purpose. These bad meetings create new problems that then spawn more meetings to fix them, creating a vicious cycle of wasted time. The solution is better meetings, not fewer.

To maximize the value of bringing teams together physically, focus on one of three goals. "Doing" involves collaborative work on a key project. "Learning" focuses on gaining business context. "Planning" aligns the team on strategy and roadmaps. This framework ensures gatherings are purposeful and effective.

Banning meetings doesn't solve the underlying need for alignment. Instead, it pushes chaotic, unstructured conversations into less effective asynchronous channels like Slack or Google Docs. This loses the benefit of real-time discussion without fixing the root cause of bad meetings.

Before attending a meeting, ask two questions: 1) "What specific decision or alignment will this create?" and 2) "What happens if we don't have this meeting?" If you can't provide clear, impactful answers, the meeting is a waste of time and should be canceled or handled asynchronously.

If a recurring meeting serves multiple purposes (e.g., status, strategy, and tactical), it's a "Frankenstein" meeting that should be eliminated. Audit your meetings, assign a single label (Tactical, Strategic, or Operational) to each, and split any meeting that has multiple labels into separate, focused sessions.

To move beyond static playbooks, treat your team's ways of working (e.g., meetings, frameworks) as a product. Define the problem they solve, for whom, and what success looks like. This approach allows for public reflection and iterative improvement based on whether the process is achieving its goal.

An effective meeting has three parts: 1) "Navy SEAL" for strict accountability against goals, 2) "Suspense Thriller" for debating a strategic topic with an unknown outcome (using a pre-read memo), and 3) "Pep Rally" for authentically celebrating wins to boost morale.

The first step to better meetings is asking "should we have this meeting at all?" By eliminating purely informational meetings, you prevent the formation of norms like disengagement and silence. This makes it more likely that when a collaborative meeting is necessary, team members will actively participate.

Formal slide decks for sprint readouts invite a "judgment culture." Instead, use an "open house" format with work-in-progress on whiteboards. This frames the session as a collaborative build, inviting stakeholders to contribute rather than just critique.