Common Attitudes Towards Meetings and How to Improve Engagement

Meetings are one of the most common activities in any school or organisation, yet they are also one of the most frequently criticised. Whether it’s a staff meeting, a departmental review, or a planning session, the attitudes people bring into the room can determine whether the meeting is productive or a complete waste of time. For head teachers and school leaders, understanding these attitudes – and knowing how to shift them – is essential for running an effective school.

Why people dislike meetings 🔗

Let’s start with the uncomfortable truth: most people do not look forward to meetings. According to a large-scale survey by Atlassian involving 5,000 knowledge workers across four continents, roughly 72% of meetings are ineffective at achieving their stated goals. That’s three out of every four meetings failing to deliver results. In schools, where time is already one of the most precious resources, this is a serious concern.

So what drives this negativity? The reasons are remarkably consistent across industries and education settings alike.

Poor leadership and facilitation 🔗

A meeting is only as good as the person leading it. When the facilitator is unprepared, talks too much, or fails to guide the discussion, participants quickly lose interest. Research by Steven Rogelberg, a professor at UNC Charlotte and a leading authority on meeting science, shows that the more a meeting leader dominates the conversation, the lower the participants rate the meeting’s effectiveness. In a school context, this means a head teacher who uses staff meetings primarily for one-way announcements is likely breeding resentment rather than collaboration.

Unclear goals and lack of agenda 🔗

When people walk into a meeting unsure of what it’s about or what they’re supposed to contribute, disengagement is almost guaranteed. A study published in the Journal of Business Research identified several predictors of meeting dissatisfaction, including the absence of a meaningful agenda, unfocused discussions, and a lack of follow-through on what was discussed. Without a clear purpose, meetings feel like aimless conversations that could have been handled through an email.

Lack of commitment and follow-through 🔗

Few things frustrate meeting participants more than discussing the same issues repeatedly without any action being taken. When recommendations are ignored and decisions are never implemented, people stop taking meetings seriously. They begin to view them as performative exercises rather than genuine opportunities to solve problems or move forward.

Inconclusive discussions 🔗

Meetings that end without clear outcomes, action items, or assigned responsibilities leave participants confused about what happens next. According to the Atlassian research, 77% of respondents reported that meetings tend to generate more meetings rather than actual results. This cycle of inconclusive discussions is one of the fastest ways to erode trust in the meeting process.

The impact of negative attitudes on meetings 🔗

Negative attitudes towards meetings don’t just affect the meeting itself – they create ripple effects across the entire school environment. Understanding these consequences is critical for any school leader who wants to protect their team’s morale and effectiveness.

Reduced productivity 🔗

Research consistently shows that poorly run meetings drain productivity rather than enhancing it. A study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology and reported by the American Psychological Association found that task-oriented and goal-driven employees are the most negatively affected by excessive or unproductive meetings. The more meetings these high-performing individuals attend, the worse they feel about their jobs and the lower their overall well-being at work. In a school, this means your most dedicated teachers – the ones driving student outcomes – may be the ones most harmed by a poor meeting culture.

Wasted time 🔗

Time lost in unproductive meetings is time that could have been spent on lesson planning, student engagement, or professional development. According to data compiled by Runn, only about 11% of meetings are considered productive even though organisations devote around 15% of working hours to them. For schools, where every minute of a teacher’s day counts, this inefficiency is particularly costly.

Disengaged participants and “meeting hangovers” 🔗

When meetings consistently fail to deliver value, participants disengage – not just during the meeting but afterwards as well. Rogelberg’s research identifies a phenomenon called “meeting hangovers,” where the frustration from a bad meeting lingers and affects a person’s productivity for the rest of the day. His studies show that over 90% of employees experience these hangovers at least occasionally, and more than half say it hurts their subsequent work. People also tend to share their frustrations with colleagues, creating what Rogelberg calls “co-rumination” – a pattern where negativity spreads through the team.

In a school, this means a poorly run Monday morning staff meeting can set a negative tone for the entire week. Teachers carry that frustration into their classrooms, their conversations, and their overall attitude towards leadership.

How to foster a positive meeting culture 🔗

The good news is that meeting culture is not fixed. With deliberate effort, school leaders can transform meetings from dreaded obligations into valued collaborative spaces. Here are the key strategies that research and best practice support.

Start with a clear purpose 🔗

Every meeting should begin with a defined purpose. Before scheduling, ask yourself: what specific outcome will make this meeting worthwhile? If the answer isn’t clear, the meeting probably doesn’t need to happen. As the educational leadership organisation New Leaders recommends, even the shortest meeting should have a written agenda with clear goals, shared with participants in advance. This signals respect for everyone’s time and helps people arrive prepared to contribute.

Prepare thoroughly 🔗

Good preparation goes beyond writing an agenda. It means sharing relevant documents, data, or background reading ahead of time so participants can form thoughtful responses before they enter the room. Rogelberg suggests framing agenda items as questions to be answered rather than topics to be discussed. This approach makes it easier to identify who actually needs to be present, keeps the discussion focused, and provides a natural endpoint – the meeting concludes when the questions are answered.

Foster inclusive discussions 🔗

One of the most common complaints about meetings is that a small number of voices dominate the conversation. The Atlassian research confirmed that this pattern makes it harder for teams to reach their goals because valuable perspectives go unheard. School leaders can address this by using structured discussion protocols, small-group breakout sessions, or round-robin formats where every participant has an opportunity to speak. The SCARF model, developed by neuroscientist David Rock, offers a useful framework: it highlights five social domains – Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness – that influence how people behave in group settings. By acknowledging all voices equally and giving participants choices in how they contribute, leaders can reduce threat responses and increase genuine engagement.

Recognise contributions and efforts 🔗

People are more likely to engage positively in meetings when they feel their input is valued. Simple actions like acknowledging a teacher’s contribution, following up on a suggestion from a previous meeting, or publicly crediting someone for an idea they brought to the table go a long way. Recognition doesn’t need to be formal – it just needs to be consistent and genuine. When staff see that their participation leads to real outcomes, they develop a more positive attitude towards meetings overall.

Encouraging participation and commitment 🔗

Shifting attitudes is not just about improving meeting logistics. It requires building a culture where people genuinely want to be part of the process. Here’s how school leaders can encourage active participation and lasting commitment.

Make meetings engaging 🔗

Engagement doesn’t mean entertainment – it means relevance. Every topic discussed in a meeting should connect directly to what matters most: student learning and staff well-being. Productive meeting frameworks for educational leaders suggest beginning meetings with a brief success story from the week or a moment of gratitude, then moving quickly into substantive discussion. These small rituals set a positive tone without wasting time. Additionally, consider varying the meeting format – alternate between whole-group discussions, small-team problem-solving sessions, and data review workshops to keep things fresh.

Set clear expectations 🔗

Participants should know exactly what is expected of them before, during, and after a meeting. This includes preparation responsibilities, norms for participation (such as phones away and active listening), and clarity about decision-making processes. When expectations are explicit, people feel more confident engaging because they understand the rules of the game. This also reduces the anxiety and frustration that come from ambiguity – one of the key threats identified in the SCARF model.

Ensure follow-through 🔗

Perhaps the single most important factor in building positive meeting attitudes is follow-through. When decisions made in a meeting are actually implemented, and when action items are tracked and revisited, participants learn that meetings have real consequences. Practical steps include documenting decisions in real time on a shared screen, sending a summary of action items within 24 hours, and opening the next meeting with a brief review of progress on previous commitments. As research consistently shows, the perception that meetings lead to tangible results is the strongest driver of positive attitudes.

Share leadership responsibilities 🔗

Inviting staff members to co-facilitate meetings or lead specific agenda items increases ownership and engagement across the team. When teachers see themselves as active contributors to the meeting process rather than passive recipients of information, their attitudes shift significantly. This also distributes the workload and brings diverse perspectives into the facilitation role, which can improve the quality of discussions.

Ask for feedback and adapt 🔗

Finally, the best meeting leaders regularly ask their staff what is working and what isn’t. A quick anonymous survey or an open discussion at the end of a meeting cycle can reveal frustrations that the leader might not have noticed. Gallup’s research on engaged schools shows that the most effective school leaders encourage dialogue with staff and act on feedback to improve workplace practices, including meetings. Small, consistent adjustments based on genuine input can transform meeting culture over time.

The bigger picture: meetings as a reflection of school culture 🔗

It’s worth stepping back and recognising that attitudes towards meetings don’t exist in isolation. They reflect the broader culture of a school. A school where meetings are poorly run is usually a school where communication is poor, where staff feel undervalued, and where leadership is top-down rather than collaborative. Conversely, a school with a positive meeting culture is typically one where trust is high, where people feel heard, and where there is a genuine sense of shared purpose.

For head teachers, improving meeting culture is not just an administrative task. It’s a leadership act. Every well-run meeting sends a message: your time matters, your voice matters, and we are working towards something together. Every poorly run meeting sends the opposite message.

The research is clear that meetings, when done right, can be powerful drivers of collaboration, alignment, and morale. The challenge is not to have fewer meetings but to have better ones – meetings that people leave feeling energised rather than drained, informed rather than confused, and committed rather than cynical.

What do you think? How do the meetings at your school affect teacher morale and engagement? What is one change you could make to your next staff meeting that would improve the experience for everyone in the room?

References

1. https://fortune.com/2024/03/21/meetings-productivity-ineffective-atlassian-report/
2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dreading-meetings-research-shows-they-might-be-ruining-your-day/
3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296315000879
4. https://www.apa.org/monitor/jun06/frustrate
5. https://www.runn.io/blog/unproductive-meetings-statistics
6. https://www.newleaders.org/blog/tips-to-lead-better-team-meetings-this-school-year
7. https://www.appliedcoaching.org/post/effective-meeting-strategies-school-leadership
8. https://edustaff.org/k-12-education/blog/productive-meeting-frameworks-for-educational-leaders/
9. https://www.gallup.com/education/231743/six-things-engaged-schools-differently.aspx