Meetings are a crucial part of any organization. Too many meetings can feel like a waste of time and often signal deeper issues with focus, alignment on goals, processes, or structure. On the other hand, too few meetings can lead to similar problems. The real question is: how do we find the minimal viable number of meetings that enable an organization to execute effectively?

This isn’t a new challenge. There are countless practices aimed at making meetings more productive: choosing the right participants, sending an agenda in advance, optimizing for outcomes, creating and tracking action items, and so on.

However, most advice focuses on mechanics—what to do and how to structure a meeting. While these practices are valuable, there’s another crucial aspect that’s often overlooked: engagement. You can apply every best practice for running a meeting, but if people aren’t engaged, the impact will fall short.

Engagement fosters accountability. A lack of engagement can arise from several factors: insufficient psychological safety, overly vocal or aggressive participants, or even cultural norms that discourage open contributions.

One indicator I’ve started to pay closer attention to, which helps predict team effectiveness, is equal participation time in meetings (i.e., balanced contributions from participants). It’s not rocket science, but it’s a helpful way to gauge whether people feel involved, included, and empowered to influence decision-making.

If you notice unhealthy participation patterns, it’s worth reflecting on your approach. Are the meetings being facilitated well? Do you need to take on more of a moderator role, actively inviting quieter voices to contribute? More importantly, it might point to deeper questions: Are you delegating effectively? Are you empowering your people enough to take ownership or blocking them from growing?

Special attention should be given to team managers and tech leads. They are critical players who can significantly influence your organization’s ability to scale—both structurally and execution-wise.