I pulled my Outlook calendar for the last year.
The average was 27 hours of meetings per week. Not a bad week. Not a crunch period. The average.
Then I counted my work emails for the same period. 7,200. That is roughly 600 a month, 138 a week, nearly 28 a day — not counting the conversations that happen in the hallway, the ones where someone stops by your desk, the quick questions that turn into twenty-minute detours.
When I added it up, I sat with a question I could not shake.
When is there time to actually do the work?
What the Math Actually Tells Us.
I do not think the people who filled those meeting slots had bad intentions. Most of them were trying to align, to inform, to decide, to connect. Those are real needs. But at some point, the mechanisms we built to support the work became the work itself. And nobody stopped to ask whether the ratio still made sense.
Twenty-seven hours of meetings in a forty-hour week leaves thirteen hours. Subtract the email load and the drop-by conversations and the transitions between contexts, and what remains is a handful of fragmented hours, rarely consecutive, almost never protected.
"This is the environment we ask people
to do their best thinking in."
And then we wonder why human-centric skills are not developing.
We say we value empathy, communication, and deep collaboration. We send people to workshops on these things. But the calendar tells a different story. You cannot develop the capacity for nuanced thinking and genuine connection in the margins between back-to-back meetings. You cannot coach someone well in a two-minute hallway conversation. You cannot do the kind of reflective work that builds emotional intelligence when your attention is being pulled in fourteen directions before noon.
What Gets Lost in the Fragments.
The research on deep work is unambiguous: complex problems require sustained, uninterrupted focus. The kind of thinking that actually moves things forward cannot happen in the fragments. And neither can the most important leadership work — the kind that requires a leader to be fully present with another person, unhurried, genuinely attentive.
I have written in other posts about the leader-as-coach model. About how the most transformational development happens not in formal programs but when a leader takes time to teach something real, in the flow of actual work. I believe that completely. But that kind of leadership requires something the calendar rarely provides unscheduled time. Margin. The capacity to stop and actually be with someone rather than managing the clock until the next obligation.
"When the calendar is full, coaching becomes a thing we intend to do.
When the calendar has room, it becomes a thing we actually do."
What I have watched instead is organizations that schedule meetings to discuss the work that nobody has had time to do, because they have been in meetings. That diagnose skill gaps and then fill the remaining hours with more meetings to address them.
The Structural Commitment That Is Actually Required.
The fix is not a meeting reduction initiative or a no-meeting Wednesday. Those are fine as far as they go. But they treat the symptom rather than the question underneath it: what do we actually believe doing good work requires, and are we designing our time around that belief?
If deep thinking, genuine development, and the human-centric skills we keep saying matter are things your organization values, then the calendar has to make room for them. Not as a courtesy. As a structural commitment.
The number that matter is not how many meetings you attended.
It is how many hours last week you had to think, to teach, to be genuinely present with another human being.
This is human work.
Reflection
- Pull your own calendar for the last month. How many hours were in meetings? What is left?
- And of what remains, how much was genuinely protected time for thinking, coaching, or being fully present with another person?
Add comment
Comments