Several companies are trying to eliminate almost all internal meetings. The idea promises efficiency and fewer interruptions, but… at what cost?
Recently companies such as Shopify and Meta have put forward a radical measure: eliminating most of their internal meetings. Coordination is done in writing, help is requested in common channels, and decisions are made asynchronously and publicly so that they are on record.
The promise is quite tempting: after a period of chaos and a feeling of disconnection, productivity then skyrockets. However, although this will probably help identify unnecessary meetings, I have doubts about the long-term effects.
In this kind of "zero-meeting" environment, individualism over the team is likely to be encouraged. It is easier for misunderstandings to arise, which written communication not only will not resolve, but is likely to make worse. Furthermore, it becomes harder to create a shared vision and a true team spirit. In fact, could this lack of synchronous spaces not encourage much more top-down and less collaborative decision-making?
What do you think? Would it be possible in your company to work a month without meetings?
Comments (2)
Log in to your Scrum Manager area to comment
Jorge Sánchez López ★★★
28 Oct 2025 00:08Great topic, Marta! 🙌
"Zero meetings" can uncover a lot of pointless meetings, yes… but, if it isn't well designed, it moves the noise into writing and loads you with misunderstandings, opaque decisions, and more isolated teams.
That said, it's crucial to recognize that, without a well-defined communication architecture, this policy can shift inefficiency over to the written channel, resulting in:
- Information and documentation overload
- More misunderstandings
- Opacity in decision-making
- Greater isolation between teams
In my experience, the most effective approach is an Async-First, Sync-with-Purpose(1) model, which keeps asynchronous communication flowing and reserves synchronous interaction for high-value moments.
(1) The methodology aims to: document and communicate as much as possible in writing and asynchronously, and meet only when the human or complex aspect requires it.
¡Buen tema, Marta! 🙌
“Cero reuniones” puede destapar mucha reunión inútil, sí… pero, si no se diseña bien, traslada el ruido a lo escrito y te carga de malentendidos, decisiones opacas y equipos más aislados.
No obstante, es crucial reconocer que, sin una arquitectura de comunicación bien definida, esta política puede generar un trasvase de la ineficiencia al canal escrito, resultando en:
- Sobrecarga de información y documentación
- Incremento de malentendidos
- Opacidad en la toma de decisiones
- Mayor aislamiento entre los equipos
En mi experiencia, la metodología más efectiva radica en un enfoque Async-First, Sync-Con-Propósito(1), que garantiza la fluidez asíncrona y reserva la interacción síncrona para momentos de alto valor.
(1) la metodología busca: documentar y comunicar todo lo posible por escrito y en diferido, y solo reunirse cuando lo humano o lo complejo lo exige.
Automatic translation · View original
Juan Palacio ★
28 Oct 2025 16:41We shouldn't reduce the approach to "meetings yes/no." Some meetings should be an email, while others create real value, boost collective intelligence, and are key in moments of high shared context (e.g., agile inception sessions to align vision and define the MVP). The key is to use judgement: reduce the load of useless synchronous meetings, document by default, and reserve meetings for complex decisions, creativity, and team connection. Eliminating them systematically means losing that value. Once again, it's a matter of judgement and balance, not of dogmatizing ;-)
El planteamiento no deberíamos reducirlo a “reuniones sí/no”. Hay reuniones que deberían ser un mail y reuniones que generan valor real, potencian la inteligencia colectiva y son clave en momentos de alto contexto compartido (p. ej., las de inception ágil para alinear visión y definir el MVP). La clave es tener criterio: reducir la carga de sincronías inútiles, documentar por defecto y reservar las reuniones para decisiones complejas, creatividad y conexión del equipo. Eliminarlas por sistema es perder ese valor. Una vez más es cuestión de criterio y balance, no de dogmatizar ;-)
Automatic translation · View original