How to avoid: “This meeting could have been an email.”
Everyone has sat through a bad meeting. “This meeting could have been an email” is a cliché for a reason.
At the same time, everyone has received an email that wastes their time—or an email they delete upon receipt because it’s clearly irrelevant to them.
The debate around meeting vs. email isn’t really about choosing one over the other. It’s about selecting the communication channel that best supports your goals.
Meetings aren’t inherently bad, and email isn’t automatically efficient. They can both be effective or waste people’s time.
While this debate sometimes leads people to idolize email over meetings, that perspective misses the point. When choosing between the two, teams need to answer the question: “What outcome are we trying to accomplish, and which channel will be most helpful?”
Internal communications data: meeting vs. email
PoliteMail research asked users about their top three tools for reaching employees. Email broadcasts were at the top of the list, with 79% ranking it in their top three channels. This was followed by in-person team meetings (49%), direct manager meetings (45%), intranet sites (41%), and virtual company/team meetings (36%).
Let’s look at the value and the drawbacks meetings and emails.
When should you plan a meeting?
There are a few things to consider when choosing between an email and a meeting. One of the best questions to answer is this: “What value does gathering people together create that wouldn’t exist if everyone consumed this content separately?”
Compared to other communication channels, meetings are unique because they’re synchronous (real-time, live interaction) rather than asynchronous (individuals can receive and process information on their own schedule).
An effective meeting doesn’t have to be long or complicated to make sense. Even a 10-minute meeting can be a much more efficient way to show someone how to do something or to explain something. During a meeting, it’s easier to answer follow-up questions and truly know if participants are on the same page.
You should also consider the financial impact. Data from Supernormal—based on more than 50 million hours of meetings—shows that American knowledge workers spend an estimated $1 trillion worth of time in meetings each year. Is it worth it to pay employees to attend your meeting rather than spending time on their other responsibilities?
What makes a meeting valuable?
A productive meeting will accomplish one or more of the following:
- Create a shared experience by bringing employees together around the same message.
- Build connections and trust by letting employees see and hear from leaders or peers.
- Generate energy by creating excitement around a goal, initiative, or achievement.
- Align employees by ensuring teams hear consistent messaging about what matters.
- Communicate significance by signaling that something is important to warrant attention.
- Recognize and celebrate people by highlighting their achievements and successes.
- Enable discussion by giving employees time to ask questions and influence outcomes.
- Facilitate collaboration by bringing together different perspectives.
- Encouraging learning by helping employees develop skills.
- Create accountability by establishing responsibilities and clarifying ownership.
The value of a meeting rests in its ability to do more than just transfer information. A meeting must do more than a text-based message can accomplish.
Meeting red flags
Employees don’t typically complain about meetings simply because they’re suffering from meeting fatigue. They complain about unnecessary meetings that waste their time. A low-value meeting typically involves at least one of the following:
- The outcome is predetermined. Employee attendance won’t influence the result.
- Employees aren’t expected or invited to contribute. If it’s a virtual or hybrid meeting, remote employees can show up with cameras off, on mute, and it makes no difference.
- The majority of the information isn’t relevant to attendees.
- The meeting lacks a clear purpose.
- The meeting could have been shorter.
Get industry benchmarks from billions of
internal emails sent worldwide!
Discover email trends and analysis with PoliteMail's
Internal Email Benchmark Report.
Email red flags
Similarly, employees don’t dislike email simply because it’s email. They dislike emails that waste their time. A low-value email is one where at least one of the following is true:
- The message is irrelevant. The content doesn’t affect the recipient’s role, location, team, or responsibilities, and they’re unsure why they received the message.
- The message is confusing. After reading the email, the recipient has questions, needs clarification, or interprets the information differently than their colleagues.
- The email is longer than necessary, burying the most important information.
- The sender could have targeted a smaller audience. Only a subset of the recipients actually needed the information.
- The content isn’t worth the interruption. The value of the information doesn’t justify its own email.
When should you send an email?
An email or Teams message is most appropriate when you want to accomplish one or more of the following:
- Share information efficiently without requiring an employee to stop what they’re doing. At times, it makes sense to share information in meetings. At many other times, a written message is more appropriate.
- Provide a clear record that gives employees a place to reference details, decisions, instructions, and deadlines later.
- Reach the right audience, targeting information to the employees who need it most.
- Drive action by helping employees understand exactly what they need to do and when.
- Reduce confusion by communicating clearly and proactively answering FAQs.
How internal communicators can decide between a meeting and an email
There are red-flag meetings and red-flag emails. Both can be effective, but both can waste people’s time. When deciding between an email and a meeting, consider the value of bringing people together versus the value of sending a message. Use this simple decision framework to make your final decision:
- Is discussion required?
- Does the audience need to collaborate?
- Will attendees influence the outcome?
- Is real-time feedback necessary?
- Can recipients consume the information independently?
Meeting vs. email: A simple decision matrix
| Use a Meeting When… | Use an Email When… |
|---|---|
| Discussion is needed | Information is being shared |
| Decisions require debate | Decisions are already made |
| Collaboration is required | Individual action is required |
| Immediate feedback matters | Employees can respond later |
| Building alignment is important | Documentation is important |
How to turn a meeting into an email
If you’ve determined that a meeting isn’t necessary, don’t simply cancel it. Replace it with a well-structured email that helps employees quickly understand the information and take action if needed.
A good replacement email should:
- Lead with the key message or decision.
- Explain what employees need to know.
- Clearly outline any required actions and deadlines.
- Anticipate common questions and provide answers.
- Link to additional resources for employees who need more detail.
The goal isn’t just to eliminate meetings. It’s to communicate information in the most efficient and effective way possible.
Optimize your communication channels
The best workplace communication strategies don’t rely exclusively on meetings or email. They use each channel intentionally. Meetings are most valuable when discussion, collaboration, or alignment is needed, while email is often the better choice for sharing information, documenting decisions, and driving action. Choosing the right communication channel helps reduce unnecessary meetings, minimize communication overload, and respect employees’ time.
Know what's working. Fix what isn’t.
Download our comms audit guide to close gaps, prove value, and improve messaging and engagement.
