Slashdot Mirror
Meetings are Bad For You
19061969 writes "Though this is obvious to most of us, your PHB's might benefit from knowing that meetings are bad for you. Two psychologists have found evidence that the number of and the time spent in meetings has a detrimental effect on mood. "...a general relationship between meeting load and the employee's level of fatigue and subjective workload was found", write the authors after conducting a diary study. Perhaps we should be more understanding with our moody bosses?"
Memo from your PHB
We need to have a meeting to discuss these findings!
Oh no... it's the future.
In other news, the sky is blue.
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
"Perhaps we should be more understanding with our moody bosses?"
Perhaps not. Most meetings are scheduled by said moody bosses because they can't be bothered to read their email or meet one on one with the people who are actually getting work done. Sure, they're busy otherwise, but most of the reason they're busy is because of this meeting culture that equates sitting around a table talking about what you're going to have your minions do (as soon as they get out of the meetings you force them into) with getting code written and products shipped.
The main reason I hate meetings so much is because I get the impression that the only people getting anything out of them are the ones contributing nothing useful to the project in the first place. I don't care if your job is to sit between me and your boss, if you can't keep up with a project you're a part of without dragging me away from my actual work to hand-hold you through what's going on twice a week, you're wasting my time.
That was 90% of the meetings last place I worked, and this accounted for probably half the reason I got fed up with the place and quit before Christmas. Maybe I'm just not cut out to work somewhere that has more than a few employees, and I've never claimed to be a people person, but everybody I talked to felt much the same way, so I feel at least somewhat validated.
Face to face contact is great, but the instances where that face to face contact's value outweighs the cost of herding a bunch of people into a conference room for a chit chat are few and far between when there are deadlines to meet, IMHO.
Game... blouses.
I'm not sure I understand the findings. I know I'm always pleased when my boss "delegates" his full workload to me at a meeting.
This guy's the limit!
"Meetings are Bad For You" .. having an informal conversation with someone from a marketing Department for 5 minutes is bad enough.
No shit
Having to sit with them for an Hour as they drivel total Bullshit, is enough to give anyone a nervous breakdown
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Am I the only one that found this whole statement funny? I would think that they would release the paper to trade magazines and such to get their findings out, rather than waste time with meetings about how meetings are bad. That sounds like shooting yourself in the foot to me.
While number of meetings is important, I think that spending all day, every day in your office with no idea what anyone else is doing could be just as detrimental. I go to like 3 meetings a month so it takes me forever to find out what other people are doing.
...
I worked at a remote office for my previous employer. One time they flew me into their corporate headquarters to participate in a software replacement plan. I spent the better part of each day going from meeting to meeting. At the end of the last day I asked one of the people escorting me around "With all of these meetings how do y'all get any work done?" He looked at me seriously and said, "That's the idea." I went back to my remote world with even less respect for CHQ...
Don't worry, I'm sure the study was only partially funded by federal money...
Something needs to be done about meetings... Perhaps more laws, counselling, medication... for the children.
I suggest you read Slashdot
You need a balance of meetings.
Key is to not invite non-Stakeholders. Certain meetings are needed for people to feel empowered to produce and cetrain meetings just make people wither on the vine. What you want to accomplish at the meeting?
A friend of mine told me once how badly their office was run.
The biggest problem, in his opinion, was the number of meetings that they had in order to discuss the projects they were working on. Frustration built up among employees due to not having enough time to actually do the work, as well as the number of times that he was interrupted in the middle of doing something productive - simply to go to another pointless meeting.
In his opinion, these meetings caused just as many problems as they tried to solve, and ironically, they would sometimes generate more meetings to discuss how far they were along in meeting their original deadlines.
I would tell you more about it, but I have a meeting to attend.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I read in Reader's Digest many years ago about a plant manager who loathed meetings. A worker was injured on the job, which prompted a series of long "safety meetings." This propmpted the manager to post signs throughout the plant that read:
Work Safely! Accidents cause Meetings!
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
It is arguable as to whether a lot of meetings are held for a GOOD reason.
Bad management often leads to a plethora of needless meetings.
I always like the approach of having meetings standing up - suitable uncomfortable, focuses minds, people soon only schedule meetings that are really required, and they are brief.
I remember reading that meetings are an ideal way to get some things done:
1)Pool expertise from different departments
2)"Gather" authority for cross-department tasks
3)Get feedback and progress reports from different departments
4)Discuss critical issues that require human interaction
5)Criticise new products and techniques from different points of view
6)Brainstorm
When used properly, meetings can be powerful tools... But the ONLY reason I see meetings being used anymore is POLITICS! To palm off responsibility, blame someone else, avoid work, act important, establish power ("I called a meeting because I can"), or just generally be a waste of organizational oxygen. No wonder people hate them... The last thing most techs and researchers want is to get mired in office politics.
A meeting conducted properly is a huge help. It can speed up things and make your goals and objectives a whole lot clearer than they ever were, but unfortunately some people just don't seem to get that.
StrayByte.Net
That's what "Too many" means...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I use to have this at my old job that was posted. Some of the high-ups were not impressed.
Are you Lonely ?
Don't like working on your own ? Hate Making Decisions ?
Then Call a Meeting !!!!
YOU CAN...
SEE people
DRAW Flowcharts
FEEL Important
IMPRESS your collegues
FORM subcommittees
MAKE meaningless recommendations
All on Company Time
MEETINGS
The pratical alternative to work.
I know that most people here work on the "create the product" part of industry, or so it seems, but when you're like me, meetings are a wonderful thing.
I work in sales. The more that I can understand our products, the better of a salesman I can be. I"m not the type of person that will try to make up things because they want products to look good -- instead, I try to be as knowledgeable as I can, because from what I have seen, the more knowledgeable that the buyer sees that I am, the more trusting they are of me, and therefore more willing to buy what I am selling.
I don't spend a large amount of my time in meetings, but at least for me, the meetings that I am a part of, each bit of information that I receive on a product ends up selling at least another few units, so they're great for me.
ArtificialNews.com will one day SAVE YOUR LIFE from evil AI!
There is something disturbing about this paragraph from the article:
Rogelberg has delivered this insight in a talk called "Meetings and More Meetings," which he presented to a meeting at the University of Sheffield. He also does a talk called "Not Another Meeting!", which has been well received at two meetings in North Carolina.
Best manager I've worked for hated meetings, when a meeting was unavoidable he made us stand up during the meetings. The effect on the meeting was amazing, people got very snappy during the meeting, only discussing the core problem and was well prepared when they arrived at the meeting, since no one was thrilled of a 4 hour stand up meeting :)
http://www.intellipool.se/ - Intellipool Network Monitor
In my old job, the project was split between a Colorado Springs and Gaithersburg, MD location. The big shots were located on the East Coast in G-burg. There was one particular meeting that I had to attend every two weeks. I was Assistant Lab Manager. The meeting was a video conference hosted by G-burg. It was suppose to be a simple status meeting. A few years back when the meeting started, it was simple and short until the Sr. Mgt got involved. Today, the meetings last as long as 5 hours and one thing I notice, it is usually the same few people who just go on and on.
These "windbags" think they can impress the higher ups by spewing so mush B.S. My part takes about a minute and then I am out of there ! There are many times I sit listening to these windbags and I would like to say, "get to the point and be done !"
Also in that group, it seems like they liked to have late Friday afternoon meetings which I of course, ignored, unfortunately to my detriment.
To play the devil's advocate, I think meetings are a cost to an organization, and with all things with a cost need to be considered carefully. However, I have found, from both sides of the fence, that small team meetings to go over what other folks are doing on the team to be helpful. I've been working in product development for some time and the 30-45 minutes spent almost always reveals something of use to other team members. Also, it makes the team stronger sitting together and talking once a week. You just can't get all the information on what is going on from an e-mail or an updated percentage on a line item. Also, knowing there is a looming meeting where you face your peers is motivational, despite what some may say (or you just don't care, in which case I would generally not be interested in just not having you around ;-)
One helpful trick I've used is to bring something sweet to meetings and place them on the table. Sugar cancels most negative feelings. Also, let the team BS for about 5 to 10 minutes in the beginning of the meeting. A bit of a "gathering atmosphere" is also helpful and further helps build team unity.
The article is poking fun at the study. The author of the article is the organiser of the Ignoble Prize competition.
What's happening? Ahhh, we have a sort of a problem here. Yeah, you apparently didn't put one of the new cover sheets on your T.P.S. report. It's just that we're putting new coversheets on all the TPS reports *before* they go out now. So if you could just remember to do that from now on, that'd be great.
when I have meetings with my phd supervisors I usually enjoy them a lot. if you're discussing something with funny, intelligent experts who help you get things done it's not surprising it's enjoying.
so don't blame meetings. I expect most meetings are bad for you just because most *people* are stupid, boring, selfish, ignorant, incompetent and more likely to get in your way than not.
At one of my former jobs, fully half of each meeting was dedicated to other meetings. We'd spend about 15 minutes recapping the last meeting, and another 30 setting the agenda for the next one! I think it may just be for the reason you cited - even though the higher-ups in the meetings were 'constantly in touch with each other', they never really seemed to know what anyone else was doing or if any progress had been made. The net result was that I was pulled away from my work for twice as long as should have been necessary and got less accomplished than should have been possible.
Then again, I was working for the state...
Meeting are held for a reason
Most of the time, that reason is to make middle managers (whose job consists exclusively of writing memos and attending meetings) look busy. The more incapable the manager is of writing effectively and/or the more unwilling to have a record of exactly what they said, the more likely you are to have a full daily schedule of meetings.
Now watch as I reveal the one most evil and stupid word in modern business - communication. Not simply the actual fact of doing so, but the implication that communication solves all business problems, sort of like how everyone thought communication solved all marital problems back in the 80's when it was popular to say that. Communication is a load of horse shit. There is no such thing as a communication problem. Every "communication" problem in modern business is in fact a confidence problem. The information is readily available, but 2 things block its distribution: 1 - Managers don't like to go on record. They don't reply to e-mails, for example. They lack the confidence to go on record with whatever they want to say. Here's an idea - if you don't have the balls to put your "communication" on paper with your name on it for all to see, then STFU. If you lie frequently enough that committing anything to writing hampers your ability to work, then you need to be fired. 2 - For the reasons documented above, employees have no confidence in anything managers have to say. I've never seen anything cited as a communication problem that was not actually communicated in fact. "I guess we need better communication between you/your department and me/my department." has become the polite and meaningless mea culpa for the business age.
NO! We don't need more communication. We need to STFU and get back to work!
*ducks*
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
At this meeting was a very old and experienced PhD who knew everything about the project. He regarded the meeting as an opportunity to display his knowledge at length, but had nothing of substance to put forward; after all, it was his design decisions that had caused the mess in the first place. Did I mention he was now a contractor and paid by the hour?
I know nothing about the branch of engineering concerned but I did go and ask the technicians what they thought. They knew the answer perfectly well - the material of a major tubular component was completely underspecified and was leaking gas when the plant got hot. But the PhD refused to accept it.
We didn't exactly draw straws for who would bring it up - but suffice it to say that I ended up with the short one. The result was an hour or so of listening to the worst metallurgical bullshit I have ever endured. But in the end we got our way, the components were replaced, the system started to work, the PhD was let go, (and a year later I was the engineering manager - it seems the MD had been reading the minutes).
Proof if proof were needed that the real reason for meetings is to drive the engineers to the point at which they will risk their jobs and their credibility to find a solution that means they don't have to go to any more meetings.
Pining for the fjords
Also in that group, it seems like they liked to have late Friday afternoon meetings which I of course, ignored, unfortunately to my detriment.
I worked in a group - developing marketing software for MCI back in the mid-1990's. Our manager decided to order 4 pm meetings everyday especially on Friday. These meetings lasted until 6 or 7 every night. He of course did not show up, his staff people ran the meetings. After attending a few of those meetings, I came to the conclusion they were a waste of time. I quit going to them.
In another place I worked at, we have flex time and I took Friday afternoons off every week. I usually leave by 11 am. One time, an e-mail went out on Thursday afternoon and it mentioned that one of the corporate executives was going to visit. The meeting was scheduled for 3 pm on Friday. On top of that, we have casual Friday. We were told to "dress to impress". I blew off the meeting since I had other plans. The following week, I was called in to my manager's office and read the "riot act" for ignoring the meeting. He mentioned that we must show utmost respect to our executives and attending this meeting was important to this executive. Quite a few people were not at this meeting. It was a waste of time as mentioned by those who attended. It was basically the executive telling about all the good things he was doing for the rank and file workers.
I've got a productive relationship with peers/partners/co-workers (and even some big-ticket customers) that, despite years of working together, I have never met in person. We make excellent use of (get this!) the telephone. I know, it's quaint.
But the most important thing is that we keep those calls short, and don't need to use them to convey basic information to each other because we do that all the time using e-mail, IM, and a rich portally-intranet-ish web presence.
But the only thing that really makes those supporting technologies a viable replacement for endless facetime is decent communications skills. Being able to cogently write what's on your mind, provide a usable spreadsheet or document that illuminates the matter at hand... even being able to use IM without it decaying into a meandering social tarpit.. those things require a little bit of practice and discipline. But they buy you productive, asynchronous communication that liberates you to work on your actual job on your own schedule.
In-person meetings are saved for when it really matters: gaining and keeping paying customers. Oh, and free food.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
When I worked at Atari, those of use who worked on Gameboy Advance titles could keep on working during a meeting as long as we could nod our heads and look interested at the right moments. Everyone else who didn't work on a Gameboy Advance title had to leave their joysticks outside and try not to look too bored.
1. Changing paradygms.
2. Drinking the kool aid at a meeting where business developers are present.
3. Falling for the "everyone please send HR a fresh copy of your resume to update your files" ploy
4. Trying to calm down a frantic coworker that is freaking out for a very minuscule thing without at least some caffeine courage.
5. Drinking the last cup in the coffee urn. I can promise you this: it will taste like boiled crap.
6. Eating that last donut from the meeting 3 days ago. The Krisky Kreme box has not moved from the coffee pot table and that one donut looks tempting as hell, but trust me: you don't want it.
7. Come-to-Jesus meetings for a project that is not yours.
8. Any brainstorming meeting involving your newly hired business developer, especially since you don't have a formal "business development" function.
9. Trying to explain to a frantic coworker that mail.app is not crazy and it is not ignoring rules.
10. Trying to explain the same coworker that classifying mail as "ham" helps the filter learn what makes a good email and avoids false positives.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
I work in the IT field (obviously) but I work freelance. Basically, I choose who I work for, so I don't get stuck working under/alongside/above people that I don't personally like. I naturally veer away from meetings. Most meetings I've ever had were a waste of time and they were paying me a phenomenal amount of money to sit and talk, or sometimes even just sit. I don't doubt that meetings can be useful, quite often I've been keen to be involved in ones that affected me directly but been refused (yes, I've actually been politically blocked from attending a meeting with a supplier that would affect my work directly and drastically as I would be in charge of running and maintaining whatever they supplied!).
I've had three hour meetings where the only conclusion and main focus of the chat was what colour green to place on a website background (the website, incidentally, never got off the ground). And they paid me for that time. Now, I don't mind doing stuff that people are paying me for so long as it's something that I can do (I wouldn't say I could fix something if I couldn't), however I try to avoid all meetings now with those same people because it degenerates into a waste of five or more people's time, money and effort, distracts them from the real work and doesn't actually achieve anything we couldn't do with a poll on a webpage. I could make money from sitting in a room and gabbing nonsense but I consider it a real waste of my own time and talent.
One of the reasons that I won't work 9-5, mon-fri, for someone I don't like is that I can call things what they are if people ask. I've never sucked up to a boss in my life because I've never had one. I've had clients, whom I visit initially to determine their needs and then work for, but I avoid "meetings" at all costs.
Meetings are generally without any sort of focus, any conclusions, any change of opinions. They usually are either explaining things that people don't need to understand ("the network is broke, we're fixing it, it'll take a day and cost us X amount of money" is a perfectly good explanation for someone who's not technically minded), letting people spread responsibility for difficult decisions (or even just a comfort blanket for those same decision-makers) and attempts at micro-managing things that those people just don't understand.
If you have a group of colleagues who are all working on very intertwined things, they will form their own meeting either 1-1 or in small groups. They'll have to, and they'll do it a damn sight better than you organising a meeting for them all to check up with you. If you are managing people whose job you could not do yourself, stay out of their way. Maybe find them once a month or so, just to check that everything's working and that you're aware of any major problems. You hire people into a job to do that job, not to make them spend hours in a meeting explaining things they learned twenty years ago to you because you know nothing about that area.
I find that nonsensical meetings only come about through management. Managed-meetings are rarely productive. Having said that, there is a difference between a meeting and a chat. Chat to your staff, make sure they are okay, make sure things are on track, congratulate them on a job well done but bow to their expertise. If you invite someone to a meeting, it's because they absolutely HAVE to be there. If you are having a meeting with a IT vendor and you couldn't tell the difference between two products without the salesman's help, you need your IT guy there, to tell you and the vendor exactly what you want and don't want. But then, why are you there in the first place if you don't know what you're buying?
Meetings can be so useful in the right hands, but 99% of the really important decisions are made or can be made when those self-same people pass each other in the corridor, or pop into each other's office/cubicle/cupboard to chat. That way, there's also no problem with disturbing each other from important work (they won't chat
Are y'all kidding? Did you RTFA? This is the silliest kind of BS social science/business "research" possible. Whatever may be true of meetings, this "study" sure doesn't demonstrate it. Sheesh.
Everyone but you is telepathic.
Meetings = Bad.
Wasting time posting to Slashdot to complain about meetings = Good.
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
There is a difference between what is claimed in the subject Meetings are Bad For You and what is claimed in the article ... having too many meetings and spending too much time in meetings per day may have negative effects...
A well lead meeting, kept short and on the subject, can be extremely effective. These do not have to be meetings where you book a meetingroom and order sanwiches. This can be a standup-meeting at the coffeemachine for 5-10 minutes in the morning as well. It can be sitting together around one desk, comparing notes. It can be two people calling in a third one by one to handle things and thus not taking up the time of the other people that are NOT needed for sayd problem/discussion/whatever.
As strange as it sounds to some here, this will have a much better impact then sending a umpteenth email with ALERT! as subject and marked as high priority.
Some people do actually pay more attention to what others have to say, even if that person is saying exactly word for word what has been mailed to them.
As strange as it sounds, that is a given. This does not take away that meeting to schedule future meetings, so a dicussion can be held on a workgroup to form a thinktank to make a comite are good. At best they then become the equivalent of the watercooler gossip on management level (and they drink perrier).
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
One point to consider is the content of the meetings.
I've worked at several large and small companies over the past few years, as an employee and as a contractor. One thing I've found consistent is that meetings with contractors are concise and to the point because they are paying for the contractors time. Meetings with employees only seem to drag on.
Two things are needed for a meeting to actually be productive.
1. A good boss/moderator to KEEP THINGS ON TOPIC!
2. A good boss/moderator to KEEP THINGS ON TOPIC!
If the meeting is kept on topic it will go quickly and we can all get back to work knowing the bosses new/altered expectations.
If elemet one or two are missing we all get cranky and nothing gets done.
> 1 - Managers don't like to go on record. They don't reply to e-mails, for example. They lack the confidence to go on record with whatever they want to say. Here's an idea - if you don't have the balls to put your "communication" on paper with your name on it for all to see, then STFU.
Disdain for written communication (hard copy or e-mail) may not be due to lack of confidence. I'm not a manager but I've communicated via e-mail long enough to know that there are many "information exchange" (if you don't like the word communication) situations that don't lend themselves well to e-mail. In fact, e-mail is horrid for many situations. Think about a harrasment situation. There's more to business than black and white work.
While I agree office politics are the primary cause for "communication problems", it's not the only issue. Not everyone in an organization things exactly the same or shares the same opinions. Coming off as a ruthless manager (especially for all to see) is a sure-fire way to get nowhere.
On a computer or under a hood.
Having your manager review your presentation is bad.
Invariably, they will have recommendations to make. You could have spent your every waking moment working on this presentation, but that doesn't matter. They'll want to change a word here, make this boldface over here, change this color here, make this a line chart instead of a bar graph. They will want things changed. They'll want you to add tons of things which turn a simple presentation into something more like a narrative, a paper, or a book---something that someone could read without you even presenting it. Often, this has little actual affect on what's really being delivered by the presentation.
And, invariably, they'll want to review those changes again. And, of course, you see this coming, they'll want to change things again. Sometimes they'll even change things back to the way you originally had it. This process of change, review, change, review happens continuously up until the meeting is actually given.
What this has taught me is that it's best to hold your presentation materials until the day before the meeting, if possible, because it will dramatically reduce the amount of time allowed for the reviewer(s). Remember: The reviewer(s) are often people that have no real ability (or need) to contribute to the project that you're working on. These people exist solely to facilitate (i.e., add overhead). The less time you give them to review, the less time you'll be forced to make meaningless changes.
The most recent presentation I gave was reviewed by at least 50% of the group to whom I was presenting, including the two VPs (presumably the people who most needed to see the presentation). They all made recommendations. So, what's the point of me giving it exactly?
(Sigh.) I guess I'm feeling a bit demotivated today.
Funny, I always schedule mine for the length of time I need (15, 20, 30 min) before lunch. Makes people be breif.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Would that you could get more modpoints. This is the best post I've ever read on Slashdot.
:) Oh, and I'm only doing *one* job, not four.... and I'm happier than I've ever been. :)
Case in point. I went from a job where I was in meetings 8 hours a day, working another 6 hours a day to accomplish all of the tasks set in said meetings, but no PHB would recognize that. Stayed in meetings, continued working around the clock to stay on top of work. What happened? I got a bad review for being 'emotional', 'negative', and 'personality conflicts' with my teammates... who were NOT in said meetings all of the time. GO FARKING FIGURE! They promoted the drunk dude, though I had more experience, talent, and WROTE all of the policies and procedures for the entire dept. I walked the next month.
NOW! I am in a job where I sit right next to my teammates... my boss has mobility issues, so he's in his office all day, where I can find him, and he emails us a lot. And we have *one* frickin' meeting a week. For 15 minutes. Needless to say, there are no communication issues, we work great together, and I'm PUSHING myself to stay for 40 hours a week, because we are efficient in what we do. Communication is a godsend for those that know how to do it effectively... and I think that was your point.
One thing I learned from all of those meetings, though... take copious notes, and follow up in email with the PHB and/or critical attendees. It will help you and THEM understand what was actually accomplished, and you have something to put in front of them when they change the requirements on you during UAT. *feh*
Sorry man... the Internet pooped on me.
You hit the nail on the head. It's not that meetings are a waste - they aren't. It's that too many ppl schedule wasteful time in their meetings. If you can complete your objectives of the meeting in 15 minutes -- then adjourn and let ppl get back to work.
I've sat in too many meetings that went an hour simply because they were scheduled for that long. Most of the time, the information could have been covered in 15 min or less and the meeting leader winds up "filling" the extra time with mindless bantering and/or information.
As a project mgr, I used to go by the "say what you have to say and be done" philosophy. As such, my meetings hardly ever lasted more then 30 min. And the people on my team actively told me that this style was effective and a nice relief from the normal "schedule an hour" routine.
I've had my share of bad meetings in my life, to be sure. But where I work now, I have been really lucky.
My boss is extremely hands off, recognizing that I know what I need to do and that I get it done. When we have meetings, he usually takes us to lunch and discusses things over lunch. Usually less than half the time is devoted to work topics.
I have not yet had to go to a meeting that I felt was a time waster. The closest one so far was a meeting to discuss how we were going to prepare a response to a Request For Information.
Many of the meetings I go to are actually presentations to customers. Sometimes I am even presenting. In these meetings, I get to meet and converse with new people, and there is usually food, which is always good with me.
I guess the reason I don't have a problem with the meetings I end up going to is that they are not a distraction that takes me away from my work. When I go to a meeting it is because it IS my work.
Perhaps companies ought to give you a 1 hour project slippage allowance for every one hour meeting that they require you to go to.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Sorry, this is too general a statement to be made from this study. Factories are another location where meetings improve mood.
In offices, where people tend to be professionals, the staff would rather continue working (doing what they do best) than sit around in a meeting. In factories, where people are doing the same thing over and over, meetings are a wonderful break from the routine.
-
To do collaborative work. If two or three people need to agree on an interface, they can either go through a zillion iterations by email, or they can just sit down in front of a whiteboard and argue until they're done with the whole thing. I've seen design discusssions that should have been done in an afternoon take a week or more because someone flat-out refused to have a meeting about it.
-
Some things just need to be said in front of everyone else. In particular, publicly confessing your planned schedule in front of your colleagues may not be good for your soul, but it's certainly good for ensuring that it gets done.
I'll point out that both of these are stressful activities. They're just easier in the long run than the non-meeting-based alternatives that I know of.