Jabra‘s new global study of more than 2,300 knowledge workers across seven markets shows that the real cost of meetings goes far beyond time spent in the room – and deep into lost focus, unclear outcomes and mounting “meeting debt“.
I used to have to attend meetings with representatives from South-East Asia. Multiple countries, different first languages. Video conferencing systems in rooms. Inevitably the first 45 minutes of any meeting is a cacophony of “can you hear me?”
The answer is clear – bad meetings don’t just waste time, they also create millions in lost productivity and additional work.
Key findings from the Jabra study include:
- Meeting time is high, but perceived value is low, with more than half of meeting time (58%) seen as unnecessary throughout the working week, equivalent to 26 working days of lost productivity per person per year.
- Technology failures continue to disrupt meetings, with 75% of hybrid meetings and 52% of fully virtual meetings affected and time regularly lost to audio, video and connectivity challenges.
- Remote equity remains a challenge. Around half of remote participants feel forgotten or talked over in hybrid meetings, with women and junior employees feeling disproportionately affected.
- Meetings often fail to deliver clear outcomes, with 59% requiring follow-up discussions and additional work.
- The vast majority of employees (87%) experience some level of meeting dread – the higher the number of meetings, the higher the dread.
- Meeting overload is affecting how people show up and contribute, with widespread meeting fatigue and clear limits to how long people can stay engaged.
Bad Meetings Can Cost Large Organisations More Than $130 Million Annually
Ineffective meetings and unreliable technology quickly add up to a staggering financial strain. In a company with around 5,000 employees, the combination of unnecessary meetings and technology failures translates into an estimated $130 million in lost productivity every year. Of this, roughly $120 million – equivalent to 26 working days per employee per year – is tied directly to time wasted in meetings seen as unnecessary or not valuable, while a further $8.4 million – equivalent to 3–4 working days per employee each year – is lost due to technical failures in hybrid meetings alone.
But the impact doesn’t stop there. These issues often trigger a cascade of workarounds, follow-up meetings and repeated conversations that compound meeting dysfunction over time. Poor meeting experiences can also contribute to remote exclusion, reduced clarity after meetings end and limit the effectiveness of AI-powered tools that depend on clear, consistent conversations.
“We’ve treated bad meetings as an irritation, not a financial risk,” commented Holger Reisinger, Senior Vice President Jabra Enterprise Video Business Unit. “If your people are dreading meetings, you’re already paying the price – and it’s a clear signal that organisations need to completely rethink and re‑envision their meeting culture, supported by technology that lets everyone be clearly seen and heard.”
Technology Failures Continue to Undermine Hybrid Meetings
What may look like a few minutes of delay in an individual meeting, or abandoning video, can become a much larger organisational cost at scale, slowing decision-making and undermining the purpose of bringing people together in the first place, this research shows.
Hybrid meetings are now a routine part of working life, with more than a quarter of meetings involving a mix of in-room and remote participants. Three in four of these meetings experience at least one technical issue, with 73% of respondents reporting difficulty hearing other participants and 68% reporting difficulty seeing them clearly. On average, technical disruptions cost nearly eleven minutes in every hybrid meeting, adding up to three working days of lost productivity per employee each year.
In large organisations, the impact increases significantly: companies with more than 1,000 employees lose 82% more time than those with fewer than 50 employees, totalling nearly four working days per employee, per year as larger companies hold more meetings in less consistently equipped rooms.
Meeting technology failures can also double the likelihood that a follow-up meeting will be required, turning short disruptions into longer-term productivity loss. In many cases, organisations begin adapting to these disruptions before meetings have even started. Turning off cameras, switching devices or relying on workarounds may keep meetings moving in the moment, but giving up on video alone makes meetings 43% more likely to require follow-up discussions and 30% more likely to end without clear action items.
Remote Workers Continue to Face Inclusion Challenges
Jabra’s research found that half of people joining hybrid meetings remotely report being forgotten, talked over or excluded from conversations. Many also report difficulty fully participating due to poor visibility and audio.
The findings suggest that while meeting culture plays an important role in inclusion, inadequate technology can significantly amplify existing challenges around participation and visibility: Women were 16% more likely to report feeling excluded when participating remotely, while junior employees were even 26% more likely to experience exclusion.
Meeting Debt Is Fuelled by Unclear Outcomes and Follow-Up Work
The financial impact of meetings isn’t limited to the time physically spent in them. In many cases, the real cost only becomes visible afterwards.
The findings show that 66% of workers regularly leave meetings without clear action items. As a result, 59% require a follow-up meeting to clarify decisions. This compounding effect is further reinforced by how meetings are experienced. 87% of workers report some level of meeting dread and that feeling is closely linked to outcomes. Those who frequently dread meetings are significantly more likely to leave without clarity and require additional follow-up work.
At the same time, there’s a clear cognitive limit to how many meetings people can engage in effectively. 42% of workers reach their energy limit within two hours of back-to-back meetings, rising to 83% within four. As capacity declines, so does the quality of participation, increasing the likelihood that meetings will need to be revisited.
Taken together, these factors create a cycle where one ineffective meeting leads to another. Over time, this “meeting debt” accumulates across organisations, quietly impacting productivity, decision-making and employee wellbeing.
AI Can Improve Meetings but Cannot Fix Poor Meeting Practices
As organisations look to AI to improve productivity, meetings are becoming a key area of focus. While three-quarters of workers have tried AI-powered tools such as transcription and summaries, fewer than one in three use them regularly.
The findings suggest the limitation is not the technology itself, but the conditions in which it is used. Poor audio, unclear conversations and inconsistent meeting experiences reduce the accuracy and usefulness of AI outputs.
“AI can enhance a well-run meeting, but it can’t fix a broken one,” said Holger Reisinger. “If organisations want to unlock the value of AI in meetings, they need to start with the fundamentals, ensuring people can be clearly seen, heard and understood.”
The Jabra Evolve3 series leverages AI to deliver results. You can read Kevin’s thoughts here.
Methodology: The study is based on a survey conducted by Toluna on behalf of Jabra among more than 2,318 knowledge workers across seven markets: the UK, US, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark and India. It explores meeting behaviors, technology performance and its impact on productivity, collaboration and employee experience. Cost estimates are based on self-reported meeting time, disruption rates and follow-up work, benchmarked against national salary data.
