The real reason companies drown in meetings

There’s a popular belief that meetings are a scheduling problem.

• If only we had fewer calendars.
• If only we banned meetings on Wednesdays.
• If only we ran tighter agendas.

But Brian Chesky has a more uncomfortable explanation: companies don’t have too many meetings because they manage time badly. They have too many meetings because they have too many people.

Every person you add to an organisation introduces a communication tax. Not just more conversations, but more coordination, more alignment, more explanation, and more justification. The cost isn’t linear, it compounds. Once it takes hold, meetings become a symptom, not the disease.

Chesky’s argument is simple but sharp: a small, elite, highly skilled team will always outperform a larger, more average one, not because they work harder, but because they need less management overhead to do good work.

By the way, you should totally listen to the whole interview here:

And I've experienced this myself. For example, when working with Sikoia, I was the founding designer and researcher. Our stand-ups and prioritisation meetings were tight, expert and with a degree of flexibility. It was ok to not know all the answers - it was more important to build momentum and keep going. We didn't need countless proof points, huge presentation decks or large audiences. Small, expert teams move faster

How mediocre hiring creates meeting factories

One of the most revealing parts of Chesky’s thinking is his take on how teams degrade over time.

The old saying goes that A players hire A players, and B players hire C players. Chesky tweaks that idea in a way that feels painfully accurate: B players don’t just hire C players - they hire lots of them. Not necessarily out of malice, but because empire-building feels like progress. Headcount becomes a proxy for impact.

The problem is that C players often can’t operate independently. They need direction, alignment, reassurance and consensus. So they hire more people. Each new hire pulls the organisation in slightly different directions, which creates the perceived need for more meetings, more managers, more process. Before long, the company is busy coordinating work rather than doing it.

This is how organisations become meeting-heavy without ever consciously choosing that path.

Note: If you'd like to learn more, look into the Ringelmann Effect.

Managing people vs managing the work

Chesky’s solution at Airbnb was deliberately counter to how many think about this: remove layers of management and return to functional leadership. Not managers who manage people, but leaders who manage through the work itself.

It's the concept I like of being part leader and part IC (individual contributor). Something the founders of Basecamp have talked about at length.

In this model, you don’t manage designers unless you deeply understand design. You don’t manage engineers unless you can engage meaningfully with engineering problems. Authority comes from expertise, not from position. Decisions are grounded in the work, not abstract status updates.

This idea echoes something Jony Ive long believed: most design leaders get it backwards. They focus on structure, hierarchy, and reporting lines, when the real leverage comes from designing together. The work is the organising principle. The team forms around it, not the other way around.

When leaders are close to the work, they don’t need endless meetings to understand what’s happening. They can see it.

Elite teams need fewer rituals

Small, skilled teams don’t need elaborate management structures because they share context naturally. They don’t require constant alignment meetings because they’re already aligned through the work. Decisions happen faster because fewer people are involved, and those people have the judgment to decide.

This doesn’t mean organisations should be chaotic or under-led. It means leadership shifts from orchestration to participation. From managing inputs to shaping outcomes. From reporting progress to advancing the work itself.

The uncomfortable implication is that many modern management practices exist to compensate for poor team composition. When skill density is low, process fills the gap. When trust is thin, meetings multiply.

A different question to ask

Instead of asking how to reduce meetings, a better question might be:

• What work are these meetings compensating for?
• Are they masking unclear ownership?
• Are they compensating for lack of expertise?
• Are they trying to align people who shouldn’t all be involved?

Chesky’s approach suggests a more radical fix: design organisations that make meetings less necessary by default. Fewer people. Higher bar. Leaders who manage through the work. Teams that are built to collaborate directly, not through layers.

Elite teams don’t eliminate meetings by banning them. They eliminate meetings by making them unnecessary.