Latest / Work-Life Balance with Fexingo: Boundaries, Time Management, and Avoiding Career Overload / The Boundary of Saying No to Internal Meetings
Transcript
- Lucas: So there's this product manager I know at a mid-sized SaaS company — about 300 employees — and she told me she was spending roughly 22 hours a week in internal meetings. That's more than half her working time, and none of those meetings were with customers or external partners. They were all with her own colleagues. Luna: Twenty-two hours? That's basically three full workdays. How did she even have time to do her actual job? Lucas: That's exactly the question she asked herself. And she started tracking it — what each meeting was for, who requested it, what she actually contributed. And what she found was that about 60 percent of those internal meetings, she could have handled with a five-minute async update or a shared doc. Luna: That sounds like the kind of thing we talk about a lot on this show — realizing your biggest time drain isn't external clients or your boss, it's just the default meeting culture inside your own company. Lucas: Right. And we should say — this whole show is ad-free by design. We believe listeners shouldn't have to sit through commercial breaks to get practical career advice. If that model resonates with you and you want to support it, the link is buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. It's a simple way to keep this independent. Luna: Yeah, it's a small gesture that adds up. And it means we never have to shape an episode around a sponsor's product. Lucas: Exactly. So back to this product manager — let's call her Sarah. Sarah's aha moment came when she realized she was saying yes to internal meetings for the wrong reasons. Not because the meeting was valuable, but because she didn't want to seem uncooperative or miss out on information. Luna: The fear of missing out on something important — that's a huge driver. I've definitely accepted a meeting just because I was cc'd on the invite and didn't want to seem disinterested. Lucas: Exactly. So Sarah developed what she calls a 'pre-read then decide' filter. When she gets an internal meeting invite, she doesn't accept or decline immediately. She first asks the organizer to send a brief pre-read — a paragraph or a few bullet points explaining the purpose, what input they need from her, and whether the meeting is for decision-making or just information sharing. Luna: That's interesting because it shifts the burden back to the organizer to articulate why the meeting matters. And often, they realize it doesn't need to be a meeting at all. Lucas: Right. She told me that about a third of the time, the organizer either doesn't send a pre-read, or the pre-read itself contains enough information that she can respond async and skip the meeting entirely. Another third, she reads the pre-read and realizes she does need to attend, but now she's prepared and the meeting is more efficient. Luna: So what happens in the remaining third? Lucas: That's the tricky part — the meetings where she genuinely needs to be there, but the meeting itself is poorly structured. In those cases, she started using a three-question framework before accepting: one, what specific outcome do we need by the end of this meeting? Two, is my presence required for the decision or just for context? And three, can this outcome be achieved in 25 minutes or less? Luna: I love that third question. Setting a time constraint forces everyone to prioritize. If you can't accomplish the goal in 25 minutes, the meeting is probably too broad. Lucas: Exactly. And Sarah started proposing 25-minute meetings instead of the default 30 or 60. She said most people were fine with it once she framed it as respecting everyone's time. Within a month, she reclaimed about 10 hours per week from internal meetings. Luna: Ten hours. That's a full extra workday. What did she do with that time? Lucas: She used it for deep work — product strategy, customer interviews, actually building things. Her manager noticed her output improve significantly, and she got promoted to senior product manager within six months. The irony is that by saying no to more internal meetings, she became more visible for the right reasons. Luna: It's counterintuitive. We often think that being seen at meetings equals being seen as valuable. But Sarah's case shows that selective visibility — showing up only when you add unique value — actually signals stronger judgment. Lucas: Yeah, there's research that backs this up. A study from the Harvard Business Review a few years ago found that executives who declined unnecessary meetings were rated higher on leadership effectiveness by their peers, not lower. The key is how you decline — you have to be transparent and offer an alternative. Luna: So what's the right way to say no to an internal meeting? I think a lot of people worry about offending a colleague or seeming like they're not a team player. Lucas: Sarah's approach was to always provide a reason and an alternative. For example, she'd say, 'I've reviewed the pre-read and I think I can provide my input via a brief document. Let me know if you still need me live.' Or, 'I see the meeting is for status updates. I've already shared my updates in the project tracker — feel free to ping me if you have questions.' Luna: That's respectful and proactive. You're not just saying no — you're offering a solution that still moves the work forward. Lucas: Exactly. And she also found that by being explicit about her availability, she actually became a more valued collaborator. Colleagues knew that when she did say yes to a meeting, she was fully present and prepared. Her reputation shifted from 'always available but distracted' to 'selectively available and focused.' Luna: That's a powerful reframe. I think a lot of us default to saying yes because we think availability equals commitment. But Sarah's story suggests the opposite is true — that being selective about your time is actually a form of commitment to the work that matters. Lucas: Right. And one more thing she did that I think is worth mentioning: she started a weekly 'meeting audit' where she reviewed her calendar from the previous week and asked herself, 'Which meetings could I have skipped? Which meetings should I have declined? And which meetings were actually valuable?' Then she adjusted her filters accordingly. Luna: So it's not a one-time fix. It's an ongoing practice. Because meeting culture can drift back if you're not intentional. Lucas: Exactly. And I think that's the takeaway here — boundaries with internal meetings are just as important as boundaries with external demands. The people you work with every day can be the biggest drain on your time, not because they're malicious, but because the default is to meet. You have to actively design a different default. Luna: So if someone listening wants to try this starting tomorrow, what's the first step? Lucas: Pick one recurring internal meeting this week that you suspect might not need your full presence. Before you accept the next invite, ask the organizer for a pre-read — just a brief summary of what's on the agenda and what they need from you. Then decide based on that. You might be surprised how often you can skip it. Luna: I like that — start small, test the hypothesis, and build from there. It's a low-risk way to see if the pre-read filter works for you. Lucas: Yeah. And if it does, you've just found a way to reclaim hours every week without changing jobs or alienating your colleagues. That's a pretty good return on one small change. Luna: Agreed. I think I'm going to try it myself this week. Lucas: Let me know how it goes. I have a feeling you'll end up with a much cleaner calendar.