Latest / Work-Life Balance with Fexingo: Boundaries, Time Management, and Avoiding Career Overload / The Boundary of Saying No to Internal Meetings
Transcript
- Lucas: All right, let's talk about the one thing that eats more of our time than any Slack message or email thread ever could: internal meetings. Luna: Oh, this is going to be good. I feel like I just got called out personally. Lucas: Look, I'm standing right in the splash zone with you. A Microsoft workplace trend report from last year found that the average knowledge worker spends about 31 hours per month in meetings they describe as 'unproductive.' That's nearly a full workweek every month. Luna: That number is shocking, but honestly, it tracks. I've had weeks where I look back and I've spent more time in rooms talking about work than actually doing it. Lucas: Right. And what I want to drill into today is a specific boundary I've been experimenting with, and a friend of mine at a mid-sized tech firm has been using it with real results. She's a product manager, and she cut her meeting load by about 40 percent just by adopting one rule. Luna: I'm all ears. What's the rule? Lucas: It's simple: if there's no written agenda shared at least 24 hours before the meeting, she doesn't attend. Period. She calls it 'no agenda, no attendance.' And she applies it even to internal meetings with her own team. Luna: That takes guts. I think most of us worry that if we skip a status meeting, we'll miss some crucial piece of information or, worse, people will think we're not committed. Lucas: Exactly. The fear of missing out is real. But what she found was that when there's no agenda, the meeting is almost always a waste. It's just people rambling, trying to figure out why they're even there. And the few times something important did come up, someone would send a follow-up email summarising it anyway. Luna: So she's essentially letting the meeting prove its value before she invests her time. I love that. But how did she sell this to her manager and her team? I imagine there was some pushback. Lucas: There was. She started by having a one-on-one with her manager and explained that she was trying to protect her deep work blocks. She framed it as a productivity experiment, not a rebellion. And she offered to send a brief written update after any meeting she skipped, so her team knew she was still accountable. Luna: That's smart. You're still showing you care, but you're not letting the meeting culture dictate your calendar. Lucas: And it didn't stop there. She also started doing a weekly 'meeting audit' — every Friday, she reviews the upcoming week's calendar and asks herself two questions: Does this meeting require my specific input? And is it helping me achieve one of my top three priorities for the quarter? Luna: Wow. That's a bar. Most internal meetings would probably fail at least one of those. Lucas: Right. If the answer to either is no, she declines with a polite but firm note. Something like, 'I don't think I'm the right person for this discussion, but please keep me in the loop on decisions. Feel free to tag me in any relevant doc.' Luna: That's a great script. It's not dismissive — it's actually helpful. You're reducing noise for everyone. Lucas: And here's the thing: she found that most people were relieved. They didn't want to be in those meetings either. By setting that boundary, she gave others permission to do the same. Luna: There's almost a network effect to it. Once one person starts pushing back, the culture shifts. Lucas: Absolutely. And if you think about the hidden cost of those meetings, it's not just the hour you lose. It's the context switching. Every time you drop into a status update or a brainstorming session that didn't need you, you break your flow. Recovering deep focus can take 15 to 20 minutes. Luna: So a single hour-long meeting can actually cost you closer to an hour and a half of productive time. Lucas: Exactly. And when you multiply that by the 31 hours a month from that Microsoft report, you're losing a huge chunk of your best creative energy. Luna: I want to ask about the edge cases though. What about meetings where you're not the primary decision-maker, but you're there to 'just listen'? I feel like that's the hardest one to decline. Lucas: That's the trickiest, I agree. But my friend's approach is to ask the organiser: 'Is there a specific decision I need to weigh in on? If not, could someone send me the notes?' Nine times out of ten, the answer is yes, and she skips it. Luna: That's a good litmus test. If no one can articulate why you specifically need to be there, you probably don't. Lucas: Right. And if they do say they need your input, you've just clarified the purpose of the meeting, which makes it more productive for everyone. Luna: So you either save an hour or you make the meeting better. Win-win. Lucas: Exactly. And I think this ties into a bigger idea we've touched on before: the courage to set boundaries is often rewarded more than we expect. People respect you for valuing your time. Luna: You know, that reminds me — we've been talking a lot about boundaries on this show, and one thing I really appreciate is that we keep this podcast ad-free. We don't run any sponsorships, and that's a deliberate choice. If you've found these episodes useful in thinking about your own boundaries, you can support that choice at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Lucas: Yeah, it's a small way to keep this independent and focused on what actually helps people. No pressure, just if you feel like it. Luna: Exactly. And now back to meetings — I want to talk about the social pressure. How do you handle the colleague who keeps inviting you because they 'just want your perspective' even after you've said no? Lucas: That's a good question. My friend had one persistent colleague who would add her to meetings as an 'optional attendee.' She initially felt guilty skipping, but then she realised 'optional' literally means you can choose not to go. So she started ignoring those invites entirely. Luna: That's a great point. If the organiser marks you as optional, they're already signalling that your presence isn't critical. Lucas: Right. And if someone pushes back, you can always say, 'I'd love to help, but I'm really focused on delivering X this quarter. Could I review the notes afterward instead?' Most reasonable people will accept that. Luna: Okay, but what about recurring meetings that have been on your calendar for months, maybe even years? Those feel almost impossible to kill. Lucas: Those are the hardest, because they've become rituals. But I'd argue those are the ones that need the most scrutiny. My friend did something radical: she cancelled every recurring meeting on her calendar and only re-added the ones that someone specifically asked to reinstate with a clear purpose. Luna: That's bold. Did anything come back? Lucas: About a third of them did, but with a much tighter agenda and frequency. The other two-thirds just disappeared, and nobody noticed. Luna: That's the real test, isn't it? If a meeting can vanish without anyone noticing, it probably didn't need to exist. Lucas: Exactly. And I think that's where a lot of us can start. Just look at your calendar for next week and ask: which of these do I honestly need to attend? Pick one to decline, and see what happens. Luna: I'm going to try that. There's a Monday morning status meeting I've been attending for two years, and I'm not sure I've ever contributed anything unique. Lucas: Perfect candidate. Send a polite decline and see if anyone follows up. My bet is they won't. Luna: I'll report back. So to wrap up, the boundary is really about being intentional with your time and not letting the default meeting culture dictate your schedule. Lucas: Right. And the tools are simple: the no agenda, no attendance rule, the weekly meeting audit, and the courage to decline with a helpful note. It's not about being antisocial; it's about protecting your ability to do your best work. Luna: And if you do it right, you might even inspire others to reclaim their time too.