Meeting Time by Country and Company Size: Where Workers Spend the Least Hours

Australian workers consistently spend the least time in meetings across all seniority levels, with no one exceeding 30% of their week in calls. In contrast, senior leaders in Canada face the highest meeting load, dedicating 36% of their week to scheduled discussions. This global disparity highlights how workplace culture and organizational structure significantly impact meeting frequency.

Global Disparities in Meeting Load

The amount of time workers dedicate to meetings varies significantly across different countries and organizational structures. While some senior leaders can spend over a third of their week in scheduled discussions, other companies have nearly eliminated live meetings altogether. This wide range underscores the diverse approaches to collaboration and information sharing in modern workplaces.

The gap between the most and least meeting-heavy environments is substantial. For instance, a Canadian executive might spend 36% of their week in meetings, a stark contrast to an Australian individual contributor who might spend less than 30%. Understanding these differences can inform strategies for optimizing productivity and employee well-being.

Countries with the Least and Most Meeting Time

Data from Fellow's 2024 State of Meetings report, analyzing over 30,000 organizations, reveals distinct national patterns in meeting frequency. Australia stands out for its consistently low meeting load across all seniority levels, maintaining a flat curve where no worker, from individual contributor to C-suite, spends more than 30% of their week in meetings.

Conversely, the United States records the highest overall percentage of week spent in meetings among the countries studied. US employees typically spend at least 20% of their week in meetings, a figure that climbs to 35% for senior leaders. Canada's C-suite, however, takes the top spot for meeting intensity, dedicating an average of 36% of their week to meetings, the highest recorded figure in the report.

The Impact of Company Size on Meeting Schedules

While national averages provide insight, company size often proves to be a more significant determinant of meeting load than geographical location. As an organization grows, the time dedicated to meetings tends to increase, particularly for those in leadership positions. This effect is more pronounced than any country-specific cultural factor.

Consider these observations:

• Individual contributors experience a modest 4 percentage point increase in meeting load as a company scales from under 10 employees to over 1,000.
• For vice presidents and C-suite leaders, the same company growth more than doubles their meeting time.
• Once a company surpasses 200 employees, individual contributors already spend 20% of their time in meetings, managers 25%, and senior leaders 40% or more.

This suggests that joining a smaller company might be a more effective strategy for reducing meeting time than selecting a specific country to work in. For more on structuring efficient organizations, see our guide on optimizing organizational efficiency.

Alternative Approaches to Meeting Culture

Some organizations and cultures have developed unique strategies to manage or minimize meeting time, offering models that diverge from typical corporate practices.

GitLab's All-Remote, Async Model

GitLab, an all-remote company with over 1,600 employees spread across more than 60 countries, operates with a near-total absence of live meetings. Its former Head of Remote, Darren Murph, described a previous fully async organization he led as holding only two to three company-wide meetings per year. GitLab's extensive public handbook, spanning over 2,000 printed pages, serves as the primary, searchable source of truth, effectively replacing many discussions that would otherwise require live calls.

• All-remote operation: Over 1,600 employees in 60+ countries.
• Minimal live meetings: As few as two to three company-wide meetings annually.
• Comprehensive documentation: A 2,000+ page public handbook replaces many synchronous discussions.
• Recommended approach: Piloting no-meeting days rather than outright bans.

Japan's Nemawashi Consensus Building

Japan presents a distinct model where formal meetings often serve as mere formalities, as much of the substantive discussion and decision-making occurs beforehand. This practice, known as nemawashi, involves informal one-on-one conversations designed to build consensus among stakeholders before any proposal is brought to a group setting.

• Nemawashi: Informal, private one-on-one discussions to build consensus.
• Ringisho: Formal proposal circulated for written approval after consensus is reached.
• Ringi system: The process of obtaining written approvals from each stakeholder.
• Outcome: While initially appearing slow, this method ensures rapid execution once a decision is formally approved, as all disagreements have been resolved privately.

The Real Cost of Meetings and AI's Role

The cumulative impact of meeting time on productivity and costs is substantial across the global workforce. The average employee spends 392 hours annually in meetings, equivalent to more than 16 full working days. This translates to an estimated cost of $29,000 per employee per year when factoring in salary time. While 90% of workers keep their meeting load under 10 hours a week, a small but significant fraction—about 2%—regularly exceed 20 hours, effectively dedicating half their working week to meetings alone.

However, technology is beginning to reshape this landscape. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are quietly transforming how meetings are conducted and managed, offering solutions to mitigate their inefficiencies.

• Companies utilizing default meeting recording and AI summarization report 20–40% reductions in meeting length within six months.
• Teams leveraging AI-generated meeting notes see action-item completion rates climb from the 50–60% range up to 85–95%.
• Without effective follow-up, approximately 70% of meeting decisions are forgotten within 24 hours, a systemic issue that AI-powered tools are helping to address by creating searchable records and clear action items.

The fastest-growing solution to meeting overload isn't necessarily holding fewer meetings, but rather creating a robust, searchable record that reduces the need for live attendance to stay informed. For insights into remote work efficiency, consider our guide on remote work strategies.

This article provides general information and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. Always consult with qualified professionals for specific guidance.

This article is general information only and is not legal or tax advice. Consult a licensed professional in your jurisdiction before acting on residency, incorporation, or tax topics.