Search Results

Background. Meetings are an integral part of software practitioners' workday, but many practitioners see them as disruptive to focused work and productivity. Prior research has mainly focused on overall meeting load and broad perceptions; however, teams cannot effectively improve meeting practices without knowing which specific meeting patterns cause disruption. Aims. Our core aim is to move from general perceptions to an empirical investigation of meeting characteristics that are strongly linked to productivity, flow, and well-being. Method. We conducted a two-phase mixed-method study. In Phase 1, we surveyed 55 software practitioners to establish a baseline of meeting practices and perceived impact on productivity, flow, and well-being. In Phase 2, a two-week field study with experience sampling collected real-time post-meeting ratings (usefulness, energy, focus disruption) and daily end-of-day reports, complemented by objective meeting characteristics extracted automatically from calendar metadata (135 post-meeting and 40 end-of-day records). Results. In the baseline survey, 61.8% reported at least moderate flow disruption and 76.4% lower productivity on high-meeting days, with unclear purpose and excessive duration as the top frustrations. The field study revealed a more nuanced pattern: overall usefulness was moderately positive, but varied by type - ad-hoc meetings were among the most useful (Mdn = 4), planning meetings were most disruptive (Mdn = 4), and one-on-ones were least disruptive (Mdn = 1). Type contrasts are exploratory and based on small sample. At the daily level, higher meeting counts coincided with lower productivity and deep-work ratings; energy was lowest on high-meeting days. This daily pattern reflected between-participant differences rather than within-person day-to-day effects. The directional alignment between survey complaints and real-time observations strengthens confidence in these emerging patterns. Conclusions. This study shifts the conversation from broad dissatisfaction with meetings toward identifiable and actionable meeting patterns that organizations can actively redesign. The findings suggest that not all meetings are equally harmful-or beneficial-and that factors such as meeting purpose clarity, duration, and scheduling context may play a critical role in shaping employees’ productivity, ability to sustain flow, and daily energy levels. We treat these patterns as design hypotheses pending larger confirmation. They also provide an empirical starting point for longitudinal research on meeting design.