Many of the meetings I’m invited to don’t really need me there.
The organizer usually thinks I might add some marginal benefit, so I get included. Sometimes I’m also added because it makes it easier for me to backstop the decision later—or make the decision if needed. I’m added just in case.
But I’ve started to wonder if that’s actually a problem.
Maybe I’m making these meetings slightly better in the moment, but at the cost of something else. If I’m present, people can defer to me. Decisions can quietly get routed upward instead of being owned by the people closest to the work. In trying to reduce risk, we might also be limiting growth.
There’s also a subtle dynamic that shows up whenever someone senior is in the room. People naturally defer to authority, even when that person isn’t the expert on the topic. Research on leadership and psychological safety consistently finds that people speak less freely when someone higher in the hierarchy is present. The intention might be support, but the effect can be silence.
It reminds me of how we think about delegation.
Many tasks we should delegate would be done better if we did them ourselves. Usually not dramatically better—just a little better. But we still delegate because doing everything ourselves limits our leverage. The organization benefits more when we create space for others to take ownership.
What if we applied the same thinking to meetings?
If my presence only makes the meeting a little better, maybe I shouldn’t attend.
Because every meeting I attend has an opportunity cost. It pulls me away from higher-leverage work, and it may also prevent someone else from stepping fully into the decision.
Sometimes the best way to help a meeting succeed is not to be in it.