The Meeting Tax: Why 46% Multitasking Signals a Productivity Problem

Your professionals multitask through 46% of their meetings, and they're telling you something. Not with words. Few people will directly say "this meeting is a waste of my time." But their behavior is impossible to misinterpret: they're checking email, responding to chats, working on other projects, doing anything except fully engaging with the meeting they're sitting in.

This isn't a discipline problem, a distraction issue, or a question of professional courtesy. It's a signal that nearly half of meeting time doesn't merit full cognitive engagement from the people attending. And when those people are expensive professionals whose expertise commands premium rates, that signal becomes extremely costly.

The Scale of the Meeting Tax

Start with the numbers. According to our 2025 State of Work Report, professionals spend 30.2% of their time in meetings, roughly 16.6 hours per week or more than two full workdays. Of that meeting time, 46% involves multitasking, simultaneously checking email, chat, or working on other tasks. And 33% of meetings include 9 or more attendees, well beyond research-backed recommendations for productive decision-making, where optimal size is fewer than 8 people.

Meeting load also scales with seniority. Junior professionals spend 20% of their time in meetings; senior professionals spend 37.6%. When your most expensive expertise spends more than a third of their time in meetings yet nearly half that time multitasking, you face a compound problem: paying premium rates for divided attention while failing to fully leverage specialized knowledge for client value creation.

What Multitasking Really Signals

When someone multitasks during a meeting, they're making a rational calculation that their time is better spent elsewhere. The meeting might have some value, enough to stay, but not enough to warrant undivided attention. That could mean their expertise isn't actually required for this discussion, the meeting lacks a clear agenda or decision-making framework, the information could have been communicated asynchronously, they were included defensively "just in case," or the discussion is meandering without producing outcomes.

Multitasking is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is meetings that don't merit the cognitive investment of the people attending them.

The Economic Impact

Consider what this costs at scale. A single professional spends 16.6 hours per week in meetings, with 46% involving multitasking, which comes to 7.6 hours of divided attention weekly. At a $400/hour blended rate, that's $3,040 per week per professional. Across a 100-person firm, that's $304,000 per week, or $15.2M annually in meetings where people are only partially present.

The true cost is higher still. Neither the meeting nor the concurrent work gets full cognitive engagement when people multitask. Context switching carries its own cognitive overhead beyond the time spent. And when multitasking is normalized, the organization has accepted low-value meetings as inevitable.

The Meeting Size Problem

Organizations default to inclusive meeting invitations. "Let's include Sarah just in case we need her perspective." "Better to have Tom there than need him and not have him." The result is that one-third of all meetings include 9 or more people, well past the threshold where group decision-making research says things break down. Beyond 8 attendees, decision quality decreases, discussion becomes diffuse, quieter voices get drowned out, coordination overhead increases exponentially, and many attendees become passive observers.

When a 12-person meeting runs for an hour at a $400 blended rate, that's $4,800 in professional time. If only 6 of those people actually needed to be there, you've spent $2,400 more than necessary and gotten a less effective meeting in the process.

The Senior Professional Multiplier

Meeting load increases with seniority, and to a point, that makes sense. Senior expertise is valuable for strategic decisions, client relationships, and mentoring. But when senior professionals multitask through 46% of their meeting time, something has gone wrong. Paying premium rates for partial attention underutilizes expensive expertise. Juniors observe that multitasking is how you cope with meeting overload and absorb that as normal. Meetings crowd out the strategic work seniors should be focused on, while modeling unsustainable practices across the organization.

The most expensive people in your firm spend more than a third of their time in meetings, and they're engaged enough to multitask through half of them. That warrants serious questions about meeting ROI.

The Coordination vs. Value Question

Not all meetings are created equal. Our analysis shows that 50% of meetings involve external client interactions, which create direct value through relationship building, requirement gathering, progress updates, and strategic advising. The other 50% are internal: coordination, planning, knowledge sharing, decision-making. While essential for operations, the question is how much of this is truly necessary versus culturally habitual.

When internal coordination consumes as much time as client-facing work, and nearly half of all meeting time involves multitasking, the optimization opportunity is clear. The goal isn't eliminating internal meetings; coordination is essential. The goal is ensuring every meeting that happens justifies the human attention it demands.

The Meeting Audit Framework

The report is direct on this point: an immediate opportunity is to audit meeting necessity by tracking decision outcomes and action items per meeting hour invested, then optimizing based on value creation. That means asking five questions of every meeting type.

1. Track meeting outcomes rather than meeting attendance. What decision was made? What action items were generated? What information was shared that couldn't have been asynchronous? Could this meeting have been an email, a document, or a recorded update?
2. Measure ROI per meeting type. What value does the weekly team standup produce per hour invested? What decisions come out of project status meetings versus pure information sharing? What do strategy sessions produce per person-hour?
3. Right-size attendance. Who truly needs decision-making input? Who needs to be informed but could read notes instead? Who was invited defensively, just in case?
4. Default to asynchronous when possible. Could this update be written? Could this decision be made via email with clear options? Could this information be recorded and watched when convenient?
5. Make meeting quality visible. Survey attendees on whether their attendance was necessary, track multitasking rates through calendar systems that enable it, and review meeting notes for concrete outcomes versus open-ended discussion.

The Bottom Line

When professionals multitask through nearly half their meeting time, they're voting with their attention. They're telling you these meetings don't merit full cognitive engagement, that the value doesn't justify the time, and that they have more important work to do.

The question is whether you're listening.

The fix is structural, not behavioral: fewer meetings, smaller groups, clearer outcomes, and a cultural default toward asynchronous communication. That means auditing which meetings truly need to happen, right-sizing attendance to only necessary participants, measuring meeting ROI by outcomes rather than time spent, and creating cultural expectations that protect focused work time.

Download the full report: The 2025 State of Work Report — get the complete analysis including meeting patterns, engagement metrics, coordination costs, and strategic optimization frameworks.

This post is part of our Work Intelligence series, exploring data-driven insights from analyzing work patterns across 2,000+ professionals in professional services firms.

‍

‍