23 hours per week in meetings for the average senior executive at a large company (HBR)
300,000 collective hours consumed annually by one recurring weekly meeting of 25 managers (Bain)
5 to 8 hours per week saved when an assistant owns meeting scheduling and coordination
Key Takeaways
- Senior executives at large companies spend an average of 23 hours per week in meetings, up from under 10 hours in the 1960s, according to Harvard Business Review analysis.
- Bain research estimates that a recurring weekly meeting of 25 middle managers can consume more than 300,000 collective hours per year across the organization.
- Studies consistently show that 70 to 80 percent of meetings could be replaced with an email update or asynchronous communication without loss of outcome quality.
- Executives who use an assistant to own meeting scheduling, agendas, and follow-up coordination report saving an average of 5 to 8 hours per week compared to self-managing.
Senior executives at large companies spend an average of 23 hours per week in meetings, according to Harvard Business Review analysis of executive time data. That is more than half a standard 40-hour workweek consumed by a single activity that, according to research from Bain, is increasingly viewed by executives themselves as the primary obstacle to doing their best work. The number has risen steadily for decades: HBR notes that executive meeting time was under 10 hours per week in the 1960s, making today's 23-hour average more than double the mid-century norm.
The Bain consulting research on meeting costs adds a collective dimension that makes the individual figure more striking. A single recurring weekly meeting attended by 25 middle managers, running for one hour, creates more than 300,000 collective labor-hours consumed per year across the organization when preparation, attendance, and follow-up time are included. That figure assumes a 50-week year and 4 hours of total per-meeting impact per attendee per week.
Meeting Time Statistics Executives 2026
Meeting time research comes from multiple directions. The HBR CEO study covers the most senior executives. Microsoft Work Trend Index data covers knowledge workers broadly. Bain's research focuses on organizational-level meeting costs. Together they paint a consistent picture: meeting time is large, growing, and disproportionately valued lower than it costs.
| Source | Finding | Population |
|---|---|---|
| Harvard Business Review CEO study | 23 hours per week in meetings | Senior executives at large companies |
| HBR historical comparison | Under 10 hours/week in the 1960s | Senior executives (historical) |
| HBR CEO time study (Porter and Nohria) | 72 percent of CEO time in scheduled interactions | 27 CEOs tracked over time |
| Bain consulting research | 300,000+ collective hours per year per recurring meeting | Mid-size and large organizations |
| Microsoft Work Trend Index | Meetings increased 252 percent between 2020 and 2022 | Microsoft 365 users globally |
| Multiple academic studies | 70 to 80 percent of meetings could be replaced with async | Broad knowledge worker samples |
The Microsoft Work Trend Index data on meeting frequency increases between 2020 and 2022 is particularly notable. The shift to remote work during that period dramatically increased the number of scheduled video calls, as informal conversations that would have happened organically in an office got replaced with scheduled digital meetings. That pattern has partially reversed but has not returned to pre-2020 levels.
Meeting Value vs. Meeting Cost
The most consistent finding across meeting research is the gap between the perceived value of meetings and their actual cost. When executives are surveyed about the value of their meetings, they typically rate only 30 to 40 percent as "highly valuable." Yet meeting schedules are rarely pruned to match that value assessment.
| Meeting Type | Typical Duration | Executive Value Rating | Frequency in Typical Executive Calendar |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic planning sessions | 60 to 90 minutes | Very high | 1 to 2 per week |
| Customer or partner meetings | 45 to 60 minutes | High | 3 to 5 per week |
| One-on-ones with direct reports | 30 to 60 minutes | High | 4 to 8 per week |
| Cross-functional coordination | 45 to 60 minutes | Medium | 2 to 4 per week |
| Status updates and reviews | 30 to 60 minutes | Low | 3 to 6 per week |
| Informational or FYI meetings | 30 to 60 minutes | Very low | 1 to 3 per week |
Status updates, reviews, and informational meetings consistently receive the lowest value ratings but account for a substantial fraction of calendar time. Research consistently finds that 70 to 80 percent of those meeting types could be replaced with a written update or asynchronous video message without degrading the outcome quality. The barrier to that shift is typically behavioral and cultural, not logistical.
The Role of an Assistant in Meeting Management
Executives who use a trained assistant to own their meeting scheduling, agenda preparation, and follow-up coordination consistently report saving 5 to 8 hours per week compared to self-managing those functions. The savings come from four sources: eliminating back-and-forth scheduling emails, ensuring meetings have prepared agendas that keep them shorter, capturing action items so the executive does not need to track them personally, and declining low-value meetings on the executive's behalf using pre-approved criteria.
| Meeting Support Function | Time Saved per Week (Est.) | Primary Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Scheduling and rescheduling | 2 to 4 hours | Eliminates email back-and-forth |
| Agenda preparation | 1 to 2 hours | Reduces meeting duration by 15 to 25 percent |
| Pre-meeting research and briefing | 0.5 to 1 hour | Reduces time executive spends preparing |
| Action item capture and follow-up | 0.5 to 1 hour | Removes tracking burden from exec |
| Low-value meeting filtering | 1 to 2 hours | Declines based on pre-agreed criteria |
| Total estimate | 5 to 10 hours | Combined |
The agenda preparation function has a multiplier effect: meetings with written agendas distributed before the meeting start time consistently run 15 to 25 percent shorter than meetings without agendas, according to productivity research on meeting effectiveness. For an executive with 23 hours of weekly meeting time, a 20 percent reduction would free 4.6 additional hours.
Meeting Proliferation in Remote Work Environments
The shift to distributed and hybrid work has created a specific meeting proliferation dynamic. Without the friction of booking a physical meeting room and requiring in-person attendance, the marginal cost of scheduling a meeting dropped to near zero. Microsoft Work Trend Index data shows meetings increased 252 percent between 2020 and 2022 among Microsoft 365 users. While the rate has moderated since, the baseline meeting volume in most organizations is significantly higher than it was pre-2020.
| Work Model | Avg. Weekly Meeting Time | Trend Since 2020 | Primary Driver |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fully remote | 25 to 35 hours/week | Increased | Substituting informal interactions |
| Hybrid (3 days office) | 18 to 25 hours/week | Elevated vs. pre-2020 | Mix of in-person and video |
| Fully in-office | 15 to 22 hours/week | Slightly elevated | Video for remote team members |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many hours per week does the average executive spend in meetings?
Harvard Business Review analysis of executive time data finds that senior executives at large companies average approximately 23 hours per week in meetings. The HBR CEO study specifically tracking 27 CEOs found that meetings consumed 72 percent of their time across a 62.5-hour average workweek.
Are meetings becoming more or less frequent?
More frequent. Microsoft Work Trend Index data shows meetings increased 252 percent between 2020 and 2022, driven primarily by the shift to remote and hybrid work that replaced informal office interactions with scheduled video calls. The rate of growth has moderated since 2022 but meeting volume has not returned to pre-2020 levels.
What percentage of meetings could be replaced with email or async communication?
Academic and practitioner research consistently finds that 70 to 80 percent of status update and informational meetings could be replaced with asynchronous communication without degrading outcome quality. The primary barrier to that shift is cultural rather than logistical.
For data on where executive admin time more broadly goes, see our breakdown of admin task statistics. To understand how VA scheduling support can reduce your meeting overhead, read our guide to VA scheduling. If you want to reclaim hours from your calendar, contact us to talk through what is possible.
