Loading…
Loading…
Meeting cost is a useful metric to understand the true expense of synchronous communication. By tracking meeting load against outcomes, teams can identify expensive recurring syncs that could be replaced by async updates.
A weekly one-hour status meeting with eight mid-salary attendees costs eight person-hours each week, or over 400 person-hours a year. That is roughly a quarter of a full-time role spent transmitting information, most of which could be read in four minutes. The point is not to ban the meeting but to know its price before defending it.
Using the number to shame rather than to decide. Publishing meeting costs to embarrass organisers makes people schedule shorter meetings with the same problems. The useful use is comparative: this recurring sync costs the equivalent of a part-time hire, so is it delivering that much?
Divide annual salary by the working hours in a year, commonly around 2,080 for a full-time schedule. For a fuller picture, use total cost to company rather than gross salary, since benefits and employer contributions are real costs of the person's time.
No. Some meetings are worth many times their cost: decisions with real ambiguity, difficult conversations, and relationship building. The metric is there to distinguish those from recurring status transmission, which is where the waste concentrates.
Kyrospect is the first platform built explicitly around these principles for remote teams.
Explore Kyrospect