The Rise of Standing Meetings: Productive or Pointless?

Walk into any modern office and you might see something unusual: people having meetings while standing up. No conference table, no chairs—just colleagues gathered around a high table or standing in a circle. Standing meetings have gone from quirky startup trend to mainstream practice. But are they actually productive, or just another workplace fad?

What Are Standing Meetings?

Standing meetings are exactly what they sound like: meetings conducted while everyone remains standing. They're typically short (5-15 minutes), focused on quick updates or decisions, and often held daily or weekly.

The concept gained popularity in tech companies and agile development teams but has since spread to industries from healthcare to finance.

The Case FOR Standing Meetings

They're Significantly Shorter

Research from Washington University found that standing meetings are about 34% shorter than seated meetings while producing the same quality of decisions. When people are standing, there's a natural pressure to stay on topic and wrap up efficiently.

Nobody wants to stand around listening to someone ramble for 45 minutes.

Increased Energy and Engagement

Standing naturally increases alertness. Blood flows better, people fidget less with devices, and the physical act of standing signals "this is active time, not passive listening time."

Participants report feeling more engaged and less likely to zone out during standing meetings.

More Democratic Participation

Without a conference table creating hierarchy (who sits at the head?), standing meetings feel more egalitarian. People are more likely to contribute when the physical setup doesn't reinforce power dynamics.

Better for Health

If you're sitting all day anyway, a 10-minute standing meeting is a welcome break. It's not a workout, but it's better than another hour in a chair.

Discourages Tangents

The mild discomfort of standing keeps meetings focused. People are less likely to go off on tangents when they're aware of their (and everyone else's) physical state.

The Case AGAINST Standing Meetings

Accessibility Issues

This is the biggest criticism, and it's valid. Standing meetings exclude or disadvantage people with:

• Mobility issues or disabilities
• Chronic pain conditions
• Pregnancy
• Injuries or temporary physical limitations

A meeting format that works for some but excludes others isn't truly productive—it's discriminatory.

Cognitive Load for Complex Topics

Standing meetings work well for quick updates and simple decisions. They're terrible for complex problem-solving, strategic planning, or creative brainstorming.

When people need to think deeply, physical comfort matters. Forcing people to stand during cognitively demanding discussions can actually reduce the quality of thinking.

The Discomfort Becomes the Focus

After 15-20 minutes, people stop thinking about the meeting content and start thinking about their feet, their back, or how much longer this will take. Discomfort doesn't always equal efficiency.

It Can Feel Performative

Some companies adopt standing meetings because they seem innovative, not because they solve a real problem. When it's done for optics rather than function, it's just theater.

Not All Meetings Should Be Short

The pressure to keep standing meetings brief can lead to rushing through important topics or scheduling multiple short meetings instead of one thorough discussion. Sometimes, you actually need time to work through complexity.

What the Research Actually Says

Studies show mixed results:

Positive findings:

• 34% reduction in meeting time (Washington University)
• Increased group arousal and decreased territoriality (Social Psychological and Personality Science)
• Better information sharing in short bursts

Negative findings:

• Reduced creative collaboration for complex tasks
• Participant discomfort after 15 minutes
• No significant improvement in decision quality for longer discussions

The verdict? Standing meetings work well for specific purposes but aren't a universal solution.

When Standing Meetings Work Best

Standing meetings are productive for:

Daily Stand-Ups

Quick team check-ins where everyone shares what they're working on (5-10 minutes). This is where standing meetings originated in agile development, and it's still their best use case.

Status Updates

Brief project updates that don't require deep discussion or decision-making.

Quick Decisions

When you need a fast yes/no decision on something straightforward.

Energizing the Team

Mid-afternoon meetings when energy is low and you want to shake off the post-lunch slump.

When to Sit Down Instead

Use seated meetings for:

• Strategic planning or complex problem-solving
• Creative brainstorming sessions
• Difficult conversations or conflict resolution
• Any meeting longer than 20 minutes
• Sessions requiring note-taking or document review
• When any participant has accessibility needs

The Hybrid Approach

The smartest teams don't choose standing OR sitting—they choose both, depending on the meeting's purpose.

Consider:

• Standing: Daily 10-minute team sync
• Sitting: Weekly 60-minute strategy session
• Standing: Quick decision on a vendor choice
• Sitting: Quarterly planning retreat

Making Standing Meetings Actually Work

If you're going to do standing meetings, do them right:

1. Make Them Optional

Always provide seating options for anyone who needs or prefers them. No questions asked, no explanations required.

2. Set a Strict Time Limit

15 minutes maximum. Use a visible timer. When time's up, either wrap up or schedule a follow-up seated meeting.

3. Have a Clear Agenda

Standing meetings need more structure, not less. Everyone should know exactly what will be covered.

4. Stay Focused

No laptops, no phones (unless needed for the meeting), no side conversations. The whole point is efficiency.

5. Provide Proper Space

High tables, enough room for everyone to stand comfortably, good lighting. Don't just crowd people into a hallway.

The Verdict: Productive or Pointless?

Standing meetings are neither universally productive nor completely pointless. They're a tool—useful in specific contexts, problematic in others.

They're productive when:

• Used for brief, focused updates
• Made accessible to all participants
• Matched to the right type of content
• Part of a varied meeting culture, not the only option

They're pointless when:

• Done just to seem innovative
• Used for complex discussions that need time
• Excluding people with accessibility needs
• Replacing all seated meetings indiscriminately

The Real Question

Instead of asking "Should we do standing meetings?" ask:

• What's the purpose of this specific meeting?
• What format best serves that purpose?
• How can we make it accessible to everyone?
• Are we solving a real problem or following a trend?

Because the goal isn't to stand or sit—it's to meet effectively.

And sometimes that means standing. Sometimes it means sitting. And sometimes it means questioning whether you need a meeting at all.

What's your experience with standing meetings? Productive or pointless? Share your thoughts!