A broad professional landscape such as Rajeev Khandelwal's makes coordination valuable, but coordination can become an industry of its own. Calendars fill with recurring meetings long after their original purpose has passed. The useful question is whether each gathering changes a decision, resolves a dependency or simply confirms that everyone remains busy.
Identify the decision customer
Every recurring meeting should have someone who needs its result. An operations review might unblock a delivery; an investment discussion might resolve an assumption. Where no recipient can describe the useful output, a written update may serve better. Attendance then becomes a choice about contribution rather than a signal of organisational importance.
Distinguish information from judgment
Reading figures aloud uses the same time that specialists need for disagreement. Circulating a concise record beforehand allows discussion to focus on exceptions, competing explanations and choices. This works only when the material arrives early enough to read and participants can request clarification without waiting for the meeting itself.
Keep absent expertise visible
A shorter participant list can improve discussion, but exclusion becomes costly when a decision affects people whose knowledge was missing. The agenda should identify whose input is needed, even if that person attends briefly or contributes beforehand. Efficiency means collecting the right understanding, not merely reducing the number of chairs.
Review the meeting as a service
A monthly check can ask what decisions the session enabled and which actions remained blocked afterwards. If its purpose has disappeared, ending the meeting releases attention without reducing accountability. A mature institution can retire a routine as confidently as it can introduce one, keeping coordination proportional to the work being done.
