You Should Take That “Boring” Meeting

Senior leaders spend much of their time in conversation. One-on-ones. Operational updates. Cross-functional briefings. Status reviews. When calendars are crowded and attention is finite, executives don’t typically choose whether to attend these meetings. They choose how fully to show up. And in those moments, many rely on a simple mental shortcut: Does this topic sound interesting enough to warrant my full attention? That filtering process feels rational. If a topic sounds novel, urgent, or high-stakes, it deserves focus. If it sounds boring, dull, or routine, it’s easy to dial back by multitasking, skimming the surface, or mentally moving on. But that instinct may be steering leaders wrong. In a series of experiments conducted in both laboratory and real-world workplace settings and across in-person and virtual conversations, we found that people consistently underestimate how enjoyable and engaging so-called “boring” conversations will actually be. Topics that sounded dull in advance often turned out to be surprisingly absorbing, useful, and even relationship-building once the conversation unfolded. For senior leaders, this matters. The conversations that feel least exciting on your calendar may be the ones where trust is built, early warning signs surface, and unexpected ideas emerge. When leaders mentally disengage from conversations that sound uninteresting, they risk missing information, signaling disinterest, and weakening relationships. Why Showing Up Matters More Than You Think Across settings, our research (forthcoming in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) found that people are bad at gauging how engaged they’ll actually be on topics they’ve deemed “boring.” And while everyone wants to enjoy a conversation, for senior leaders, engagement is more than just a nice-to-have. Decades of research on social interaction show that even brief conversations can generate boosts in psychological resourcefulness that increases productivity, persistence, and overall performance. Far from draining mental resources, an engaging exchange can help can replenish them. In one of our studies, participants predicted how much they would enjoy discussing topics they had previously rated as boring. Some then had live, real-time conversations about those topics. Others encountered the exact same conversational content passively by listening to a recording or reading a transcript—two activities busy leaders often fall back on to conserve time and attention. The information offered in both meetings was identical. Only the level of engagement differed. We found that when participants had to listen, respond, and adapt in real time, they underestimated how engaging the discussion would become. Interest rose beyond expectations once the interaction unfolded. But when participants simply listened or read, their forecasts were accurate. Without dynamic participation, the experience felt about as dull as the topic suggested. This held true across both in-person and virtual conversations and regardless of whether the conversational partner was a close friend or a stranger. Additionally, we found that the bias against “boring” topics didn’t’ fade with experience. Even after participants had a surprisingly engaging conversation about a boring topic, they continued to underestimate the next one. Why This Matters for Executives Senior leaders are trained to allocate attention strategically. When they anticipate low value, they tend to invest less cognitive presence, saving concentration for something that they feel truly deserves their limited resources. Yet engagement, which emerges from asking one more question, lingering a moment longer, and reacting in real time, is the essential element that injects even mundane topics with dynamic potential. When leaders enter a conversation already partially disengaged, they reduce the likelihood that a fruitful dynamic will take hold. There is a second-order consequence as well. Employees monitor executive reactions closely. If a leader appears disengaged during routine updates, subordinates may begin to self-censor. They may withhold minor frictions, early warning signs, or local morale shifts because they assume such issues are not interesting enough to merit executive attention. Over time, this can produce a familiar organizational problem: senior leaders become the last to know about issues that were visible much earlier at lower levels. Information does not fail to exist; it fails to travel upward. Our research also found that after engaging in live conversations about mundane topics, participants were more willing to have a follow-up conversation than they had predicted beforehand. In other words, ordinary interactions generate more forward momentum than people expect. For executives, that momentum is critical. It shapes whether employees feel comfortable initiating the next conversation, raising concerns, or sharing emerging ideas. When leaders underestimate the value of routine exchanges, they may unintentionally discourage the very openness and candor they rely on to lead effectively. What Leaders Can Do Differently Executives cannot—and should not—say yes to every meeting request. Time discipline remains essential. But our findings suggest that leaders may benefit from distinguishing between two types of conversations: those they can decline and those they cannot. We offer suggestions for how to navigate either: When You Can Opt Out For discretionary conversations, leaders often rely heavily on the conversation topic as the decision filter. If the subject appears boring or operational, it is easy to deprioritize or decline. Our research suggests caution with that shortcut. Topic alone is not a strong predictor of how engaging, enjoyable, or relationally valuable a conversation ultimately becomes. Leaders may be systematically underestimating the upside of interactions that look mundane on the surface. This does not mean accepting every invitation. It does mean recognizing that “boring” is an imperfect forecast. When weighing whether to engage, leaders may benefit from asking not only, “How interesting does this topic sound?” but also, “What relational or informational value might emerge once the interaction unfolds?” When You Cannot Opt Out Many conversations are not optional: standing updates, compliance briefings, operational reviews. In these cases, leaders cannot screen based on topic. Paradoxically, that constraint may be an advantage. Because avoidance is not available, leaders have an opportunity to shift how they enter the interaction cognitively. Our findings suggest that a small adjustment in expectations, from “This will likely be dull” to “There may be more here than I can see yet,” can increase attentional investment. And attentional investment is precisely what makes these conversations more engaging and valuable in the first place. Engagement is co-created. When leaders enter with low expectations, they may shorten meetings, multitask, or steer toward rapid closure. When they enter with openness, they are more likely to ask follow-up questions, notice weak signals, and allow discussions to deepen. In this sense, our recommendation is not simply to endure obligatory meetings. It is to transform potential dread into curiosity about what might emerge dynamically. These findings do not imply that all meetings deserve equal time or that leaders should abandon prioritization. They do suggest, however, that routine conversations are easier to undervalue than to overvalue, particularly when engagement is possible. . . . Senior leaders are trained to allocate attention where it matters most. But the value of a conversation often becomes visible only after it begins. Sometimes the meetings that look least interesting on your calendar are the ones most likely to surface insight, strengthen relationships, and reveal early risks. The topic may appear boring. But our study found that the interaction likely won’t be.

You Should Take That “Boring” Meeting

Summary.

Partner Center