Do short discussions work better than long meetings?

Are short discussions superior to long meetings?

I found that short meetings can be more effective than long meetings in case of the tech team. Having brief and to point conversations, individuals remain more active and understand better what is to be done. A 10-15 minute discussion is sufficient to resolve a problem that could be otherwise misplaced in a one hour meeting.

Long meetings may be productive, and they may soon lose track. Excessive points of opinion, reiterations, and redundant information may slow down the process. At the end of the meeting, the key decision has not been realized, or action points are neglected. This may be irritating to teams that have to be quick.

Less formal consultations on the other hand promote preparation and clarity. In situations where time is dwindling, individuals get to the point. They assist teams to make fast decisions, unfreeze problems, and go on without thinking. Another reason why these discussions are in respect to everyone is that it enhances better morale in the team because of respecting their time.

With that said, all long meetings are not bad. Longer sessions may be required in planning, brainstorming, or solving complicated problems. The trick is to use them when it is necessary and maintain them in a good order.

In everyday work I think that I prefer short and concentrated conversations. They maintain high momentum and cut down the meeting fatigue.

What do you think? Would you rather have short discussions or long meetings and why?