Research from the University of Michigan found that people who multitask during meetings retain 20–40% less of what was discussed compared to those who were fully engaged. They also make decisions with less confidence and ask more follow-up questions afterwards — questions that slow everything down.
Being present in a meeting isn't a soft skill. It's a performance advantage.
What you miss when you're taking notes
Note-taking during a conversation creates a fundamental conflict: you're trying to capture what was said at the same time as processing what it means and deciding how to respond. The brain can't do both well simultaneously.
What gets sacrificed is usually the most important part — the subtext. The hesitation before someone agrees to a deadline. The way a client's tone changes when you bring up pricing. The moment a colleague's idea connects with something you heard last week.
These signals don't appear in any transcript. They're only available to someone who was watching and listening, not typing.
The relationship cost of distraction
Studies on interpersonal communication consistently show that people can tell when someone isn't fully listening. They describe the experience as feeling "managed" or "processed" rather than heard. Over time, this erodes trust — even when the distracted person produces accurate notes.
A 2023 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology found that participants rated speakers as significantly less credible and less likeable when those speakers were perceived to be multitasking, even when the multitasking involved work-related tasks.
In client-facing roles, the cost is direct. In management, it compounds — team members disengage from leaders who appear disengaged from them.
What full presence actually produces
When you're not managing a running document, your attention is available for things that move conversations forward:
- Asking better questions. Follow-up questions that come from genuine listening are more specific and more useful than questions you'd prepare in advance.
- Reading the room. Adjusting your position in real time when you sense resistance, enthusiasm, or confusion.
- Connecting ideas. The best insights in meetings come from unexpected connections — and those connections require both ideas to be in working memory at the same time.
- Closing properly. Summarising accurately, confirming alignment, and leaving people with a clear picture of what happens next.
These are the outcomes that matter. The notes are a means to that end, not the end itself.
The note-taking trade-off
The reason people take notes in the first place is reasonable: memory is unreliable, and important things get forgotten. The problem isn't the goal — it's the method.
Manual note-taking during a meeting trades presence for recall. The question is whether the recall is worth the cost.
For most meetings, the answer is no. The value of a meeting is in the decisions made, the relationships maintained, and the clarity reached. Detailed notes are useful afterwards — but the note-taking process, happening during the meeting, works against all three.
A different approach
The alternative is to capture the conversation without interrupting it. Tools that record and transcribe in the background — without bots, without setup, without anyone else noticing — separate the act of capture from the act of listening.
Cue for iOS and Cue for Android works this way. You open the app before the meeting, put your phone away, and stay in the conversation. The summary and transcript arrive afterwards, with action items already identified.
The trade-off disappears. You get the recall without the distraction.
The practical case for presence
Being present in meetings isn't idealism. It's a practical choice about where your attention produces the most value.
The notes you take during a meeting are useful. The decisions you make and the relationships you build while fully engaged are worth more. The best outcome is both — and that's only possible when the note-taking happens without you.