You have probably seen it: a calendar invite for 10:05 a.m. or 2:35 p.m. The idea is to build in a buffer — a few extra minutes so people can wrap up their previous meeting and transition. It sounds considerate. In practice, it makes everything worse.
It shifts the problem, not fixes it
If someone schedules a meeting at :05, attendees who are ready on time sit around waiting. That is five minutes of dead air that signals their time is not valued. Meanwhile, the people who were late to begin with? They are still late — because the issue was never the clock. It was discipline.
A :05 start does not teach anyone to be punctual. It teaches everyone that being late is expected and accommodated. The buffer becomes a permission slip.
It encourages the previous meeting to run long
When people know there is a five-minute cushion after the hour, the meeting before it loses its hard stop. The implicit message is: going over is fine, everyone has a built-in break anyway. That removes any pressure to wrap up on time and normalizes a culture of running long.
Over weeks and months, this compounds. What started as a "helpful buffer" becomes a systemic excuse for poor time management. Meetings drift. Agendas bloat. Nobody feels the urgency to be concise because the calendar has already forgiven them in advance.
Nothing actually gets shorter
Here is the uncomfortable truth: meetings that start at :05 or :35 still tend to run to :00 or :30. You have not shortened anything. You have just awkwardly shifted when people show up. The meeting is the same length — or longer, because the soft start invites a slow ramp-up. "Let's give people a minute to join" becomes the new opening ritual, and suddenly your 25-minute meeting is 30 again.
The real fix: start sharp, end early
The goal should not be to delay the start. It should be to protect the end. Start on the hour or half-hour — exactly when people expect it. Then end five or ten minutes early. That is what the 25/50 framework is about: 30-minute meetings become 25, 60-minute meetings become 50.
Ending early gives people something a :05 start never can:
- Time to decompress. Step away from the screen. Get water. Breathe.
- Time to reflect. Process what was discussed before it fades from short-term memory.
- Time to prepare. Glance at the next meeting's agenda. Gather context. Show up ready.
- Time to document. Write down action items while they are fresh, not three meetings later.
Discipline, not tricks
Offset start times are a workaround for a culture problem. They try to solve "people run late" with a scheduling trick instead of addressing the root cause: meetings that lack structure, accountability, and respect for the clock.
A well-run meeting has a stated purpose, a focused agenda, and a facilitator who keeps things on track. It starts when it says it starts. It ends before it says it ends. That requires intention and commitment, not a quirky timestamp.
Start sharp. End early. Give people their time back.
What you can do today
If you schedule meetings, stop using :05 and :35 start times. Set them at :00 or :30, make them 25 or 50 minutes, and commit to ending on time. If you attend meetings that start at :05, show up at :05 — but ask the organizer why the meeting does not just start at :00 and end at :25. Most of the time, they will not have a good answer. That is the opening for change.
The 25/50 pledge is a commitment to treating people's attention with respect. That starts with something as simple as when the meeting begins.