A walking meeting sounds simple enough: instead of sitting across a conference table, two or three people talk while they move. The format has quietly become a fixture in offices that care about both output and wellbeing, and it is easy to see the appeal. You get a break from the screen, a change of scenery, and a conversation that tends to feel less like a status update and more like a real exchange between people. Steve Jobs was famously known for taking walks with colleagues and job candidates instead of holding meetings behind a desk, and the habit has since spread well beyond Silicon Valley into consulting firms, nonprofits, and city governments.
The challenges are just as real. You cannot pull up a shared spreadsheet on a sidewalk. Note-taking becomes awkward. Weather intervenes. A meeting with six people quickly turns into a strung-out line where the person at the back cannot hear anyone. And for a colleague who uses a wheelchair, has a chronic pain condition, or simply cannot commit to forty-five minutes of continuous movement, a walking meeting invitation can feel like an accidental exclusion rather than a perk. None of this means walking meetings are a bad idea. It means they work best when a team is deliberate about which conversations belong outdoors and which ones belong back at the table.
This explainer looks at what the research actually shows about walking and thinking, then works through the practical decisions that make walking meetings useful rather than gimmicky: which meeting types suit the format, how to handle notes, how to plan a route, how many people can realistically join, and how to keep the practice accessible to everyone on a team.
The Appeal, Briefly
Three things tend to draw teams toward walking meetings. The first is straightforward physical health. Adults who sit for long stretches without breaks face measurably higher health risks, and a meeting is one of the few blocks of the workday that can be moved outside without much disruption. The second is informality. Walking side by side removes the face-to-face intensity of a conference room, which can make it easier for people to think out loud, disagree gently, or raise a half-formed idea they would otherwise keep to themselves. The third, and the one with the clearest research backing, is a genuine boost to certain kinds of thinking. That is worth examining more closely, because it also explains why walking meetings are not the right fit for every agenda item.
What the Research Says About Walking and Thinking
The most frequently cited study on this topic comes from Stanford researchers Marily Oppezzo and Daniel Schwartz, published in 2014 in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Across four experiments involving 176 college students and adults, participants completed classic creativity tasks, generating alternate uses for everyday objects and producing analogies, while either walking on a treadmill, walking outdoors, or sitting.
The results were striking. People walking, whether indoors on a treadmill facing a blank wall or outside in the open air, produced roughly twice as many creative responses as people sitting down, translating to about a 60 percent increase in creative output on the alternate-uses task. On the analogy task, every single outdoor walker generated at least one high-quality, novel analogy, compared to only half of the seated group. Oppezzo and Schwartz described the effect as benefiting the early, generative stage of creativity rather than the stage where an idea gets refined or checked for accuracy.
That distinction matters for anyone deciding whether to move a meeting outdoors. The Stanford data showed a clear split between two kinds of thinking. Divergent thinking, the open-ended generation of many possible ideas, improved substantially while walking. Convergent thinking, the kind needed to zero in on one correct answer or make a precise numerical decision, did not show the same benefit. In plain terms: walking is well suited to brainstorming, framing a problem, or talking through options. It is not particularly well suited to reviewing a budget line by line or finalizing legal language, tasks where a wrong keystroke or a missed decimal point actually costs something.
Separate research on sedentary behavior adds a health dimension to the same conversation. Mayo Clinic has summarized findings from an analysis covering thirteen studies and more than one million participants, concluding that people who sit for more than eight hours a day with little physical activity face a mortality risk comparable to that associated with obesity or smoking. The same summary notes that 60 to 75 minutes of moderate aerobic activity a day can offset much of the risk tied to prolonged sitting, and it specifically lists walking meetings, along with standing desks and treadmill workstations, as practical ways to break up long sitting stretches. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that adults get 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week, a target that a regular pattern of thirty-minute walking meetings can meaningfully chip away at without requiring a separate trip to the gym.
Workplace advocates have picked up on both threads. Nilofer Merchant’s TED talk “Got a Meeting? Take a Walk,” which has drawn more than four million views, argues for converting one-on-one meetings into walking conversations as a small habit change with outsized effects on both health and the quality of the exchange. None of this research suggests walking meetings replace every other kind of meeting. It suggests they are a good match for a specific category of conversation, and a poor match for others.
Which Meetings Suit Walking, and Which Don’t
The clearest signal from the research is that walking helps idea generation and open conversation, and does little for precision tasks. That maps fairly well onto everyday meeting types. A one-on-one check-in, a brainstorm for a new campaign, or a difficult but informal conversation about someone’s workload all tend to go well on foot. A budget review, a legal contract discussion, or anything that requires everyone to look at the same document at the same time does not.
| Meeting Type | Walking Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| One-on-one check-in | Strong fit | Two people, no shared screen needed, informal tone helps candor |
| Brainstorm or early ideation | Strong fit | Matches the divergent-thinking boost seen in walking research |
| Feedback or coaching conversation | Strong fit | Side-by-side posture reduces confrontation, easier to be honest |
| Strategy or planning discussion | Situational | Fine for framing questions, weak once a whiteboard or map is needed |
| Budget or numbers review | Poor fit | Convergent, detail-checking work; no benefit shown from walking |
| Contract or legal review | Poor fit | Requires shared document, precision, and a written record |
| Large team status meeting | Poor fit | Group size and noise make it hard for everyone to hear and speak |
| Confidential or sensitive HR matter | Poor fit | Outdoor settings risk being overheard; privacy is hard to control |
A rough rule of thumb: if the meeting’s success depends on everyone looking at the same thing at the same time, keep it seated. If it depends on two or three people thinking out loud together, a walking meeting is worth trying.
Notes, Without Losing the Thread
The single most common objection to walking meetings is the note-taking problem, and it deserves a direct answer rather than a shrug. A few approaches work reliably. Voice memos are the simplest: one person hits record on a phone at the start of the walk and either transcribes key points afterward or runs the recording through a transcription app. This works well for one-on-ones and small brainstorms where the goal is to capture ideas, not produce a formal document.
For meetings that need action items tracked in real time, assign a designated note-taker before the walk starts, someone who pauses periodically to jot a phrase into a phone rather than trying to write full sentences while moving. A short pause every few minutes to consolidate the last few points tends to work better than trying to type continuously while walking, which is both distracting and, on uneven pavement, mildly hazardous. Some teams close a walking meeting with two minutes standing still at the end, where the note-taker reads back three or four bullet points and the group confirms or corrects them on the spot. That closing recap often produces a cleaner record than notes captured mid-stride.
Whatever method a team picks, the goal is not a full transcript. Walking meetings work best for conversations that do not require line-by-line documentation, so the note-taking approach should match that reality rather than fight it.
Planning the Route
Route planning is easy to overlook and quick to fix once a team thinks about it. A loop that returns to the starting point beats an out-and-back or a one-way route, because it avoids the awkward moment of deciding when to turn around, and it means the meeting ends back at the office rather than stranding participants somewhere else. Fifteen to twenty-five minutes is a comfortable target for most loops; anything longer risks eating into the rest of the day and testing everyone’s stamina for a work conversation.
Traffic noise is worth checking in advance. A route that hugs a busy road makes conversation genuinely difficult and pushes people to shout, which defeats the purpose. A nearby park path, a quiet side street, or even a loop around a large office campus usually works better than a route along a main thoroughfare. Surface matters too: a paved, level path is far friendlier to dress shoes, mobility aids, and anyone managing a joint condition than gravel, stairs, or a steep incline. Building a short list of two or three go-to routes near the office, each with a rough time estimate, saves the small daily friction of figuring out where to walk and makes it easier to pick a route that fits everyone joining that day.
When the Weather or the Location Doesn’t Cooperate
Rain, extreme heat, and winter darkness are the most common reasons walking meetings get skipped rather than moved indoors, but the Stanford research actually points to an easy fallback. In the Oppezzo and Schwartz experiments, participants walking on a treadmill facing a blank wall showed nearly the same creativity boost as participants walking outdoors, both roughly doubling their creative output compared to sitting. That finding matters practically: a walking meeting does not require fresh air or scenery to work. A long hallway, a stairwell landing used for laps, an indoor track at a nearby gym, or even a large open floor plan walked in loops can substitute for an outdoor route on a bad-weather day. Some offices designate a specific indoor loop, marked informally by two landmarks like a reception desk and a break room, so a walking meeting can move indoors without anyone needing to scout a new route on the spot.
For teams that work across time zones or include remote colleagues, a video-call walking meeting is harder to pull off but not impossible. Wired or bone-conduction headphones tend to work better than earbuds that fall out, and a phone call format, without video, removes the awkwardness of a camera bouncing with each step while still preserving the conversational, side-by-side feel that makes the format useful in the first place.
Keeping the Group Small
Group size is where walking meetings most often fall apart. Once a group grows past three or four people, the line stretches out, side conversations splinter off, and the people at the back miss half of what is said. Two or three participants is the sweet spot for a genuine walking meeting: enough for a real conversation, small enough that everyone can hear and be heard without raising their voice. If a topic genuinely needs five or more people in the room, that is usually a sign the meeting belongs indoors, where everyone can see each other and the conversation does not depend on walking pace or wind direction.
When a slightly larger group does walk together, keeping to a wide path and consciously rotating who walks next to whom every few minutes helps prevent the group from splitting into two conversations that never rejoin. Some teams cap walking meetings at three people as a hard rule and default anything larger back to a seated format, which removes the guesswork entirely.
Accessibility: Making Walking Meetings an Invitation, Not a Barrier
A walking meeting policy that assumes everyone can comfortably walk for twenty minutes at a brisk pace will quietly exclude some colleagues, and that exclusion is rarely intentional. Chronic pain, mobility differences, cardiovascular or respiratory conditions, pregnancy, recent surgery, and simple differences in walking speed all affect who can join a given walk on a given day. Treating a walking meeting invitation as the default rather than a choice puts people in the position of either pushing through discomfort or disclosing a health condition they may not want to share.
A few practices keep the format genuinely inclusive. Always offer a seated alternative when scheduling, phrased as a normal option rather than an accommodation request, for example, “walking meeting or the small conference room, your call.” Ask about pace rather than assuming one; a slow, easy stroll works for a very different set of people than a brisk fitness-level walk, and naming the pace in the invite lets people opt in accurately. Choose routes with paved, level surfaces, ramps rather than stairs, and benches along the way so anyone who needs a short seated break can take one without derailing the conversation. For a colleague who uses a wheelchair or a mobility device, check the route in advance for curb cuts, door widths, and surface quality rather than assuming it will work. And when in doubt, ask directly and privately how someone would like to participate, rather than guessing on their behalf. None of this is complicated, and building it into a team’s habits from the start avoids the awkwardness of retrofitting accessibility after someone has already been left out.
Quick Reference: Running a Walking Meeting Well
- Cap the group at two or three people for a real, hearable conversation.
- Pick a paved, level loop, fifteen to twenty-five minutes, away from heavy traffic noise.
- Record voice notes or assign one note-taker who pauses to capture points rather than typing on the move.
- Close with two minutes standing still to recap action items out loud.
- Offer a seated alternative by default and ask about pace before the walk starts.
- Save walking meetings for brainstorms, check-ins, and feedback conversations; keep budget reviews and document-heavy discussions seated.
Making the Format Stick
Walking meetings work best as one option among several, not as a blanket policy. A team that reserves the format for the conversations it actually suits, one-on-ones, early brainstorming, informal feedback, tends to get the creative benefit the research points to without the friction of trying to walk through a spreadsheet. Keep the group small, plan a route in advance, settle on a simple note-taking habit, and build in a seated option from the start so no one feels pressured to join a walk their body cannot comfortably do that day. Handled that way, a walking meeting stops being a novelty and becomes a small, reliable part of how a team thinks together, one more tool alongside the conference room rather than a replacement for it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do walking meetings actually improve creativity, or is that just a claim companies use to justify fewer sit-down meetings?
The creativity effect is backed by controlled research, not just workplace folklore. The Stanford study by Oppezzo and Schwartz found a roughly 60 percent increase in creative output on divergent-thinking tasks while walking compared to sitting, across four separate experiments. The effect was specific to idea-generation tasks, not to precise, single-answer problems.
How long should a walking meeting last?
Fifteen to twenty-five minutes suits most conversations and most routes. Longer walks start to compete with the rest of the day’s schedule and ask more of anyone’s stamina than a work conversation typically requires.
What is the ideal group size for a walking meeting?
Two or three people. Beyond that, the group tends to stretch into a line, side conversations split off, and people at the back struggle to hear.
How do you take notes during a walking meeting without stopping every few minutes?
Record a voice memo for later transcription, or assign one person to jot brief phrases during short pauses rather than typing full notes while moving. Closing the walk with a two-minute standing recap of action items is a reliable way to lock in a clean record.
Are walking meetings appropriate for every type of conversation?
No. They suit brainstorming, one-on-one check-ins, and informal feedback well. They are a poor fit for anything requiring a shared document, precise numbers, legal language, or confidentiality that an outdoor setting cannot guarantee.
How do you keep walking meetings accessible to colleagues with mobility differences or health conditions?
Offer a seated alternative as a normal default option, not an accommodation to be requested. State the intended pace in the meeting invite, choose paved and level routes with benches along the way, and check the route for curb cuts and surface quality before proposing it to someone who uses a mobility device.
References
- Oppezzo, M., & Schwartz, D. L. (2014). Give your ideas some legs: The positive effect of walking on creative thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Summarized by Stanford News, “Stanford study finds walking improves creativity.”
- Mayo Clinic. “What are the risks of sitting too much?” Expert answer on sedentary behavior, mortality risk, and walking meetings as a mitigation strategy.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults, recommending 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week.
- Merchant, N. “Got a Meeting? Take a Walk.” TED Talk.
