According to Paul Graham, there are two types of schedules for workers: the manager’s schedule and the maker’s schedule.
The manager’s schedule is for bosses, people in command. It’s the traditional appointment book, with each day cut into one hour intervals. By default you can change what you’re doing every hour; blocking off several hours for a single task is an optional variation.
Meetings fit neatly into the maker’s schedule. You just need to find an open slot in your schedule and book it.
The maker’s schedule is for people who make things as a way of life, like programmers and writers. They prefer to use time in chunk units like “half a day,” “the morning,” “all afternoon.”
Meetings are disruptive to the maker’s schedule. A single meeting can break the chunk units into smaller, less productive units. Additionally, a meeting is not a natural activity in the maker’s day—it’s an exception.
It’s something you need to remember to do, something you need to mentally and maybe actionably plan for, if the material needed for the meeting aren’t “things you were already working on.” It’s worse than just switching from one task to another; it changes the mode in which you work.
Finally, when you know that the available chunks of your day are, realistically, not enough to achieve anything, you tend to not start anything ambitious.
Each type of schedule works fine by itself. Problems arise when they meet.
Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule
The ideas behind the maker’s schedule can actually also explain the neurodivergent experience of “waiting mode,” where we don’t/can’t start any activity if there is an appointment scheduled later in the day.
It’s odd that both ND waiting mode and maker’s schedule are hinged on valuing meetings/appointments above all other activity.