> Standard philosophical problem, you're disagreeing about the definition of a word instead of the content of the message.

Perhaps I should have said we have a different understanding or expectation of communication, instead of "definition." For this confusion I introduced, I apologize.

> Clearly you agree with OP about how time is wasted but you're insisting on using different language to express the same idea.

I do not.

Again, as I previously self-quoted:

  Most meetings are not about communication. They are usually 
  prescriptive in form and dictatorial in nature.

OP postulated:

  Or maybe we're spending too much time on communicating.

To which I disagreed. OP then opined:

  If too much time is allocated then its hard to stay focused 
  and there's always the next time that can be used to 
  clarify.

Which is an indirect reference to meetings, not communication.

Finally, OP concluded with:

  Cut all the unnecessary meetings and only allocate the 
  minimum viable time to communicate. Then everyone will be 
  listening.

Which erroneously correlates meetings with listening. Your original response included:

  ... we all spend way too much time in useless meetings where 
  nothing happens ...

Thus reinforcing said erroneous correlation. I blame myself for insufficiently expressing my thoughts on the difference between listening, which is implicit in communication and the topic of the article, and meetings, which are an assembly of people requiring only physical presence.