Politically speaking, whether you avoid a meeting is less important than how you avoid it. Dear Bob …You mentioned meeting attendance, and cutting meeting attendance by increasing trust, in your last Keep the Joint Running, (“Unkindest cut,” 10/6/2008).Meetings follow the famous Wannamaker conundrum (half your marketing budget is wasted … you’ll never figure out which half). Half of them are a waste, but you’ll never figure out which half, though anything titled a “productivity meeting” is a likely suspect. I’m not so sure it’s a trust issue: If you aren’t in the meeting, you aren’t necessary, and you may as well clean out your desk. If you ever want to see EVERY federal employee in DC at work, just put out during a snowstorm that “non-essential employees stay home today.” Conversely, you NEVER leave the room while the meeting is in progress. Doing so is a sure guarantee of “volunteering” for some non-essential scut work or the other.The only meeting I want to go to anymore is one that will lead to a job offer.– Over-attended Dear Over-attended …The Wannamaker parallel is a good one. I don’t agree with you about the rest of it, though. For the most part, I’d rather be too important to be part of a meeting than have to be there.Done well, you can manipulate perceptions to increase your stature compared to your peers. Here’s how it’s done: “Dave, I can’t make the meeting about parking space allocation, and I really don’t think they need both of us anyway. Can you cover it for me? I’ll let everyone know you speak for me.” It’s subtle, but clear: You delegated a responsibility to Dave. That levels you just a bit above him in the hierarchy.– Bob Technology Industry