From ProjectManagement ...

Status Meetings have few common patterns. 

The first pattern is the illusion that a shared plan is in place. The schedule, not being the project, is usually a crude approximation of the real topography. The degree to which a shared understanding of the real topography exists, real status can be assessed. If the schedule (and the plan) are ink blot tests for the team, everyone reports their piece of the collectively invisible elephant. Some ProjectManager''''''s will pretend that they understand and paste together a more coherent picture later. 

The second pattern mistakes status meetings for ProblemSolvingMeetings. In these, a few minutes into the meeting some juicy new problem emerges and two folks pounce, meaning to dispense of the issue quickly. Everyone else present sits idly by while these two wrestle the problem to the ground. Sometimes this happens quickly. Usually not. Problems should generally be set aside for ProblemSolvingMeetings, where only the principals are invited and the ProjectManager (better the Architect) might facilitate the match.

The third pattern is called ScheduleChicken. This is where I withhold status information until my slipping date becomes hidden and moot behind your slipping date. Skilled schedule chickeners can wait out the most reticent counterparts. 

Another pattern is about not being able to talk about what you're not supposed to talk about. The most effective teams have high tolerance for OrthogonalInformation. Teams that have to report only what they are supposed to report hide in role and lose their purpose. You can usually tell by the level of energy in the room where any team is.

----
Some managers use a StatusMeeting as a means of exercising power and very little else.  A rule of thumb is that if these things get called on an AdHoc basis and they keep you waiting, it's about power not results.

The value of a status meeting is easy to figure out. Do the dollar value = time multiplied by number of attendees by hourly wage and ask yourself if the added value of the meeting, the information it communicated, the problems it solved, exceeded that figure. If it didn't, then perhaps there are better methods. From my own experience as a manager I think chatting at the water cooler, having an OpenDoorPolicy and the fabled ManagementByWalkingAround are more effective about keeping tabs on what's going on. ItDepends on your environment.  

One IncrementalDelivery project I managed we were all in one converted conference room with desks around the periphery; little privacy. Any problems, we turned inwards to the old board table in the middle and discussed it there and then.  Often others would overhear and join in. Or not.

But don't think StatusReport''''''s are better than StatusMeeting''''''s.  They just distribute the wasted time in another way.

The best meetings are those without chairs. (StandUpMeeting)

ScrumProcess advocates very short and focused status meetings (ScrumMeetings).

-- AntonAylward
----
See also MeetingTypes, SuccessfulMeeting