Why Is It Always the PM? Rethinking the Logic Behind Meeting Notes | Louis Yang

The Default Logic Around Meeting Notes

In many workplaces, there's a familiar pattern:

"When a meeting happens, it's always the PM who ends up taking the notes."

It doesn't matter whether this is explicitly assigned, or whether the meeting is directly related to the PM’s responsibilities—if no one is designated, the task silently falls on someone. And more often than not, that someone is the PM, the most junior person, or simply the one who seems the easiest to ask.

In different cultures, this role might be assigned differently. For example, in some Japanese or Korean companies, administrative staff take notes as part of their institutional role.

Most people think, “It’s not a big deal.”

The Deeper Workplace Logic Behind It

But this behavior reveals a deeper logic:

Taking notes isn’t seen as core work → No need to assign significant resources
The person with the lowest hourly rate, lightest title, or least likely to complain is expected to do it
Someone has to do it—even if it's not voluntary

It sounds practical. But this approach leads to a common workplace outcome: not just note-taking, but also who books the meeting room, who orders lunch, who prints the documents... all these “someone has to do it” tasks tend to fall on the same person—because that’s how implicit task distribution works.

Whether or not this leads to a mismatch in capability and responsibility, one has to ask:

Can this kind of work culture truly foster the sense of ownership we all say we want?

Why Do We Take Meeting Notes in the First Place?

Let’s look at this from another angle:
Why do we need meeting notes at all?

Common answers include:

So that absent team members can catch up
To follow up on action items later
To revisit the discussion’s context weeks or months later

If those are valid reasons, then the accuracy and clarity of the notes become critical—otherwise, they risk misleading others.

In that case, note-taking isn’t just typing—it’s translation, interpretation, and alignment.

Would we still assign such responsibility to the person with the least understanding of the discussion? Or, if the notes don’t fulfill these essential purposes, should we even bother writing them at all?

Let the Right Person Define What Notes Should Look Like

From this perspective, the note-taker should ideally be the person who best understands the discussion’s context or has the most vested interest in its outcomes—someone who can define what the notes should capture, because that becomes the foundation for all future decisions.

If it’s a technical discussion, the engineer should take the lead.
Imagine a meeting debating Pulumi vs Terraform, and the notes are taken by a newly hired PM without a CS background—wouldn’t that be unfair?
If it’s a design review, the designer should anchor the summary.
Suppose the conversation is about visual language and the meaning of red in the product, and the note-taker is a developer PM with no design sensitivity—he might just write: “Everyone seems to prefer red.”
If it’s a cross-functional strategy meeting, then yes, the PM is probably the best person to document it—because their role is to ensure alignment across teams and between actions and product direction.

But What If the Right Person Doesn’t Want to Take Notes?

This is the reality:
The person with the most context is often the busiest and least willing to take notes. They can’t fully participate in the conversation if they’re distracted by documentation.

This is exactly where tools and technology come in.

Tools like Google Docs allow for collaborative note-taking. Other attendees can contribute in real time, or fill in their thoughts before the meeting starts so the structure is already there.
Generative AI tools like Otter.ai or Fireflies.ai can transcribe audio and generate rough summaries, which can be reviewed and refined afterward.

However, a word of caution:

While many AI tools advertise “automatic summaries” and “action item detection,” these can’t fully replace human-written notes.
Because meeting notes are not just text—they are about communication, alignment, and sometimes even commitment. That human nuance is still hard to automate.

That boundary between what AI can and can’t do is something each team will need to define for themselves.

From "Who Should Do It" to "How to Make It Valuable"

You might still believe the PM should write all the notes.
Or maybe you prefer a rotation system, or delegating to an intern or admin.

But the more important point is this:

The way we choose to handle these “minor tasks” is how we shape our culture.
Not by title or salary, but by participation, motivation, and understanding—backed by tools that can help share the load.

✅ Practical Suggestions

Clearly define a topic owner who reviews and finalizes the meeting summary. Let others contribute collaboratively, especially those who are close to the topic.
If using collaborative docs or AI tools, make sure the owner does a brief post-meeting check and supplements action assignments if needed.
Keep reinforcing the mindset within your team that “notes ≠ chores.” They are a tool for building shared understanding.

In the End

Meeting notes aren’t just about documentation.
They reflect what we, as a team, choose to remember.

And maybe, just maybe—rethinking how we approach that task is where real collaboration begins.