October 16, 2024 • 25 mins
Are the meetings you lead not actually getting enough done? Are you worried that participants are leaving them feeling annoyed? If so, then this episode is for you.
Professor Steven Rogelberg is an organisational psychologist, an award-winning author and the world’s leading expert on workplace meetings. He is an award-winning teacher with over 200 publications and has been cited well-over 12,000 times in the academic literature. Steven’s keynotes on meetings span the globe and occur at the world’s leading organisations such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, Pfizer, Cisco, Bank of America, PayPal, The United Nations, and many more.
His book, The Surprising Science of Meetings: How You Can Lead Your Team to Peak Performance has been on over 25 “best of” lists including being recognized by the Washington Post as the #1 leadership book to watch for. To top it off, Adam Grant has called Steven the “world’s leading expert on how to fix meetings”.
In this episode Steven shares:
- 🔍 How to figure out if something should actually be a meeting and who needs to be invited to it
- 🎯 The common traits that make an effective meeting leader and the mistakes we make that can derail a meeting
- 🎉 Some unusual and unique techniques you can use to liven up your meetings
- 🤖 The role of AI in meetings and what you should and shouldn’t use it for
- 📋 What you need to do before and after a meeting to ensure maximum success
Key Quotes:
“One of the best predictors of the mood of a meeting is the mood of the leader coming into the meeting.”
“We act with intentionality all the time when we're meeting with important stakeholders, but we don’t act with intentionality when it comes to meeting with our peers.”
“The characteristic of really good meeting leaders is they understand that meetings need an ending.”
Connect with Steven via his website and linkedin.
My latest book The Health Habit is out now. You can order a copy here: https://www.amantha.com/the-health-habit/
Connect with me on the socials:
Linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com/in/amanthaimber)
Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/amanthai)
If you are looking for more tips to improve the way you work and live, I write a weekly newsletter where I share practical and simple to apply tips to improve your life. You can sign up for that at https://amantha-imber.ck.page/subscribe
Visit https://www.amantha.com/podcast for full show notes from all episodes.
Get in touch at amantha@inventium.com.au
Credits:
Host: Amantha Imber
Sound Engineer: The Podcast Butler
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Like many of us, you probably spend a significant amount
of your week in meetings, but how many of those
meetings actually feel productive? Are they driving your team forward
or just draining time and energy. Today we're going to
learn how to change that and turn meetings into one
of the most powerful tools in your toolkit. I'm thrilled
(00:24):
to have Professor Stephen Rogelberg back on How I Work
to help us make the most of our meetings. Stephen
is an organizational psychologist and a professor who has received
awards for his research into meeting effectiveness, and Adam Grant
has even described Stephen as the world's leading expert on
(00:45):
how to fix meetings. In this episode, Stephen will reveal
the common mistakes we all make when it comes to meetings,
how to prepare a meeting for success before it even starts,
and how you can be the most effective meeting leader ever.
(01:07):
Welcome to How I Work, a show about habits, rituals,
and strategies for optimizing your day. I'm your host, doctor
Amantha Imber. According to Stephen, there are about one billion
meetings held around the world every day. That is a
lot of meetings, and I think we can be sure
not all of them actually need to happen. So the
(01:30):
first rule for holding an effective meeting is to figure
out if you even need to be having a meeting
in the first place. You know, the saying this meeting
could have been an email. But how exactly do you
figure out if something deserves a meeting or not? For Stephen,
this is apparently quite simple.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Well, the general rule of thumb is that A you
have a compelling topic, and b that compelling topic needs
engagement and involvement. Right, So there's that two pieces to it.
If something is not compelling or doesn't need engagement, then
you don't need a meeting.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
You make it sound so simple. Are there some rules
of thumb or different categories of things that we might
want to be talking about that we can go Yes,
that definitely needs a meeting.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
No, there isn't. There really is just this general intentionality
to step back and say, Okay, I'm putting this together,
who really needs to be there? And do I need
to actually have this meeting? But let me tell you
a technique, right, that can be helpful because I know
you like specifics and practical tips, so let me share
(02:40):
one of that. You obviously know about agendas and agendas
are typically organized by topics. So what I want to
challenge meeting leaders to do is to organize their agenda
as a set of questions to be answered. By framing
your agenda's questions to be answered, now you actually have
to stop and really think about why you're having this meeting, right,
(03:00):
it's to answer these questions. So that's a way of
addressing one of the things you talked about. By framing
your agenda's questions, you now have a better sense of
who to invite the relevant to the questions. You know,
if the meeting has been successful, the questions have been answered.
Questions creates an engaging challenge for attendees that brings them
in and to your question. By framing, if you just
(03:25):
can't think of any questions, a likely means you don't
need a meeting. So I think this question based approach
can serve as a nice litmus test for figuring out
whether you need a meeting or not.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Now you mentioned that questions will help us figure out
who to invite. What should we be thinking if we
are the meeting organizer and we're deciding who should I invite,
and maybe we're questioning, oh, we're borderline on some people, Yeah,
what should we do?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
So it's almost like think about planning a wedding. Right
when we plan a wedding, we know who has to
be there, and then we know, well, these people might
be nice to have. The must haves are very clear.
It's the nice hat to haves. I guess it's in trouble,
especially because once we invite one of the nice to haves,
then we feel pressure to invite additional ones. So the
(04:13):
general thinking is, let's identify the must haves and then
the nice to haves. Let's just have a separate conversation
with them. Let's tell them, Hey, we're having a meeting
around X, Y and Z. I don't think it's highly
relevant to you. If you have any input on it,
let me know. If not, you know, I'm going to
keep you in the loops so you can decide to
attend future meetings if you like. When you do that,
(04:35):
when you kind of close the loop in some way
for these nice to haves and you do deliver some
quick meeting notes like, they are so relieved, they are
so grateful that you're respecting their time. So really, I
think the exercise is to think of this. I do
think this wedding analogy works. You know this whole must
have nice to have focus on the must haves and
(04:57):
the nice to haves. Let's give them a break and
figure out another way that they can still be in
the loop, provides some input without losing their time.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
What else can we do before the meeting to give
it the best chance of success.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Well, let me frame it this way. In our research,
the best meeting leaders appear to have something in common,
and what they have in common is a similar mindset,
and that mindset is a mindset of stewardship. They're a
steward of others' time. The thought of people leaving their
meetings saying it was a waste is so uncomfortable to
them that they act with intentionality. And this intentionality is
(05:38):
instead of just you know, dialing the meeting in using
default calendar settings, right, you're making choices. You're saying, Okay,
I'm having this meeting, this is how long I think
it should be, this is who must be there. So
you're just being intentional. And furthermore, one of the things
I talk about in my book is this idea of
a pre mortem, and a pre mortem is where you
(06:02):
start to think about what are the potential challenges and
problems that could arise in the meeting? And given that,
how should I design the meeting? And so it's just
stepping back and giving it a little bit of thought.
And interestingly, we act with intentionality all the time when
we're meeting with important stakeholders because we don't want those
(06:25):
people to leave the meeting saying that was a waste
of time. But we typically don't act with intentionality when
it comes to meeting with our peers or directs. So
this intentionality is just saying, all right, people are giving
me the biggest gift. They have their time, so how
can I honor that time? And so the decisions are,
you know, tightness of invites ordering of the agenda right,
(06:47):
hit the most important things first, you know, not the
superficial stuff. Right, Keep the meeting as short and tight
as possible. You can always find more time to meet,
but we know from Parkinson's law that work expands to
fill whatever time is a lot to do it, so
keep it tight, you'll get it done. And those are
some really important intentional design factors to keep in mind.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
What else have you found that the best meeting leaders
have in common?
Speaker 2 (07:13):
So that's the main one, but then there's other ones
that fall from that. For example, facilitation when one of
the best predictors of people's perceptions of an ineffective meeting
is the leader doing more talking than the attendees. The
more the leader talks, the more the ratings go down.
And that makes a heck of a lot of sense, right,
(07:35):
because the leader is supposed to be facilitating. That's their job, right.
They've called this party together and their job is to
get these voices out. It doesn't mean that they can't
talk during it, but mean it does mean that they
shouldn't be dominating because they invited people. If they dominate,
the meeting could have just been an email. So that
propensity to facilitate is really critical. And what underlies that
(07:57):
is this desire to listen, right, to truly engage and include.
And then the other characteristic of really good meeting leaders
is they understand that meetings need an end. Ding. So
we know meetings end, right, everything ends, but an ending
(08:18):
is something different, right. An ending is where you stop
three to five minutes before the end and you say, okay,
well did we actually decide? And for each of these things,
who is the dri the directly responsible individual and what
did we not decide so we know that these are
things that we have to discuss at another time. At
(08:39):
the same time, during this ending, you're recording this key
information so your non attendees can stay in the loop.
So that is another key thing that really differentiates excellent
meeting leaders from not so excellent meeting leaders.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
What else can we do during a meeting to get
the best outcome, whether that they facilitation techniques that work,
or other strategies that you found.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
I mean, facilitation is absolutely the most key, but you know,
there's lots of different ways to have a meeting, and so,
for example, silence in meetings is phenomenal. The research shows
that when people brainstorm in silence typing directly into their computers,
they generate nearly twice as many ideas, and the ideas
tend to be more creative, right because everyone can talk
(09:25):
at once and you're not influenced by that very first
thing you hear. So a meeting leader can say, okay,
depending on what we're trying to solve, maybe silent brainstorming
could be really meaningful. Again, depending on what you want
to solve. Sometimes a standing meeting is really a helpful.
Standing meetings generally take half as much time and yield
(09:45):
the same quality decisions. You might choose to get people
into pairs before the conversation. What we've found is that
when you tell people, hey, again, to pairs and start
to talk about this problem or issue for just three minutes,
and then we'll all come together. When you do that
and then you return to the big group, people are participating, right,
(10:06):
you've kind of greased the rails. So that's another technique
that could be super helpful. So there's lots of choices,
and that's I think a really key takeaway for your
listeners is that we need meeting leaders to think about
things and make choices. You know, we have around a
(10:27):
billion meetings a day around the globe and they generally
all look the same. That's not good, right, Let's mix
it up. Let's change it up and position yourself as
a leader as part of the solution as opposed to
being part of the problem.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Have you seen particularly effective ways to open a meeting,
whether it be effective, creative, what have you seen that works?
Speaker 2 (10:50):
So the opening of a meeting is indeed important, and
the best practice is after you know, three to five
minutes of just kind of conversation and some quick notes
you go hard on the most important topic. It's also
at times helpful for the meeting leader to start the
meeting sharing what her hopes are for the meeting. That
you know, right when you say listen, I really want
(11:11):
everyone to engage. You're here because I need your voice.
We also need people to disagree with one another, not personally,
but about ideas, right, So starting the meeting with some
expectations increases the chances of those behaviors happening, So that's
really valuable. Another key thing is, you know, a meeting
leader has to recognize that they are inherently a host,
(11:31):
right they call this meeting party together. So what does
a host do. A host welcomes people, a host makes introductions.
A host is also sensitive to their own mood state. Interestingly,
one of the best predictors of the mood of a
meeting is the mood of the leader coming into the meeting,
and mood actually matters. When the mood of the meeting
(11:53):
is better, people listen to one another, they tend to
be more creative, and they tend to disagree more constructively.
So those are some really key things that leaders can do.
At the start.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
It's interesting about mood. What can we do if we
know that the meeting is going to be a difficult
one in terms of the conversation that we're tackling, What
can we do to give that meeting the best chance
of success?
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Well, I think I'm going to circle back to what
I mentioned earlier about this idea of framing your agenda's
questions to be answered. So now when you submit that agenda,
you are signaling very clearly what's going to happen. Most
of these agendas actually don't really do a good job
signaling to people what's the critical matters. So I think
(12:37):
that that is a really useful strategy for getting people
ready to go and to participate.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
We will be back with Stevens soon, and when we return,
he'll be sharing some of the quirkier, unique things that
you can do to engage people in a meeting and
what the biggest predictors of meeting satisfaction are. If you're
looking for more tips to improve the way you work
can live. I write a short weekly newsletter that contains
(13:06):
tactics I've discovered that have helped me personally. You can
sign up for that at Amantha dot com. That's Amantha
dot com. What else can we do during the meeting?
What are some of the more quirkier techniques that you've
seen to engage people and get the best out of people.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
So the silent one certainly is quirky, but I'll add
that interestingly, taking a break. You know, even if you
have a sixty minute meeting, taking a three minute break
in the middle of the meeting is quirky and really effective. Generally,
it does a couple of things. First of all, we
all know that people are technology addicted, so during that
little break, people can check their phones as opposed to
(13:48):
doing it during the meeting. Next, what typically happens when
you have a break is after that break, someone will say, hey,
I was also thinking about X. Because typically meetings are
kind of like a runaway train. They get momentum, and
when you have a break, it breaks that momentum and
allows for other content to emerge. So that's another interesting
(14:11):
possibility that you can play with. The other thing that
maybe is a little quirky that works is to do
some of these voting apps to test consensus. We often
rely on determining whether there's consensus based on the loudest voices,
and that's not effective. So if we quickly stop and say, hey,
you know, I want to get a pulse of where
folks are out. We're talking about these three things, where's
(14:35):
everyone out? Which ones do you support? And do it
via an app. That's a nice way of really getting
a good feel for things and figuring out whether you
could go in different directions. You can also use that
voting to say do you think we need to keep
talking about this? Are you ready to make a decision?
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Right?
Speaker 2 (14:51):
So there's a lot of check ins that can happen
in a very safe way that allows you to be
a meeting leader that's sensitive to the broader dynamics, just
not the loudest voices.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
I love the idea of voting apps. It also makes
me think of very large meetings, But what is your
research found in terms of the optimal size for a.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Meeting doesn't exist. There's no such thing as an optimal size.
It just always comes down to what you're trying to achieve,
and depending on what you're trying to achieve, that determines
the size. Now, if it is around decision making, you know,
once you start passing eight people, it's just hard to
truly facilitate. You have to be a very skilled facilitator
(15:32):
to bring out more voices. So that's something to keep
in mind. If the meeting is more of a tell
show questions than you know, like a town hall, then
those meetings can be really large because you're not really
looking for folks to deeply engage on the content. So
depending on what you're trying to achieve, that kind of
(15:53):
determines who needs to be there and who doesn't need
to be there.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
I'd love to know more about those town hall meetings
because you know, ideally, well what you said is that
the facilitator of the meeting, the leader of the meeting,
would do best not to talk so much. But typically
in a town hall, the leaders talk a lot. So
what does a great town hall look like?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
We just have to remember what town halls do well
and what they do bad. They're not for discussion, So
the best town halls are just short, and the best
town halls bring up critical issues and not the superficial
issues because the superficial issues could just be handled via
email or you could record yourself talking. So if you're
(16:37):
putting people into a context where they're just going to
be listening, to someone talk. I mean, just keep in
mind that, you know, our batteries for that are pretty
darn low, So keep it short, keep it really short.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
What does short mean? What is short?
Speaker 2 (16:55):
I think most town halls can be twenty minutes.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
That is a lot shorter than most holes.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Suspect. Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
What is your opinion on AI tools in meetings? What
can help us and what can hinder?
Speaker 2 (17:12):
You know, I fully embrace it. I think there's lots
of possibilities. I think AI could be extremely helpful with
the scheduling of meetings, finding some good openings for folks
in thoughtful ways. I think AI is fantastic for capturing
the meeting notes. We've really gotten better at that. You know,
even the built in packages into Zoom what have you
(17:33):
does a great job capturing what are the key takeaways
from the meeting. It's awesome. I think AI excels with that,
which is great again as a way of managing number
of attendees. What I'm still struggling with is AI serving
in any type of facilitation role. So there are startups
(17:56):
that are playing with that. You know, where the AI
is putting time feedback saying hey, this person hasn't talked
or hers who's talking the most, and the leader is
able to monitor that. You know, then there's AI saying,
you know, actually prompting saying you know. They might say,
you know, Amanthad, what do you think? So I'm not
as keen on that. I want the meeting leader to
(18:19):
do that, I really do. I don't want to punt
that to AI. Over time, the AI facilitator is going
to get better and better and better, but I don't
think that fundamentally changes the need for the meeting leader
to be thoughtful in the design and execution of the meeting.
So yeah, I love use of AI definitely for scheduling
(18:41):
and note taking, though I think it's very, very helpful.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
I'd love to know about meeting satisfaction because that's something
that you've measured many, many times. What are the biggest
predictors of meeting satisfaction? Some of which we might have covered,
but I'm wondering if there's other things that we haven't covered.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
So participation is a key one. Relevance of the meeting
is a key one. The leader facilitating definitely a key one.
The types of participation and listening of other attendees is
really important and then interestingly, one of the better predictors
of meeting satisfaction is actually food. Yeah. Yeah, having food
(19:23):
and meetings seems to make people pretty darn excited. But
I would argue it's not the food in and of itself,
but food helps people make separation from what they were
doing before the meeting to the meeting itself, which I
think allows them to be more focused. Food can also
elevate mood into a more positive direction, which also can
(19:44):
lead to a more positive meeting. But yeah, snacks can
be helpful.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
What else can we do to elevate mood?
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Steven? You know, I think a meeting leader expressing appreciation
and gratitude. That's a really key stage for that. Even
during trying and difficult times, we can always find opportunities
to express appreciation and gratitude. So I think starting these
types of engagements with those types of reflections can get
(20:15):
people in a really good headspace.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
I would love to explore what happens after the meeting,
like what is in our control after the meeting ends,
to make sure that it was time will.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Spend If the meeting has a proper ending, like I mentioned,
with things being recorded and DRIs being identified, the chances
of action happening is so much higher. So it's really
comes down to that ending and doing it well. You know,
once that's documented, then the leader is very well positioned
(20:50):
to follow up and make sure that these things actually happen.
But so often at the end of the meeting, you know,
people are actually not clear what was decided, they're not
clear who's responsible, so action doesn't happen and leaders don't
follow up. So having that proper ending just increases the
chances of all those things happening.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Are there are ways that you encourage people to just
keep track on this was an action that came out
of the meeting and so we need to track that,
or do we just have trust?
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Yeah? I think trust is great and I think should
always be the lead strategy. But there's no reason why
the meeting outcomes can be recorded into an asynchronous document
that everyone can look and track and people can provide
updates of how what the progress they're making. So I
(21:42):
think that's perfectly fine action to take, and I think
people generally welcome it.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
I'd love to know from all the research that you
have done, what have been some of the more surprising
findings that you found in your research.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Well, I think it's always surprising that agendas in and
of themselves do not improve meeting quality. I think that's
something that's surprising, but when people reflect, it's not much
of a surprise because so many agendas are just recycled
meeting to meeting. And then what matters more is what's
on the agenda, right, is it truly compelling? And what
matters even more is how you facilitate discussion of that agenda.
(22:18):
So this idea of just having a piece of paper
with topics isn't all that inspirational. This is why in
my book I title the chapter agendas are a hollow crutch,
because so often leaders think by having an agenda that
they're a good meeting leader, and they're not. So that,
to me is kind of a fun surprising finding. Another
(22:38):
I think interesting finding is to me has always been
this idea that when you survey people coming out of
a meeting, there is one person who says that was
really good, and that person is the leading leader, the
meeting leader. The meeting leader seems to have this inflated
sense of how well the meeting went, and why wouldn't
they right, they are talking as much as they want
(23:01):
and so this disconnect though, I think is really important
because given this disconnect, meeting leaders aren't all that motivated
to make many changes to how they run meeting because
they think it went pretty well. So overall, they generally
think the meeting problem is due to others, not themselves.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
How can we overcome that? How can we give leaders
a bit more of a clear idea of what's going on?
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Yeah, So, like I'm working with this company called Chiros Kairos,
and it's a Canadian company. They're really cool and basic.
What they do is they've created a solution where leaders
can actually see how they are at running meetings, and
then they're given feedback and they're provided with tools and
tricks and tips to address the feedback they received. So
(23:51):
a technology solution, I think is a great way of
addressing the issue. But then there's lower fidelity solutions as well. So,
for example, the meeting leader can every once in a
while survey their people and ask them what's going well,
not so well, and ideas for making the meetings better. Right,
meetings are shared experiences. Leaders know that people are frustrated
(24:11):
by meetings. So if you position yourself, there's someone interested
in solving it. It's a great reflection on you.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
I love that advice, Stephen. I am so glad that
you agreed to meet with me for a second time.
You are such a fountain of knowledge when it comes
to meetings, and I so appreciate your time. I hope
I have used it respectfully. I let you do most
of the talking, so I did that.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Yeah, you're a great facilitator. I totally feel so, and
that's why I decided to do it again. So thank
you appreciate it, and yeah, thank you for helping bring
the science to your audience.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Thank you so much, Steven. I hope you love this
chat with Steven as much as I did. They're are
definitely a few strategies I think we can all implement
into our next meeting. If you want to learn more
about Steven, you can check out his websites Stephenrogelberg dot com.
He has a ton of resources there to help you
(25:06):
out with your next meeting, as well as links to
his books, which are awesome, and believe it or not,
he doesn't make a single cent from his book sales
because he donates everything he makes from them to cancer research.
You can find a link to his website in the
show notes. If you like today's show, make sure you
get follow on your podcast app to be alerted when
(25:27):
new episodes drop. How I Work was recorded on the
traditional land of the Warringery people, part of the Coulan nation.
Like many of us, you probably spend a significant amount
of your week in meetings, but how many of those
meetings actually feel productive? Are they driving your team forward
or just draining time and energy. Today we're going to
learn how to change that and turn meetings into one
of the most powerful tools in your toolkit. I'm thrilled
(00:24):
to have Professor Stephen Rogelberg back on How I Work
to help us make the most of our meetings. Stephen
is an organizational psychologist and a professor who has received
awards for his research into meeting effectiveness, and Adam Grant
has even described Stephen as the world's leading expert on
(00:45):
how to fix meetings. In this episode, Stephen will reveal
the common mistakes we all make when it comes to meetings,
how to prepare a meeting for success before it even starts,
and how you can be the most effective meeting leader ever.
(01:07):
Welcome to How I Work, a show about habits, rituals,
and strategies for optimizing your day. I'm your host, doctor
Amantha Imber. According to Stephen, there are about one billion
meetings held around the world every day. That is a
lot of meetings, and I think we can be sure
not all of them actually need to happen. So the
(01:30):
first rule for holding an effective meeting is to figure
out if you even need to be having a meeting
in the first place. You know, the saying this meeting
could have been an email. But how exactly do you
figure out if something deserves a meeting or not? For Stephen,
this is apparently quite simple.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Well, the general rule of thumb is that A you
have a compelling topic, and b that compelling topic needs
engagement and involvement. Right, So there's that two pieces to it.
If something is not compelling or doesn't need engagement, then
you don't need a meeting.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
You make it sound so simple. Are there some rules
of thumb or different categories of things that we might
want to be talking about that we can go Yes,
that definitely needs a meeting.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
No, there isn't. There really is just this general intentionality
to step back and say, Okay, I'm putting this together,
who really needs to be there? And do I need
to actually have this meeting? But let me tell you
a technique, right, that can be helpful because I know
you like specifics and practical tips, so let me share
(02:40):
one of that. You obviously know about agendas and agendas
are typically organized by topics. So what I want to
challenge meeting leaders to do is to organize their agenda
as a set of questions to be answered. By framing
your agenda's questions to be answered, now you actually have
to stop and really think about why you're having this meeting, right,
(03:00):
it's to answer these questions. So that's a way of
addressing one of the things you talked about. By framing
your agenda's questions, you now have a better sense of
who to invite the relevant to the questions. You know,
if the meeting has been successful, the questions have been answered.
Questions creates an engaging challenge for attendees that brings them
in and to your question. By framing, if you just
(03:25):
can't think of any questions, a likely means you don't
need a meeting. So I think this question based approach
can serve as a nice litmus test for figuring out
whether you need a meeting or not.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Now you mentioned that questions will help us figure out
who to invite. What should we be thinking if we
are the meeting organizer and we're deciding who should I invite,
and maybe we're questioning, oh, we're borderline on some people, Yeah,
what should we do?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
So it's almost like think about planning a wedding. Right
when we plan a wedding, we know who has to
be there, and then we know, well, these people might
be nice to have. The must haves are very clear.
It's the nice hat to haves. I guess it's in trouble,
especially because once we invite one of the nice to haves,
then we feel pressure to invite additional ones. So the
(04:13):
general thinking is, let's identify the must haves and then
the nice to haves. Let's just have a separate conversation
with them. Let's tell them, Hey, we're having a meeting
around X, Y and Z. I don't think it's highly
relevant to you. If you have any input on it,
let me know. If not, you know, I'm going to
keep you in the loops so you can decide to
attend future meetings if you like. When you do that,
(04:35):
when you kind of close the loop in some way
for these nice to haves and you do deliver some
quick meeting notes like, they are so relieved, they are
so grateful that you're respecting their time. So really, I
think the exercise is to think of this. I do
think this wedding analogy works. You know this whole must
have nice to have focus on the must haves and
(04:57):
the nice to haves. Let's give them a break and
figure out another way that they can still be in
the loop, provides some input without losing their time.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
What else can we do before the meeting to give
it the best chance of success.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Well, let me frame it this way. In our research,
the best meeting leaders appear to have something in common,
and what they have in common is a similar mindset,
and that mindset is a mindset of stewardship. They're a
steward of others' time. The thought of people leaving their
meetings saying it was a waste is so uncomfortable to
them that they act with intentionality. And this intentionality is
(05:38):
instead of just you know, dialing the meeting in using
default calendar settings, right, you're making choices. You're saying, Okay,
I'm having this meeting, this is how long I think
it should be, this is who must be there. So
you're just being intentional. And furthermore, one of the things
I talk about in my book is this idea of
a pre mortem, and a pre mortem is where you
(06:02):
start to think about what are the potential challenges and
problems that could arise in the meeting? And given that,
how should I design the meeting? And so it's just
stepping back and giving it a little bit of thought.
And interestingly, we act with intentionality all the time when
we're meeting with important stakeholders because we don't want those
(06:25):
people to leave the meeting saying that was a waste
of time. But we typically don't act with intentionality when
it comes to meeting with our peers or directs. So
this intentionality is just saying, all right, people are giving
me the biggest gift. They have their time, so how
can I honor that time? And so the decisions are,
you know, tightness of invites ordering of the agenda right,
(06:47):
hit the most important things first, you know, not the
superficial stuff. Right, Keep the meeting as short and tight
as possible. You can always find more time to meet,
but we know from Parkinson's law that work expands to
fill whatever time is a lot to do it, so
keep it tight, you'll get it done. And those are
some really important intentional design factors to keep in mind.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
What else have you found that the best meeting leaders
have in common?
Speaker 2 (07:13):
So that's the main one, but then there's other ones
that fall from that. For example, facilitation when one of
the best predictors of people's perceptions of an ineffective meeting
is the leader doing more talking than the attendees. The
more the leader talks, the more the ratings go down.
And that makes a heck of a lot of sense, right,
(07:35):
because the leader is supposed to be facilitating. That's their job, right.
They've called this party together and their job is to
get these voices out. It doesn't mean that they can't
talk during it, but mean it does mean that they
shouldn't be dominating because they invited people. If they dominate,
the meeting could have just been an email. So that
propensity to facilitate is really critical. And what underlies that
(07:57):
is this desire to listen, right, to truly engage and include.
And then the other characteristic of really good meeting leaders
is they understand that meetings need an end. Ding. So
we know meetings end, right, everything ends, but an ending
(08:18):
is something different, right. An ending is where you stop
three to five minutes before the end and you say, okay,
well did we actually decide? And for each of these things,
who is the dri the directly responsible individual and what
did we not decide so we know that these are
things that we have to discuss at another time. At
(08:39):
the same time, during this ending, you're recording this key
information so your non attendees can stay in the loop.
So that is another key thing that really differentiates excellent
meeting leaders from not so excellent meeting leaders.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
What else can we do during a meeting to get
the best outcome, whether that they facilitation techniques that work,
or other strategies that you found.
Speaker 2 (09:03):
I mean, facilitation is absolutely the most key, but you know,
there's lots of different ways to have a meeting, and so,
for example, silence in meetings is phenomenal. The research shows
that when people brainstorm in silence typing directly into their computers,
they generate nearly twice as many ideas, and the ideas
tend to be more creative, right because everyone can talk
(09:25):
at once and you're not influenced by that very first
thing you hear. So a meeting leader can say, okay,
depending on what we're trying to solve, maybe silent brainstorming
could be really meaningful. Again, depending on what you want
to solve. Sometimes a standing meeting is really a helpful.
Standing meetings generally take half as much time and yield
(09:45):
the same quality decisions. You might choose to get people
into pairs before the conversation. What we've found is that
when you tell people, hey, again, to pairs and start
to talk about this problem or issue for just three minutes,
and then we'll all come together. When you do that
and then you return to the big group, people are participating, right,
(10:06):
you've kind of greased the rails. So that's another technique
that could be super helpful. So there's lots of choices,
and that's I think a really key takeaway for your
listeners is that we need meeting leaders to think about
things and make choices. You know, we have around a
(10:27):
billion meetings a day around the globe and they generally
all look the same. That's not good, right, Let's mix
it up. Let's change it up and position yourself as
a leader as part of the solution as opposed to
being part of the problem.
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Have you seen particularly effective ways to open a meeting,
whether it be effective, creative, what have you seen that works?
Speaker 2 (10:50):
So the opening of a meeting is indeed important, and
the best practice is after you know, three to five
minutes of just kind of conversation and some quick notes
you go hard on the most important topic. It's also
at times helpful for the meeting leader to start the
meeting sharing what her hopes are for the meeting. That
you know, right when you say listen, I really want
(11:11):
everyone to engage. You're here because I need your voice.
We also need people to disagree with one another, not personally,
but about ideas, right, So starting the meeting with some
expectations increases the chances of those behaviors happening, So that's
really valuable. Another key thing is, you know, a meeting
leader has to recognize that they are inherently a host,
(11:31):
right they call this meeting party together. So what does
a host do. A host welcomes people, a host makes introductions.
A host is also sensitive to their own mood state. Interestingly,
one of the best predictors of the mood of a
meeting is the mood of the leader coming into the meeting,
and mood actually matters. When the mood of the meeting
(11:53):
is better, people listen to one another, they tend to
be more creative, and they tend to disagree more constructively.
So those are some really key things that leaders can do.
At the start.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
It's interesting about mood. What can we do if we
know that the meeting is going to be a difficult
one in terms of the conversation that we're tackling, What
can we do to give that meeting the best chance
of success?
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Well, I think I'm going to circle back to what
I mentioned earlier about this idea of framing your agenda's
questions to be answered. So now when you submit that agenda,
you are signaling very clearly what's going to happen. Most
of these agendas actually don't really do a good job
signaling to people what's the critical matters. So I think
(12:37):
that that is a really useful strategy for getting people
ready to go and to participate.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
We will be back with Stevens soon, and when we return,
he'll be sharing some of the quirkier, unique things that
you can do to engage people in a meeting and
what the biggest predictors of meeting satisfaction are. If you're
looking for more tips to improve the way you work
can live. I write a short weekly newsletter that contains
(13:06):
tactics I've discovered that have helped me personally. You can
sign up for that at Amantha dot com. That's Amantha
dot com. What else can we do during the meeting?
What are some of the more quirkier techniques that you've
seen to engage people and get the best out of people.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
So the silent one certainly is quirky, but I'll add
that interestingly, taking a break. You know, even if you
have a sixty minute meeting, taking a three minute break
in the middle of the meeting is quirky and really effective. Generally,
it does a couple of things. First of all, we
all know that people are technology addicted, so during that
little break, people can check their phones as opposed to
(13:48):
doing it during the meeting. Next, what typically happens when
you have a break is after that break, someone will say, hey,
I was also thinking about X. Because typically meetings are
kind of like a runaway train. They get momentum, and
when you have a break, it breaks that momentum and
allows for other content to emerge. So that's another interesting
(14:11):
possibility that you can play with. The other thing that
maybe is a little quirky that works is to do
some of these voting apps to test consensus. We often
rely on determining whether there's consensus based on the loudest voices,
and that's not effective. So if we quickly stop and say, hey,
you know, I want to get a pulse of where
folks are out. We're talking about these three things, where's
(14:35):
everyone out? Which ones do you support? And do it
via an app. That's a nice way of really getting
a good feel for things and figuring out whether you
could go in different directions. You can also use that
voting to say do you think we need to keep
talking about this? Are you ready to make a decision?
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Right?
Speaker 2 (14:51):
So there's a lot of check ins that can happen
in a very safe way that allows you to be
a meeting leader that's sensitive to the broader dynamics, just
not the loudest voices.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
I love the idea of voting apps. It also makes
me think of very large meetings, But what is your
research found in terms of the optimal size for a.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Meeting doesn't exist. There's no such thing as an optimal size.
It just always comes down to what you're trying to achieve,
and depending on what you're trying to achieve, that determines
the size. Now, if it is around decision making, you know,
once you start passing eight people, it's just hard to
truly facilitate. You have to be a very skilled facilitator
(15:32):
to bring out more voices. So that's something to keep
in mind. If the meeting is more of a tell
show questions than you know, like a town hall, then
those meetings can be really large because you're not really
looking for folks to deeply engage on the content. So
depending on what you're trying to achieve, that kind of
(15:53):
determines who needs to be there and who doesn't need
to be there.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
I'd love to know more about those town hall meetings
because you know, ideally, well what you said is that
the facilitator of the meeting, the leader of the meeting,
would do best not to talk so much. But typically
in a town hall, the leaders talk a lot. So
what does a great town hall look like?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
We just have to remember what town halls do well
and what they do bad. They're not for discussion, So
the best town halls are just short, and the best
town halls bring up critical issues and not the superficial
issues because the superficial issues could just be handled via
email or you could record yourself talking. So if you're
(16:37):
putting people into a context where they're just going to
be listening, to someone talk. I mean, just keep in
mind that, you know, our batteries for that are pretty
darn low, So keep it short, keep it really short.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
What does short mean? What is short?
Speaker 2 (16:55):
I think most town halls can be twenty minutes.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
That is a lot shorter than most holes.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Suspect. Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
What is your opinion on AI tools in meetings? What
can help us and what can hinder?
Speaker 2 (17:12):
You know, I fully embrace it. I think there's lots
of possibilities. I think AI could be extremely helpful with
the scheduling of meetings, finding some good openings for folks
in thoughtful ways. I think AI is fantastic for capturing
the meeting notes. We've really gotten better at that. You know,
even the built in packages into Zoom what have you
(17:33):
does a great job capturing what are the key takeaways
from the meeting. It's awesome. I think AI excels with that,
which is great again as a way of managing number
of attendees. What I'm still struggling with is AI serving
in any type of facilitation role. So there are startups
(17:56):
that are playing with that. You know, where the AI
is putting time feedback saying hey, this person hasn't talked
or hers who's talking the most, and the leader is
able to monitor that. You know, then there's AI saying,
you know, actually prompting saying you know. They might say,
you know, Amanthad, what do you think? So I'm not
as keen on that. I want the meeting leader to
(18:19):
do that, I really do. I don't want to punt
that to AI. Over time, the AI facilitator is going
to get better and better and better, but I don't
think that fundamentally changes the need for the meeting leader
to be thoughtful in the design and execution of the meeting.
So yeah, I love use of AI definitely for scheduling
(18:41):
and note taking, though I think it's very, very helpful.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
I'd love to know about meeting satisfaction because that's something
that you've measured many, many times. What are the biggest
predictors of meeting satisfaction? Some of which we might have covered,
but I'm wondering if there's other things that we haven't covered.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
So participation is a key one. Relevance of the meeting
is a key one. The leader facilitating definitely a key one.
The types of participation and listening of other attendees is
really important and then interestingly, one of the better predictors
of meeting satisfaction is actually food. Yeah. Yeah, having food
(19:23):
and meetings seems to make people pretty darn excited. But
I would argue it's not the food in and of itself,
but food helps people make separation from what they were
doing before the meeting to the meeting itself, which I
think allows them to be more focused. Food can also
elevate mood into a more positive direction, which also can
(19:44):
lead to a more positive meeting. But yeah, snacks can
be helpful.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
What else can we do to elevate mood?
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Steven? You know, I think a meeting leader expressing appreciation
and gratitude. That's a really key stage for that. Even
during trying and difficult times, we can always find opportunities
to express appreciation and gratitude. So I think starting these
types of engagements with those types of reflections can get
(20:15):
people in a really good headspace.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
I would love to explore what happens after the meeting,
like what is in our control after the meeting ends,
to make sure that it was time will.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
Spend If the meeting has a proper ending, like I mentioned,
with things being recorded and DRIs being identified, the chances
of action happening is so much higher. So it's really
comes down to that ending and doing it well. You know,
once that's documented, then the leader is very well positioned
(20:50):
to follow up and make sure that these things actually happen.
But so often at the end of the meeting, you know,
people are actually not clear what was decided, they're not
clear who's responsible, so action doesn't happen and leaders don't
follow up. So having that proper ending just increases the
chances of all those things happening.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Are there are ways that you encourage people to just
keep track on this was an action that came out
of the meeting and so we need to track that,
or do we just have trust?
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Yeah? I think trust is great and I think should
always be the lead strategy. But there's no reason why
the meeting outcomes can be recorded into an asynchronous document
that everyone can look and track and people can provide
updates of how what the progress they're making. So I
(21:42):
think that's perfectly fine action to take, and I think
people generally welcome it.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
I'd love to know from all the research that you
have done, what have been some of the more surprising
findings that you found in your research.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Well, I think it's always surprising that agendas in and
of themselves do not improve meeting quality. I think that's
something that's surprising, but when people reflect, it's not much
of a surprise because so many agendas are just recycled
meeting to meeting. And then what matters more is what's
on the agenda, right, is it truly compelling? And what
matters even more is how you facilitate discussion of that agenda.
(22:18):
So this idea of just having a piece of paper
with topics isn't all that inspirational. This is why in
my book I title the chapter agendas are a hollow crutch,
because so often leaders think by having an agenda that
they're a good meeting leader, and they're not. So that,
to me is kind of a fun surprising finding. Another
(22:38):
I think interesting finding is to me has always been
this idea that when you survey people coming out of
a meeting, there is one person who says that was
really good, and that person is the leading leader, the
meeting leader. The meeting leader seems to have this inflated
sense of how well the meeting went, and why wouldn't
they right, they are talking as much as they want
(23:01):
and so this disconnect though, I think is really important
because given this disconnect, meeting leaders aren't all that motivated
to make many changes to how they run meeting because
they think it went pretty well. So overall, they generally
think the meeting problem is due to others, not themselves.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
How can we overcome that? How can we give leaders
a bit more of a clear idea of what's going on?
Speaker 2 (23:27):
Yeah, So, like I'm working with this company called Chiros Kairos,
and it's a Canadian company. They're really cool and basic.
What they do is they've created a solution where leaders
can actually see how they are at running meetings, and
then they're given feedback and they're provided with tools and
tricks and tips to address the feedback they received. So
(23:51):
a technology solution, I think is a great way of
addressing the issue. But then there's lower fidelity solutions as well. So,
for example, the meeting leader can every once in a
while survey their people and ask them what's going well,
not so well, and ideas for making the meetings better. Right,
meetings are shared experiences. Leaders know that people are frustrated
(24:11):
by meetings. So if you position yourself, there's someone interested
in solving it. It's a great reflection on you.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
I love that advice, Stephen. I am so glad that
you agreed to meet with me for a second time.
You are such a fountain of knowledge when it comes
to meetings, and I so appreciate your time. I hope
I have used it respectfully. I let you do most
of the talking, so I did that.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Yeah, you're a great facilitator. I totally feel so, and
that's why I decided to do it again. So thank
you appreciate it, and yeah, thank you for helping bring
the science to your audience.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Thank you so much, Steven. I hope you love this
chat with Steven as much as I did. They're are
definitely a few strategies I think we can all implement
into our next meeting. If you want to learn more
about Steven, you can check out his websites Stephenrogelberg dot com.
He has a ton of resources there to help you
(25:06):
out with your next meeting, as well as links to
his books, which are awesome, and believe it or not,
he doesn't make a single cent from his book sales
because he donates everything he makes from them to cancer research.
You can find a link to his website in the
show notes. If you like today's show, make sure you
get follow on your podcast app to be alerted when
(25:27):
new episodes drop. How I Work was recorded on the
traditional land of the Warringery people, part of the Coulan nation.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.