In a Web3 filled with meetings every day, how can we improve our meeting efficiency?

Original Title: 《The surprising science behind how to elevate your meetings - Steven Rogelberg》

Guest: Steve

Compiled by: zhouzhou, Ismay, BlockBeats

Editor's Note: Against the backdrop of the recently concluded Token2049, this discussion explores how to enhance the effectiveness of meetings, especially when the content often seems redundant. The hope is that truly excellent meeting agendas are presented in the form of questions to be solved, enhancing participants' sense of purpose and engagement. It is also emphasized that attendees should be relevant to the discussion topics, avoiding inefficiency caused by too many participants. A good meeting atmosphere relies on the active guidance of leaders, who need to pay attention to team dynamics and promote the exchange and collision of different viewpoints. Additionally, regular one-on-one meetings are an important means to enhance employee engagement and retention, especially when managers can listen to and understand employee needs. Overall, improving meeting quality should focus on its main purpose, structural design, participant selection, and feedback mechanisms to ensure that each meeting brings substantial value.

Core Discussion Questions Summary:

• The necessity of meetings and the keys to successful meetings
• Meeting frequency and agenda setting
• Managerial mindset and participants
• Meeting efficiency and feedback summary
• Meeting formats and the importance of one-on-one meetings
• The relationship between guidance and feedback

The Necessity and Goals of Meetings

Host: Are there really a lot of meetings now? In the U.S., there may be over 100 million meetings every day, some of which are very successful, while others are less so. Today, we will explore how to improve meetings. Steve, did you come to Oslo for this meeting?

Steve: Yes, this is a meeting I have always wanted to attend.

Host: How did you become interested in meetings?

Steve: I can't really say, but it's just that being filled with meetings every day makes me feel unaccomplished, which is frustrating. Is this feeling common among countless workers? The answer is yes; days filled with meetings can be exhausting.

Host: What are the keys to a successful meeting?

Steve: There are several key factors for successful meetings. First, having a clear goal. Research shows that the best meeting facilitators share a common trait: they see themselves as managers of others' time. When you think this way, you become more intentional in choosing, designing, guiding, and concluding meetings. We usually maintain this management mindset when meeting with important stakeholders, but often relax this standard when meeting with teams or colleagues. We will discuss how to reflect this goal-oriented mindset in specific choices.

Meeting Frequency and Format

Host: So when should meetings be held?

Steve: Meetings should be held when there is a clear purpose and a need for interaction and participation.

Host: Should we schedule regular meetings, like every Monday?

Steve: If there is a good reason, that can be arranged, but meetings should not be held just out of habit. We should be more cautious and ensure that meetings are only scheduled when absolutely necessary.

Host: When should emails be sent instead?

Steve: Some emails can actually be turned into meetings, while some meetings can be replaced with emails. The key is whether the content requires interaction. If interaction is needed, a meeting is an ideal format. Let's discuss a technical method that is closely related to meeting agendas. Everyone knows the importance of setting an agenda, and I want to propose an alternative method to help everyone judge when to hold a meeting and when not to.

Instead of listing the agenda as discussion topics, consider framing it as questions to be answered. By framing the agenda as questions, you need to stop and think seriously: Why am I holding this meeting?

This way, you become clearer about who the key participants are, as they are closely related to these questions. At the same time, it allows you to better judge whether the meeting was successful—if the questions were answered, then the meeting was effective. If you can't think of any questions, then perhaps a meeting isn't necessary.

Participants, Scale, Time, and Overall Process Improvement

Host: What is a managerial mindset?

Steve: It means respecting people's time when inviting them to meetings. When you have this managerial mindset, you will be more thoughtful in your choices, ensuring that the investment of meeting time is valuable, making people feel it is not a drain but a gain.

Host: Who should attend meetings?

Steve: The people attending the meeting should be those who can answer important questions. During the pandemic, we often invited many people to join to avoid anyone feeling excluded. This desire to expand the meeting size stems from three factors: first, good intentions to include everyone; second, laziness in casually occupying others' calendars; and third, insecurity, especially in a remote work context, where leaders lack confidence in management and thus express their presence by increasing the number of meeting participants.

Host: What is the ideal size for a meeting?

Steve: It depends on the desired interaction effect. If you truly want to create interaction, having more than 8 people makes it difficult, and the facilitator must have strong guiding abilities.

Host: How long should meetings last?

Steve: They should be kept to the necessary time, but meeting times often get filled. This is Parkinson's Law: work expands to fill the time allocated. If a meeting is scheduled for 60 minutes, it will take the full 60 minutes. However, we can leverage this principle. If we shorten the meeting time to 25 minutes, we can still accomplish the tasks. Research shows that if you reduce the meeting time by about 5 minutes, it actually creates positive pressure, enhances focus, and improves team performance.

Host: Is recording meeting content helpful for those who cannot attend?

Steve: Yes, recording meeting content helps those who are absent feel okay.

Host: How can meetings be made effective and engaging?

Steve: It starts with setting the agenda and having a goal-oriented mindset. A question-driven agenda will capture participants' attention. Scientific research shows that the facilitator's mood is the best predictor of the meeting atmosphere. If the facilitator is in a bad mood, this will affect the overall engagement and openness to new ideas in the meeting. Therefore, meetings must start on a good note.

The host should realize they are the host of the meeting; they need to welcome participants, make introductions, express gratitude, and help everyone transition from their previous state into the meeting. For example: I haven't heard your opinion yet, Gorn, what do you think? Or: Sandy, I know you're doing similar work; can you share your thoughts? This way, the host can encourage the collision of different viewpoints and push for a summary at the end of the meeting.

Host: You mentioned the importance of conflict in meetings. We once invited Pixar founder Ed Catmull, who mentioned Steve Jobs. He once fired two board members because they never disagreed with him in meetings. He said that if you don't voice dissent, you're not contributing to the company. So how do we create an environment where people feel willing to express differing opinions?

Steve: We certainly want conflicts to arise in meetings, but they should be conflicts of ideas, not of personalities. To create a culture of intellectual conflict, leaders need to clearly express their expectations and encourage this kind of thinking collision during the meeting. Additionally, silence can also be an effective way to create conflict. If a group interacts without sound, such as everyone typing in a shared document, the brainstorming effect will be better. This way, everyone can contribute ideas simultaneously without being influenced by the first speaker, leading to more diverse opinions.

Host: How can one become a good listener?

Steve: Listening has multiple components, and the key to listening is caring about what the other person is saying. Therefore, active listening means truly engaging with what the other person is saying and striving to understand their message. For example, using phrases like "help me understand" or "please say more" is aimed at better interacting with the other person.

Host: How often should one-on-one meetings be held?

Steve: We have one-on-one interactions every day, but I want to talk about something different. The book I wrote is called "Glad We Met: The Art and Science of One-on-One Meetings." In this context, one-on-one meetings are conducted between managers and their direct reports, not prepared for the managers. It is a dedicated space for employees to express their thoughts and ideas, and managers only need to respond to the employees' content. Research shows that when managers regularly hold these one-on-one meetings and focus on employees' challenges, thoughts, concerns, and opportunities, employee engagement increases, and top talent is more likely to stay.

We investigated from two aspects. First, we asked people about their preferred frequency for one-on-one meetings with their managers, and the vast majority chose once a week. Then, we observed the relationship between frequency and work engagement, finding that weekly or bi-weekly one-on-one meetings yield the best results. Monthly meetings often lead to a lack of continuity in relationships, and discussions become stale and fragmented.

Host: How many people should managers have one-on-one meetings with?

Steve: Managers should have one-on-one meetings with each direct report. Ideally, there should be no more than ten direct reports. The length of these meetings is not as important as their regularity; a high-quality 20-minute meeting each week is as effective as a one-hour meeting. As a manager, if you feel you don't have time for one-on-one meetings, you will lose your best talent.

Host: If one-on-one meetings are so important, why do people hesitate to hold them?

Steve: Because everyone is busy managing their time, often thinking about which meetings can be skipped. One alternative title for my book is "Meetings That Should Never Be Replaced by Emails," because one-on-one meetings truly are that important.

Host: Can you talk about the importance of one-on-one meetings?

Steve: One-on-one meetings refer to in-depth discussions between two participants, and they are crucial for building trust, solving problems, and promoting personal development. Such meetings facilitate more direct communication, allowing both parties to better understand each other's needs and challenges. Typically, higher-level personnel speak the most in meetings, but they do not truly grasp the dynamics of the meeting. The higher the leader, the more they tend to immerse themselves in their own speeches, thinking they are great. They believe that the more people speak, the better the meeting experience. Therefore, they may feel successful at the end of the meeting, but other participants may not share the same sentiment.

Host: What role does guidance play in this?

Steve: Guidance perfectly aligns with the concept of one-on-one meetings. Good mentors usually have no personal agenda and engage in genuine interaction with the mentee. These one-on-one meetings provide opportunities for guidance and coaching, but it is the employee who initiates this process. If an employee raises a specific issue, the manager can provide solutions, while the mentor will ask, "How do you think this problem should be solved?"

Host: In your opinion, which is better, internal mentors or external mentors?

Steve: It depends on the specific role and the employee's tenure in the organization. Generally, for some senior positions, internal mentors can provide more relevant information, while external mentors may be more suitable in specific situations.

Host: How should a meeting be concluded?

Steve: Although meetings come to an end, they often lack a clear conclusion. The best meetings should pause five or three minutes before the end to summarize and clarify what we have discussed.

Different Meeting Formats

Host: In our foundation, we rate meetings, and there is a leaderboard after each meeting. Is this a good idea?

Steve: It's good, but the use of data needs to be more nuanced. As I mentioned earlier, leaders often believe they are better at facilitating meetings than others, which leads to cognitive blind spots. When they think a meeting is running well, they are usually reluctant to change, so feedback and data become particularly important to help raise awareness.

Host: Should we hold meetings while standing?

Steve: Sometimes that can be done, but not always. Research shows that standing meetings generally take half the time and yield similar quality results. However, if the meeting is long, no one will want to stand the entire time. When leading a meeting, there are many options, such as staying quiet, letting participants stand, or having paired discussions before group discussions. For example, a 15-minute quick meeting can be held standing, but for an eight-hour retreat, standing is clearly not the best choice.

Host: What are the differences between online meetings and face-to-face meetings?

Steve: Before the pandemic, virtual meetings were generally rated poorly, and people preferred face-to-face interactions. However, over time, people have adapted to virtual meetings, and their effectiveness has gradually improved. Now, the effectiveness of virtual meetings is roughly on par with face-to-face meetings.

Interestingly, virtual meetings have more potential in some aspects. Because virtual meetings are inherently democratic, everyone is equal, and there is no head table effect. Additionally, online chat can effectively bring in more voices, and anonymous voting and quick consensus plugins make discussions more efficient, reducing the likelihood of being influenced by dominant voices. Therefore, virtual meetings have many advantages and may even surpass face-to-face meetings in certain aspects.

Host: What are your thoughts on multitasking?

Steve: People often multitask during meetings, which actually means they are doing their work. This behavior may harm the effectiveness of the meeting but is beneficial for the organization. One could say that multitasking is a symptom of poor meetings.