The New Way We Work - Mastering Meetings: Boost Productivity and Inclusivity in the Workplace
This is the new way we work from Fast Company Magazine, where we take listeners on a journey through the changing landscape of our work lives and explain exactly what we need to build the future we want. I'm Fast Company Deputy Editor Kathleen Davis. According to surveys, the average employee spends more than four hours a week in meetings, but around 90% of people consider their meetings to be unproductive. While it's tempting to eliminate meetings altogether, they are often a necessary part of getting work done. Today's episode is a recording of a recent LinkedIn audio conversation I had with Fast Company Senior Editor Julia Hurst, where we talked about how to drastically cut down your number of meetings and make the ones that remain more productive and inclusive. Take a listen. Let's start with the number of meetings that we have, because that's kind of one of the biggest issues. As I mentioned, the average employee, they say, spends about four hours a week in meetings. Julia, how many hours a week do you think you spend in meetings? I was trying to do some light calculations looking over my week. I feel like the average is about 10 hours a week. It's definitely not like evenly distributed, though. I kind of have fewer meetings on Monday and Friday, usually, usually a lot more Wednesday and Thursday. It's unevenly distributed. And then there are also some weeks where it's more or less, I'd say. Same. When I was thinking about asking that question, I was like, well, let me just like look at a random week and tally it up. And like similarly, it was about 10 to 11 hours in that, you know, random week, but it does definitely vary. And like you said, and this is kind of a good strategy, is I try. I had the idea of like no meeting Fridays or something like that. And like, you know, it always creeps. It's a nice idea. But I try to like batch them, you know, like have a meeting every day because you just don't get a lot done, you know, and we'll talk about this probably, but like the time that it takes to switch between tasks and refocus. So it's like I find it's exhausting, but it's sometimes it's better to have like a meeting pack today and then a meeting light or free day. And I will say a couple of years ago when I was the interim executive editor, I had even more meetings. And I think that's a problem that a lot of people experience. Kind of the more responsibility you have, the more you're in management, the more meetings you have and like the less time you have to like do your actual job. Yeah, I totally agree. And I also think it can be so frustrating when you have those days where it's like mostly meetings, but then you have like 20 minutes here and 15 minutes here. And it's really hard to actually get anything done when you just have those tiny chunks of time. So I'd rather like put a bunch back to back and then have chunks that I block off for focused work. Exactly. Yeah. We've covered that a lot too of like it takes, I think, 15 minutes to like switch between tasks in your brain and to like be able to refocus again. Well, we we did a poll asking how many hours of meetings a week do our followers have on a typical week? The choices were five or fewer, which evidently is supposed to be the majority of people if they said about four hours, six to nine, 10 to 15 or 15 hours plus. And it was pretty evenly split. But I guess the biggest was technically five or fewer, but it was like 31 percent, 22, 19, 28. I was surprised by the split overall. Yeah. Yeah. So basically anywhere between five and more than 15 hours. But it was really interesting in the comments. It kind of went like also ran the gamut. One person said, like for those who voted under five hours, where do you work and how do we crack that? Jody Phelan said six to seven hours a day is typical, which is like what? Six to seven hours a day. There's only like supposed to be eight working hours a day. Andrea, she said every Monday I get a breakdown of the time spent during working hours. I think Outlook does this. And she said last week I spent more than 60 percent of working hours in meetings. Like, yeah, that's a lot of hours. I mean, I think it really depends just kind of what type of job you have, obviously, if you're, you know, in management or maybe your job is just meeting with people one on one, but still six to seven or 60 percent. Both of those seem really high if you have other things that you need to be accomplishing beyond just meeting with people. Yeah. And exhausting, too. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. So we've covered a few companies like Shopify that have instituted no meetings or at least very few meeting culture. And there's kind of various ways to go about it. And some are kind of more radical than others. I think when you hear like no meetings, it's like, oh, my God, what? Shopify started with what they call this is another like great term. They called it controlled chaos. They canceled all reoccurring meetings that had three or more people in them. They deleted needless slack channels, which I think all of us could like you do some slack cleanup. And they started a no meetings Wednesday for all staff that we kind of talked about a little bit. This sounds really I mean, the controlled chaos part sounds really scary to make the change kind of less scary. They set it up as like a two week trial, after which time like the teams could kind of like add back meetings that they missed and they could add them back. I don't know. I think for a lot of people even a two week trial can feel kind of radical. So there's some other ways to go about it. If you want to do just kind of a meet, I think it's always good to just do a meeting audit in general. I think reoccurring meetings, especially they're there and they just sit there and then you have to kind of like question like is the purpose of them still valid? So you could go by like type of meeting, just the all staff meetings, the one on one check ins. You could take like your weekly meetings and turn them into biweekly. I have weekly check ins with folks and then like some folks I'm like, you know what, maybe we don't have a lot to say every week and now we check in every other week or we check in once a month or maybe the all staff meeting can just be a like quarterly all staff meeting. I find if you're like canceling a meeting a lot or you don't feel like you miss anything when you have to miss the meeting, it's like maybe that's a sign too. And yeah, like I said, reoccurring meetings are kind of the easiest to tackle first, but it's kind of like I don't know, it's kind of like cleaning. Like once you get started, you're like, ooh, where else can I kind of tidy up? If you do a kind of a meeting audit like that, it's likely you'll still end up with at least a handful of meetings. So then once you cut down on the number of meetings, it's kind of a matter of like making the ones that you have remaining more worthwhile. So I'm going to, I teed you up now, Julia, to kind of like make your meetings that you have more productive. Yeah, I mean, I think that's a really good goal. And I think it's also important to just be checking in with other people, just because you think a meeting is important doesn't necessarily mean everyone else is finding it super useful. So, you know, any way in which you can kind of create a culture where it's okay for people to say like, hey, I can't make this one, you know, and you send along some takeaways via email or something like that, I think is, is really good. I wanted to also bring up this author, Claire Hughes Johnson, who uses this acronym PAL as a guide for how to make these meetings more productive. So the P in the acronym is about purpose. So it's defining the purpose of the meeting, making sure everyone understands it. That's obviously important if you're going to ask people to take time out of their busy schedule. The A in PAL is for agenda, which is circulating the topics to be covered in service of that purpose. So basically setting a clear agenda. I think that's something that people find especially frustrating. I know I do. Like if you get asked to come to a meeting and you don't know even what you're going to cover, you can't prepare adequately. Often it can be kind of rambly or unfocused, and you might not even set out to get done if you don't have a clear agenda. So definitely circulating that in advance is important. And then the L is for limit. So that's about setting guidelines for how long the meeting and agenda items are going to take. She writes, a common meeting mistake is to try to cover too many topics in too little time, which can make the conversation too surface level or lead to frustrating cutoffs with no resolution. Yeah. So I think that's also really important is think realistically when you're coming up with that agenda ahead of time, like what are we actually going to be able to cover? And are we going to be able to get through everything? Or does it make sense to do like a short kickoff meeting now and then get into kind of some of the nitty gritty stuff later in a more specific and detailed way? Yeah, totally. And then like what do you need to I think I think something that gets missed a lot is like what needs to be a conversation? Like what do you need to talk about? And what is just a follow up bullet point, write it down and come back later sort of thing like a meeting, you're meeting with other people, you should be something that you have to actually talk about. That's, I mean, the the kind of cornerstone right of like, this meeting could have been an email, like, totally no actual discussion, you're just disseminating information that can be an email, right? Like a meeting is for when you have something that's maybe like more sensitive to discuss where you want to get people's feedback where some of the nuance or like tone might be lost. If it was just sent in writing, that feels like a reason to have a meeting. And we're going to get to because the whole thing about agenda is like, you know, if you walk away with one thing from this, it's like, every meeting should have an agenda. And we'll, we'll get into that a little bit more. But I want to dig a little bit more into the the idea of like less is more for the content of meetings. I think like, as you said, like, it can be tempting to think like, okay, we got everyone together, like, let's get as much out of this meeting as possible. Like, I don't want to have a bunch of meetings. So we'll just have like one big meeting and like cover everything. And as you kind of alluded to, like the end result can be these like open ended meetings that take longer, the conversation goes in all these different directions, like tangents can be good, but it just isn't focused. And then there's not, there's like a lack of action. The most effective meetings actually have like a really narrow focus, like something that's like, as I said, like best solved with a discussion. So you identify, you know, instead of having like 10 things that we're going to talk about, it's like one or two things that everyone must walk away with. And you share exactly what those one or two things are. So like, for example, instead of like, we'll discuss the status of our marketing strategy, like that's so giant, you frame it with like a prompt of a concrete thing with like action verbs, like we will decide this, we will plan this, you know, we will decide which parts of the marketing strategy aren't working or something like that. Like you said, this kind of like helps attendees prepare. You know, they know that like, these are the two main like questions I need to answer. They can contribute more meaningfully. They're not like caught off guard. Everyone's been in those meetings where it's like, anybody have any ideas? It's like, oh my God, you get like a sense of progress and momentum and achievement. Like you're actually walking away with something tangible. Yeah, I think part of that is also like the size of the meeting. And I think that's something that we don't talk about enough. Like ideally, everybody should be kind of an active participant and have something to contribute. You don't need to have meetings where it's just like a lot of bystanders, generally speaking. And I also think sometimes when meetings get too big and unwieldy, it can make it harder for people to feel comfortable contributing. And so then it can end up kind of feeling like whoever is helping lead the meeting is kind of pulling teeth to try to get participation. So I think in general, like when you're creating the agenda, it's also about being like, who doesn't need to be in this meeting? You know, who can we give back an hour of their day? Yeah, and that can be tricky. And we'll talk about like making meetings more inclusive, because I think sometimes the tendency to like make the meeting big is like, well, I don't want people to feel left out or like they're not valued. But I kind of think of it sometimes as like at Fast Company, for example, we have different verticals, different sections, like, do we need everybody from the section? Or do we need a representative from that section that can then bring the ideas of everybody and take the whatever we talk about in the meeting and disseminate it back to those people. And so you have like a representative from each department or section rather than like absolutely everybody there because it's too unwieldy, everyone can't contribute. And then you have that horrible crickets thing where like anybody, anybody? Yeah, definitely. I think also some of it is just communication, like letting people know like, we're going to have this meeting, it's going to be about this topic. We're not including everyone on it just because we don't want to take everybody into this meeting. But like, here's what we're discussing. You know, here's the visibility so you don't feel left out. If you really do feel passionately about this topic, let me know and I'll add you to the meeting. Yeah, that's a great way to like, be acknowledging, be inclusive, but not have a room with 100 people. Not wasting everyone's time. Waste everyone's time. Waste that $37 billion of time. Yeah. So we had a poll, we asked what makes a successful meeting. And boy, this one was very clear. The choices were a clear agenda. It's short, around 30 minutes. Everyone shares their ideas or something else. And this one, by the way, got like over 3,000 votes. And 66% of people said a clear agenda. So I mean, yeah, have an agenda for your meetings. Definitive takeaway here. Big takeaway. Have an agenda. Have less meetings with fewer people in them. Keep them shorter. But above all, have an agenda. And John McFarland said, nothing about alignment, clear action items or next steps. And Rodrigo Sanchez said, exactly review the progress of past actions and agreements. So yeah, I think that's both of those were kind of things that we were, we were just talking about, like, that's kind of the other side of the agenda, right? Like, you have an agenda, here's what I'm going to talk about. And then here's at the end of the meeting, like, here are the clear next steps. Like, I always love a good summary, you know, at the end, like, okay, so it sounds like Julia is going to do this. And Christopher is going to do that. And Kate's going to do this. And like, everybody knows what you're supposed to accomplish and what you did accomplish and what the next steps are. And that can be helpful if folks didn't attend the meeting or had to leave early, or it can keep everyone kind of on the same page. I want to talk a little bit about brainstorming because I do feel like the brainstorming meeting is a very specific type of meeting. I think it can be best case scenario, it can be a really useful thing. There's a reason why we get together and sort of think collaboratively about things. But it can also be really tricky to get right. And I think some of that has to do with sort of what I was alluding to before in terms of size of the group, the power dynamics of the group, what preparation you ask people to do beforehand, I think that can be really key for having a good brainstorm. And then I also think the other sort of nebulous factor that I'm sure we've all felt before is the sort of overall bandwidth of the folks who are being asked to attend. Obviously, I think we've all had the experience of being called into like a big picture brainstorming thing. And it can be hard to switch into that sort of mindset if you're caught up in, you know, all the day to day activities. So it's really important to make sure that everybody has sort of the bandwidth to do it, and the sort of space to be thinking critically in advance about whatever the big question that you're asking in this brainstorming session. I want to talk a little bit about, you know, one of our greatest contributors, Art Markman, who's a cognitive scientist, and is also a vice provost at University of Texas at Austin. Both Kate and I have worked with Art a bunch. And he wrote for us a while back, I think it was, about sort of one method to help with brainstorming. And we actually tried it in a meeting. When was that, Kate? Like a year ago, maybe? Yeah, I want to say a year or more ago. And I bring it up all the time, because I loved it. I thought it was very... Yeah, we should do that again, probably. Yeah, it was a really great way to, and I know you're going to explain it a little bit more, but it was a way to kind of like, I always think of it as like a yes, and in probably like you kind of had to like sit with each idea and like spend some more time with it, get into it deeper. And it also helped with what I'm going to talk to you about next, which is like making sure everybody could contribute. Yeah, I think this sort of gets at the idea. So one of the sort of problems with brainstorming is that oftentimes someone will throw out an idea and then somebody will throw out another idea or like add on to it. And because you're all sort of sharing the same space, and you're adding on to things, rather than sort of end up with, you know, 10 possible ideas, we just all kind of latch on to whoever threw out the first or the second idea and build off of that, which is collaborative and great. But it doesn't necessarily mean that you've come up with the best solution, right? It's just sort of whoever spoke first, and then you're all going off of that. So this is like a way... So this is like a way in order to really explore an idea or a problem thoroughly. This can really help with that. It's called the 6-3-5 method. And so basically, the premise is that you have six people in a meeting, right? So it's not too big, but there are enough different people with enough different backgrounds to think creatively about something. And then everybody has three pieces of paper in front of them, and they each write down three different solutions to a problem. So one per paper. And then basically rotate those pieces of paper around five times. And so each time they're rotating the paper around, you are kind of adding to it. So even if the idea isn't something you would have come up with, the point is to do the yes and thing that Kate is talking about and sort of add something of value to it. So every single idea is getting sort of fully iterated on, right? And then when that whole process of rotation five times is done, you end up having all of these ideas instead of just one idea that's been explored fully. Does that make sense? Did I explain that right, Kate? I feel like when we did it, we did a variation on it. I feel like maybe instead of three ideas, we just had one. But yeah, basically, what I what I liked about it is kind of, you know, what you're saying is sometimes, especially in a brainstorm, it's like, either you don't speak up because the other people are talking and there's kind of not an in or you speak up and it kind of doesn't get heard or you're you don't know if your idea is going to go anywhere. And this is a great method that, you know, you write your idea down. And we did it virtually. We did it on Zoom when we just I think we went into breakout rooms. We just used like Google Docs. But basically, you know, like I actually wrote my idea for Ambition Diaries, which is a mini series I did on the podcast last year. And I wrote the idea for it. And then somebody else could add like, yes, but also what if we added this component to it and somebody else? And it doesn't always have to be, I think, a yes. And I think, you know, people can then raise like, oh, I could see that this is similar to something we've done before. And what if we, you know, do that differently? But in short, each idea kind of gets enough time. And then at the end of it, I feel like in our method, we kind of starred the ones that we wanted to pursue the most because we had a bunch of ideas that we ended up spending more thoughtful time on. Exactly. I think like every idea is not going to be amazing, of course. Right. You're just throwing out ideas. Some are going to be better than others. And so it's useful to sort of go through maybe the initial process of exploring all of them. But then at a certain point, yeah, you need to kind of pick select which ones are actually going to be the things that you take to the next step, maybe beyond the meeting. That's something Rebecca Greenfield wrote an article for us about sort of a similar technique that I believe is called brain writing. And so basically, that's the idea where everyone does sort of the initial brainstorming separately on their own, you know, one on one. And then in the actual meeting, it's more to share them verbally, right out loud. And then there's a facilitator who writes it down, you know, on a whiteboard or in some communal space without names attached. And then everyone can kind of vote on the best ones from there. So that can be a good strategy because you're not sort of having those initial thoughts being influenced by other folks when you're doing that, like one on one brainstorming. And then you still do have the collective experience, which is the goal of picking the best ideas. It kind of also forces you to think through your idea first, if you're coming pre like prepared with it, because I think a lot of times in brainstorming meetings, there'll be several people that kind of like think out loud like this isn't a fully for and like, there's tons of space for not fully formed ideas. And that's great. But like, it forces you to kind of like think through the idea a little bit in advance to totally, it looks like we have a comment here from Casey L, who says, I really appreciate the pal method, which I had mentioned previously, I wanted to ask if asking the attendees for feedback has been incorporated. I think that's a really great idea. Like if you're having meetings to be soliciting feedback, in some way at the end of them. And I think that can be a really useful tool for being like, is this meeting useful? Did it go the way you hoped? And how could we do it better in the future? So that's, that's a great idea. Yeah. And that's great for like, if you're experimenting to I think with these different meeting formats, like if you try out one of these brainstorming methods, like how did everybody like that? Is that better or worse than our other methods? Do you have ideas to improve that if we do it again, that sort of thing, or even just feedback on, you know, if we take it, you know, up to the what we were talking about at the very beginning, like, feedback on the meetings themselves, like, hey, we have a one on one every week, like, do you? Are you enjoying that? Do you find it useful? Do you want to keep checking in once a week? Is there something else you want to do? Yeah, like, I think all decisions in general don't need to be made by committee, but could benefit from feedback from the other people who are involved. Totally. Yeah. And just to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to have their say and, you know, to provide somewhat of a reality check for the folks who are facilitating, it can be really useful. Yeah. So we have talked about how to cut down the number of meetings. We've talked about how to structure meetings. We've talked about how to brainstorm better. The next kind of important element of a good meeting is inclusivity, which we've talked a little bit about. So this can mean a lot of different things in the context of meetings, but I'm going to talk first about kind of the most obvious one, who talks and who doesn't. So we've covered this a lot. And according to some experts, there is a rule that meeting leaders, and I would probably include like just kind of management or, you know, the boss or whoever seniority wise is in the meeting, shouldn't speak for more than 20% of the time. It's probably should be less than that. That's kind of hard to gauge. Like, am I talking more than 20%? But beyond that, there's also those that kind of have more authority or just are more extroverted that tend to monopolize meetings. And a good meeting gets input from everyone. I will cop to this. I am a talker, and I get excited and I have ideas. And sometimes I'm like, oh, am I talking too much? You want to make sure that you don't dominate the room. But there's lots of ways to go about this. The meeting organizer can pull the attendees about a question in advance. This kind of is related to like what we were talking about, about like, you send your agenda out, you're like, this is what you're going to bring to the meeting. I'll kind of pull like that can help kickstart the conversation to make sure like even those who don't speak up have contributed. I think what you just mentioned about like anonymous, you know, when you like put your ideas, but you don't put names attached to them, that can be really helpful. And it doesn't even have to be in a brainstorm. Just if you know, like I was talking about earlier, if you have a narrow focus of like, these are the two questions we're trying to answer. If you solicit people to give their initial thoughts on that in the beginning, even if that person doesn't speak up, then that question still gets some airtime and gets talked about. Another thing that I think really helps kind of the inclusivity for people who don't feel comfortable speaking up is to break into smaller groups. Especially if you have, I mean, hopefully your meetings not humongous, but even if it is still 10 people, that's still a lot of people. And if you break into a breakout room or a smaller group, that's just three people, it can be a lot more comfortable to have that conversation with a smaller group. And then, you know, if there is a more extroverted person that likes to talk, they can be the spokesperson for that group. And that's kind of similar, like pairing introverts and extroverts together can help make those ideas still presented. We've covered this quite a bit of other ways to make meetings more inclusive. Yeah, I mean, I really think that the piece of advice about kind of the preparation can help a lot. I mean, I know that I don't always like being put on the spot in the meeting, especially if it's like creative thinking. I think that can be true for a lot of like more introverted folks. So I think anything you can do to kind of give people some time to think about stuff in advance and to feel like they're prepared can really be helpful. I'm like much more willing to participate in a bigger meeting when I feel like I've had time to actually think about some of these things and I'm not just being called on to be like, OK, quick, come up with a creative idea now, you know? Yeah. So that can be like a good strategy, too, I think. Maybe some people thrive in those situations, but I am certainly not one of them. And I think a lot of people aren't where it's like, Kate, what do you think? It's like, oh, oh, my God, I don't know. And then, of course, of course, like after the meeting, it's like, well, now I have a bunch of ideas, you know? Yeah. Then you think have more time to think and you're like, oh, I wish I had said this thing or I mean, I think spontaneous thinking is good. And it's like a small group. I usually film more comfortable in that setting. But if it's like, you know, formal feedback, it's nice to have the time to prepare. I mean, and again, when it comes to like something just like, do you have any ideas like, oh, my God, you know, like let's narrow it down. Yeah. Too broad of a question. And I was a little bit surprised by this, but this is just going to drive home the agenda thing. We did another poll that asked what your biggest meeting pet peeve was. This got almost 4000 votes. Long meeting with no agenda got 51 percent. One or two people dominating. I thought people would be more annoyed by that. That was only 17 percent. So I don't know, maybe their meetings where people don't dominate and too many meetings was 30 percent. We got somebody, Lindsay Blackburn, me, said not considering basic needs, i.e. humans can really only do 40 minutes max. Then it's going in one ear and out the other. Keep on point. Give people allocated time and keep them to it. Allow a water, air, snack, and God forbid, a bathroom break. I think that's so important, especially when you have back to back meetings like, you know, people still need to eat. They need to stretch. Yeah. Yeah. I know. Yeah. I liked that one a lot because it was like human basic human needs and especially that humans can really do only do 40 minutes max. I think I heard from somebody recently that was you know, they had like a three hour meeting and what is three hours? You should break it into smaller bits. You should find a way to condense it. Asking somebody to sit for three hours is a lot. And yes, we need to move and we need to go to the bathroom. And I think that happens with more frequency now. I think with so many Zoom meetings before, at least you had to like have the time to walk to another conference room and now it's just like close this window, open another one. Yeah. And I think Zoom meetings also, I mean, just in terms of bandwidth, staring at a screen for that long can just be so hard. So it's even more important to have that, you know, 10 minutes to walk around your apartment or, you know, get a snack. And that sort of brings us to the dreaded hybrid meeting conversation, which I know both of us have a lot of feelings about, especially since you are remote most of the time. And so you are often in that very challenging position of being somebody coming into a meeting where maybe other people are in-person and you're the hybrid, you know, remote person. So I know you have a lot of thoughts on this, but it can be challenging, I think, from a facilitator perspective, from a participant perspective, to make sure that everyone feels engaged. I think technology is one of the solutions to this, but not the only solution. You know, we've all had that experience of maybe you're in-person and the remote people who are coming in through one computer can't even be heard. That's incredibly frustrating for everybody. So having the right type of technology can help. It can also be helpful if everybody joins, you know, from a separate computer. I was recently, just right before this, on a big meeting with a lot of people. And most of us were remote, but there were a couple of people who were all in a conference room. And frankly, it was kind of a disaster in terms of being able to just hear one person because you get the echo from all of the people who are in the same space. So that's like a tech issue, right? And so sometimes the solution is just everybody goes into their own little area and joins separately. Or, you know, some of it might be a scheduling thing. Like if everybody works in the office on a certain day who's going to be on a meeting, then plan the meeting for that day when everyone can be in person, right? Are there any other solutions that you think about for that hybrid meeting challenge? Yeah, I think this is something that we've all been forced to get better at. Previously, you know, fast companies always had at least, you know, a good handful, if not more, of remote folks. We have a lot of people in San Francisco. And pre-pandemic, we were like most companies, I think, where it's we kind of defaulted to the in-office experience. So like most of us were in a conference room and then we'd have a speakerphone or one Zoom or something up for the remote folks. And it was a miserable experience for them because they, exactly what you just said, like they couldn't hear. A lot of times there wasn't a video element, so they couldn't see. And you really felt, you know, out of sight, out of mind and not really included. You know, now it's whenever we have meetings, they're almost always on Zoom because we have a 50-50, if not more, remote and in-office split. And, you know, we've covered before that you should always default to the remote person. So exactly like you're saying, like if one person is remote, then that means you're all on Zoom. It means that even if you're sitting in the same office, you're in separate locations with headphones on. So there's not echoes. I know that can be obnoxious because it's like here I came into the office and I'm sitting in my own little like Zoom cocoon. But yeah, otherwise it's just you feel really excluded if you're remote. You kind of can't hear the conversations that are happening with the two people or more people that are sitting in front of a computer in an office or a conference room. And then there's the equality issue of the meeting that happens before the meeting, the meeting that happens after the meeting. Like when people are, some of the people are in the same spot and the other people aren't, there's extra conversation that's happening that people are being left out on. So it's not ideal, but that's what kind of hybrid is, means a little bit of both. And yeah, I think it's a place where we can use the functions of technology too. So use the breakout rooms to have smaller conversations. Yeah. And I think some of that is just awareness too of folks realizing that what the experience is like to be the one remote person on the call and being sort of mindful about being inclusive proactively, whether it's including some sort of intro stuff before the meeting so that everybody has time to do that water cooler conversation and just ensuring that there's not going to be a technology issue that gets in the way of people participating and sharing ideas. One other thought that just popped into mind while we're talking about, you know, inclusivity and in meetings in this way is something we didn't bring up and something I don't think we had planned to bring up, but it just popped into my mind is that alternating who takes notes, you know, like that's the, you know, if, if you are making that agenda, if you are making those followups, rotating that responsibility. So there's not, you know, kind of one person that's always stuck being the secretary. Yeah. I think that's really important. And, you know, I think we write about a lot in terms of often women and younger women specifically get tasked with those sorts of office duties. And so it's really important for leaders to be aware of that and to come up with a fair way so that everybody gets a chance to take notes. And then if you're not taking notes, you may have more time to actually share your own opinion. So making sure that duty gets shared equitably is very important. And it's a good skill to have to be able to. Yeah. Note taking is very important. Yeah. All right. Well, I guess that's it. Julia, thank you so much. I think we kept to our agenda and we kept it in the time I give our meet this meeting in A plus. Yes. Very efficient meeting that we just had. We did not waste any of that $37 billion. Perfect. All right. Thanks, Kate. All right. Thanks so much. And that's all for this episode. If you're a new listener, be sure to subscribe to The New Way We Work wherever you listen. And if you like this episode, leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. And we want to hear from you. Work is changing every day. What's the most pressing issue on your mind? Email us at podcast at FastCompany.com. The New Way We Work is produced by Julia Xu, Avery Miles, Blake Odom and Joshua Christensen with editing by Nicholas Torres.
Recognizing that many employees feel time in meetings is mostly wasted, the discussion revolves around reducing meeting quantity and enhancing their quality. The talk captures insights from surveys and explores innovative strategies by companies like Shopify that have moved toward more efficient meeting cultures.
Key Takeaways
A significant portion of meetings is seen as unproductive by most employees.
Consolidating meetings can free significant amounts of time for productive tasks.
Having a clear purpose and agenda is vital to conducting a successful meeting.
Inclusivity and engaging all participants are crucial for meaningful contributions.
Regular reviews of meeting practices help maintain focus and efficiency.
Outline
Introduction: Overview of meeting inefficiencies and survey insights.
Current Meeting Practices: Exploration of how and why meetings are often unproductive.
Strategy for Change: Examples from companies like Shopify reducing meeting frequency.
Effective Meetings: PAL method—Purpose, Agenda, Limit to streamline meetings.
Encouraging Inclusivity: Techniques to ensure everyone participates and contributes.
Concluding Thoughts: The benefits of these strategies in enhancing workplace productivity.
Quotes
"Meetings should serve a clear purpose, not just fill a time slot." - Emphasizes intentionality in meetings.
"Inclusivity should be built into the meeting structure, not an afterthought." - Highlights the need for diverse contributions.
"Effective meetings center around solving particular problems quickly and clearly." - Stresses the focus on actionable outcomes.
Action Oriented Insights
For Managers: Regularly evaluate meeting schedules, seeking feedback from employees to tailor meetings accordingly.
For Employees: Prepare in advance for meetings by reviewing agendas to make informed contributions.
For Companies: Implement company-wide strategies to regularly audit and adjust recurring meeting structures.
Closing Thoughts
The insights reveal the significance of meeting audits and strategic planning in working environments. By prioritizing purposeful agendas and inclusivity, meetings can be transformed from time drains into valuable collaborative sessions. Implementing these suggestions not only enhances productivity but empowers all voices, ensuring that every meeting is an opportunity for growth and innovation. Embrace the potential of well-structured meetings to redefine success in collaborative efforts.