WEBVTT 00:00:03.030 --> 00:00:07.020 Matt Abrahams: What if people actually thanked you for the meetings you ran? 00:00:07.350 --> 00:00:10.470 My name's Matt Abrahams and I teach strategic communication at 00:00:10.470 --> 00:00:12.300 Stanford Graduate School of Business. 00:00:12.390 --> 00:00:15.450 Welcome to Think Fast Talk Smart, the podcast. 00:00:16.079 --> 00:00:18.330 Today I look forward to speaking with Rebecca Hinds. 00:00:18.540 --> 00:00:22.440 Rebecca's expertise is in the future of work and how to help make work better. 00:00:22.740 --> 00:00:27.180 She founded the Work Innovation Lab at Asana and the Work AI Institute at Glean. 00:00:27.400 --> 00:00:31.450 Rebecca is the author of your Best Meeting Ever: Seven Principles for 00:00:31.450 --> 00:00:33.760 Designing Meetings That Get Things Done. 00:00:34.210 --> 00:00:35.080 Welcome, Rebecca. 00:00:35.080 --> 00:00:37.089 I'm super excited for our conversation. 00:00:37.089 --> 00:00:39.280 This is a topic that's really important to me. 00:00:39.580 --> 00:00:40.339 Rebecca Hinds: Thanks so much, Matt. 00:00:40.360 --> 00:00:41.980 I'm really looking forward to the conversation. 00:00:42.010 --> 00:00:42.730 Matt Abrahams: Shall we get started? 00:00:42.730 --> 00:00:43.269 Rebecca Hinds: Let's do it. 00:00:43.330 --> 00:00:43.810 Matt Abrahams: Awesome. 00:00:43.930 --> 00:00:47.050 I wanna start by sharing a secret about something that just happened. 00:00:47.125 --> 00:00:49.690 I had a meeting cancel and I was thrilled. 00:00:49.959 --> 00:00:50.685 I know I'm not alone. 00:00:51.240 --> 00:00:53.130 I'd like to begin by level setting. 00:00:53.280 --> 00:00:57.450 Why do people dislike meetings so much and why are meetings so broken? 00:00:57.660 --> 00:01:01.410 Rebecca Hinds: It's such a great question because it's not so much that people hate 00:01:01.440 --> 00:01:05.910 meetings, it's people hate bad meetings, and we have too many bad meetings. 00:01:06.150 --> 00:01:10.560 Often we love a good meeting, and there are a few things that energize us and 00:01:10.560 --> 00:01:12.810 inspire us more than a good meeting. 00:01:12.840 --> 00:01:16.440 The problem is those are too rare in so many organizations. 00:01:16.440 --> 00:01:21.310 And so, we've developed what I call a meeting suck reflex, where there's 00:01:21.310 --> 00:01:26.649 this visceral reaction that we have to the phrase meetings, the idea 00:01:26.649 --> 00:01:28.630 of a meeting, going to a meeting. 00:01:28.720 --> 00:01:32.350 And that's again, rooted in the fact that we know bad is stronger 00:01:32.350 --> 00:01:36.699 than good, negative emotions and experiences have a much greater 00:01:36.699 --> 00:01:38.649 impact on us than positive ones. 00:01:38.860 --> 00:01:42.729 And because of this, there's this aura of negativity around meetings. 00:01:42.729 --> 00:01:46.030 And when you look at some of the research, it's fascinating to see 00:01:46.030 --> 00:01:51.125 that when people rate their meetings in public, they tend to rate them 00:01:51.125 --> 00:01:53.225 much more negatively than in private. 00:01:53.465 --> 00:01:56.345 And that's because there's all this social conditioning around 00:01:56.345 --> 00:01:58.415 the idea of a meeting as negative. 00:01:58.620 --> 00:02:00.965 Matt Abrahams: I, I know we're gonna talk about things we can do to make meetings go 00:02:00.965 --> 00:02:03.965 better, but I'm wondering if we just call them something else, does that make us 00:02:03.965 --> 00:02:08.045 feel a little better if we just say, Hey, let's have a collab or a standup, instead 00:02:08.045 --> 00:02:09.259 of actually using the word meeting? 00:02:09.810 --> 00:02:13.950 Rebecca Hinds: Rooted in a lot of this is this default reaction 00:02:13.950 --> 00:02:16.320 we have to schedule meetings. 00:02:16.380 --> 00:02:17.760 So it's a paradox, right? 00:02:17.760 --> 00:02:21.870 Because we know they're inefficient, we dread them on so many occasions, 00:02:22.140 --> 00:02:25.620 and yet our knee jerk reaction is to use them whenever we have a 00:02:25.620 --> 00:02:29.550 problem, whenever we need alignment, if we're unclear on next steps. 00:02:29.579 --> 00:02:33.840 And so part of this is we're so accustomed to using a meeting as a 00:02:33.840 --> 00:02:40.220 communication tool, even when we have other things called Slack or Asana that 00:02:40.280 --> 00:02:44.450 often are much more efficient ways to communicate, we default to the meeting. 00:02:44.450 --> 00:02:47.090 And there are a whole host of different psychological reasons 00:02:47.090 --> 00:02:51.230 why we're so obsessed with using meetings in our workplaces. 00:02:51.540 --> 00:02:53.790 Matt Abrahams: In the consulting work I do, one of the first things 00:02:53.790 --> 00:02:57.540 I'll do is a communication audit of a company, and the first place I go is, 00:02:57.600 --> 00:02:58.710 what are the meetings you're having? 00:02:58.710 --> 00:02:59.490 How many meetings? 00:02:59.490 --> 00:03:00.660 Who's going to those meetings? 00:03:00.750 --> 00:03:04.260 Because as you said, there's sort of a default knee jerk reaction to fixing 00:03:04.320 --> 00:03:07.950 any communication problem, and there are certainly places where meetings make a 00:03:07.950 --> 00:03:11.760 lot of sense, but people throw meetings as like a bandaid to fix a bigger problem. 00:03:12.210 --> 00:03:12.990 So let's solve it. 00:03:13.170 --> 00:03:16.500 What are some ideas, top three ideas, for example, that we 00:03:16.500 --> 00:03:18.600 could use to improve meetings? 00:03:18.900 --> 00:03:19.290 Rebecca Hinds: Sure. 00:03:19.290 --> 00:03:23.820 So the premise of the book, Your Best Meeting Ever, is the idea that we need 00:03:23.820 --> 00:03:26.190 to be treating meetings as a product. 00:03:26.220 --> 00:03:31.200 Meetings are the most important product in our entire organization, and yet 00:03:31.200 --> 00:03:33.030 they're also the least optimized. 00:03:33.180 --> 00:03:37.260 And so the first step is recognizing we need to be much more intentional 00:03:37.260 --> 00:03:39.360 about how we're designing meetings. 00:03:39.420 --> 00:03:42.240 We can schedule them with just a couple clicks. 00:03:42.240 --> 00:03:43.710 That doesn't mean we should be. 00:03:43.920 --> 00:03:47.295 And so that intentionality is really important and I think the first step. 00:03:47.925 --> 00:03:49.635 Matt Abrahams: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. 00:03:49.695 --> 00:03:50.355 Rebecca Hinds: Exactly. 00:03:50.415 --> 00:03:51.975 Because they're so expensive. 00:03:51.975 --> 00:03:55.125 They're the most expensive communication tool we have. 00:03:55.155 --> 00:03:59.445 No other communication tool requires everyone to be synchronously in 00:03:59.445 --> 00:04:03.135 person, coordinating schedules, real time conversation. 00:04:03.195 --> 00:04:06.555 They're immensely expensive, not just in terms of, you know, the payroll 00:04:06.555 --> 00:04:10.755 costs, but also in terms of the mental load that they often consume. 00:04:11.050 --> 00:04:14.890 Matt Abrahams: That idea of expense is really interesting because when we 00:04:14.890 --> 00:04:18.340 just do it because it's easy, but when you think about the cost, not just 00:04:18.519 --> 00:04:23.110 financially, but in time and focus, it really is one of, as you said, the most 00:04:23.110 --> 00:04:24.850 expensive way to bring people together. 00:04:25.000 --> 00:04:27.610 Are there other things we can do besides being intentional? 00:04:27.859 --> 00:04:28.460 Rebecca Hinds: Yes. 00:04:28.549 --> 00:04:33.799 Often I'll be brought into an organization when meetings are just so 00:04:33.799 --> 00:04:39.109 broken that these surface level fixes aren't going to work, and certainly 00:04:39.109 --> 00:04:43.820 meeting audits aren't going to move the needle in terms of truly resetting 00:04:43.820 --> 00:04:45.620 the culture within the organization. 00:04:45.650 --> 00:04:49.070 So I've ran many, of what I call, meeting doomsdays. 00:04:49.295 --> 00:04:54.575 So a meeting doomsday is essentially a 48 hour calendar cleanse where you delete 00:04:54.575 --> 00:04:57.095 your recurring meetings for 48 hours. 00:04:57.095 --> 00:05:00.335 Ideally, you do it as a team, and ideally, in the best case, 00:05:00.335 --> 00:05:02.225 you do it as a organization. 00:05:02.315 --> 00:05:07.175 And after those 48 hours have elapsed, employees are instructed to 00:05:07.265 --> 00:05:09.035 rebuild their calendar from scratch. 00:05:09.110 --> 00:05:13.610 So determine which meetings are worth bringing back to the calendar and in 00:05:13.610 --> 00:05:17.540 whatever design they think is gonna be most valuable for the work at hand. 00:05:17.540 --> 00:05:21.530 So think about the length, think about the cadence, think about the attendees, 00:05:21.590 --> 00:05:24.080 and rebuild your calendar from scratch. 00:05:24.080 --> 00:05:30.200 And we find that type of full reset is much more powerful than a meeting audit 00:05:30.200 --> 00:05:34.940 because it empowers you to wipe the slate clean, start with a fresh slate. 00:05:34.940 --> 00:05:38.950 You're not in the mindset of defending the meetings already on your calendar. 00:05:39.070 --> 00:05:41.109 You're really starting from a fresh slate. 00:05:41.320 --> 00:05:43.539 Matt Abrahams: I love this idea of a calendar cleanse. 00:05:43.840 --> 00:05:47.530 Are there certain criteria you advise people to follow as they're thinking 00:05:47.530 --> 00:05:52.150 about building back their calendars in terms of importance, frequency? 00:05:52.180 --> 00:05:53.830 What are the questions we should think about? 00:05:54.045 --> 00:05:57.915 Rebecca Hinds: In the book, I talk about this idea of the four DCEO rule, right? 00:05:57.975 --> 00:06:00.255 What actually deserves to be a meeting. 00:06:00.255 --> 00:06:04.665 We have so many status updates on our calendar, broadcast meetings, 00:06:04.815 --> 00:06:08.925 information exchanges that shouldn't be on our calendar, and so the four 00:06:08.925 --> 00:06:13.935 DCEO test is essentially a two-part test to determine whether a meeting 00:06:13.935 --> 00:06:15.405 should exist on your calendar. 00:06:15.515 --> 00:06:17.705 So first is the four D test. 00:06:17.705 --> 00:06:22.835 A meeting should only exist if the purpose is to decide, debate, discuss, 00:06:22.835 --> 00:06:25.175 or develop yourself or your team. 00:06:25.265 --> 00:06:27.485 Now you'll notice what's not on that list. 00:06:27.575 --> 00:06:32.284 Broadcast updates, boss briefings, information exchange, status updates. 00:06:32.625 --> 00:06:34.725 Those don't pass the four D test. 00:06:34.845 --> 00:06:38.595 Now, even if the content of a meeting passes the four D test, 00:06:38.685 --> 00:06:42.105 it still needs to pass the second part of the test, the CEO test. 00:06:42.285 --> 00:06:45.675 So a meeting should only be scheduled if the purpose meets 00:06:45.675 --> 00:06:47.085 one of the following criteria. 00:06:47.115 --> 00:06:48.855 So it should be complex. 00:06:48.915 --> 00:06:53.535 The content should be complex enough where we can't efficiently 00:06:53.560 --> 00:06:55.180 exchange it in advance. 00:06:55.180 --> 00:06:59.230 It really does require bringing everyone together, synchronously, 00:06:59.230 --> 00:07:03.520 to bounce ideas off of each other, iterate, build on top of one another. 00:07:03.610 --> 00:07:05.380 E, is it emotionally intense? 00:07:05.380 --> 00:07:10.120 So if it involves managing emotions or interpreting emotions, you're giving 00:07:10.120 --> 00:07:12.550 hard feedback or a performance review. 00:07:12.625 --> 00:07:15.385 It's no longer just about facts, it's about feeling. 00:07:15.385 --> 00:07:17.935 Empathy is really important, reading body language. 00:07:18.325 --> 00:07:21.235 And then, O, is it a one-way door decision? 00:07:21.265 --> 00:07:25.465 So this comes from Amazon and Jeff Bezos, where they essentially said 00:07:25.525 --> 00:07:30.415 one-way door decisions are decisions where once you walk through the door, 00:07:30.415 --> 00:07:34.435 it's very difficult, if not impossible, to go back the other direction. 00:07:34.645 --> 00:07:39.805 And in those cases, the cost of misalignment is so high, it's so risky, 00:07:39.865 --> 00:07:44.095 where often you wanna have a meeting to ensure at everyone's on the same page. 00:07:44.275 --> 00:07:46.825 Matt Abrahams: Everybody knows I love a good acronym, and 00:07:46.825 --> 00:07:48.085 this is a very useful one. 00:07:48.085 --> 00:07:52.075 So the four Ds, decide, debate, discuss, or develop employees, 00:07:52.225 --> 00:07:53.215 and that's not enough. 00:07:53.335 --> 00:07:57.115 Even if you meet that bar, then it's is it a complex decision? 00:07:57.265 --> 00:07:58.645 Are emotions involved? 00:07:58.645 --> 00:08:00.955 And is it a one-way high stakes choice? 00:08:01.010 --> 00:08:04.969 If it meets those criteria, then we put it on the calendar. 00:08:05.060 --> 00:08:06.349 Rebecca Hinds: Then we put it on the calendar. 00:08:06.349 --> 00:08:09.770 But we do so very intentionally and we think about various 00:08:09.770 --> 00:08:11.060 dimensions of the meeting. 00:08:11.060 --> 00:08:14.510 I think there are four in particular that are important to think about. 00:08:14.570 --> 00:08:15.650 One is the length. 00:08:15.650 --> 00:08:19.730 We often default to 30 to 60 minute entries on our calendar. 00:08:19.730 --> 00:08:23.750 A lot of that is because those are the default settings of these calendar tools. 00:08:23.810 --> 00:08:27.260 We need to think much more intentionally about the length of meetings. 00:08:27.479 --> 00:08:29.280 The cadence is also important. 00:08:29.280 --> 00:08:33.390 So one of the things we see consistently with these meeting resets and 00:08:33.390 --> 00:08:37.559 doomsdays, people will start to think carefully about whether that weekly 00:08:37.559 --> 00:08:39.480 meeting needs to be a weekly meeting. 00:08:39.539 --> 00:08:40.980 Can it be a monthly meeting? 00:08:40.980 --> 00:08:42.539 Can it be a quarterly meeting? 00:08:42.630 --> 00:08:44.579 And so the cadence is really important. 00:08:44.760 --> 00:08:49.230 The attendees, so thinking about who absolutely needs to be in the room. 00:08:49.350 --> 00:08:51.300 Often we tend to over invite. 00:08:51.590 --> 00:08:53.000 And agenda items. 00:08:53.030 --> 00:08:57.440 So think very carefully about the items you're putting on the agenda, because that 00:08:57.440 --> 00:09:01.790 can be another source of meeting clutter and meeting bloat within organizations. 00:09:01.790 --> 00:09:06.380 Too many agenda items or agenda items that don't really move the work forward. 00:09:06.650 --> 00:09:08.870 Matt Abrahams: I really like that thought process as well. 00:09:09.050 --> 00:09:10.723 Let's look inside a meeting. 00:09:10.723 --> 00:09:12.077 You talked about agendas. 00:09:12.077 --> 00:09:15.467 Do you have any advice on how to structure agendas? 00:09:15.467 --> 00:09:17.207 Clearly you said not too many items. 00:09:17.387 --> 00:09:18.947 I have a personal pet peeve. 00:09:18.947 --> 00:09:22.187 I really don't like when meetings start by reviewing the previous meeting. 00:09:22.367 --> 00:09:25.217 'Cause I often don't like having been in the previous meeting. 00:09:25.217 --> 00:09:28.277 So to remind me of that meeting now sort of sets me in a negative place. 00:09:28.427 --> 00:09:31.577 I do understand that reviewing previous work is important, 00:09:31.577 --> 00:09:32.957 but maybe not the first thing. 00:09:32.957 --> 00:09:35.627 Do you have suggestions for what happens in the meeting? 00:09:35.907 --> 00:09:39.117 Rebecca Hinds: Well, again, I think that's a form of information exchange 00:09:39.117 --> 00:09:43.467 and probably can be handled effectively asynchronously before the meeting. 00:09:43.617 --> 00:09:48.447 So my favorite strategy for agendas is to think about each agenda item as 00:09:48.447 --> 00:09:50.787 a combination of a verb and a noun. 00:09:51.202 --> 00:09:56.422 Often agenda items are laundry list items that are thrown together haphazardly. 00:09:56.422 --> 00:10:00.382 There's research to suggest that about 50% of agenda items I think 00:10:00.382 --> 00:10:02.392 are recycled from the previous week. 00:10:02.452 --> 00:10:06.142 So again, we're not being intentional about how we're designing the meetings. 00:10:06.202 --> 00:10:11.387 So instead of saying team discussion, frame it as a verb and a noun. 00:10:11.627 --> 00:10:14.477 Decide this noun, align on this. 00:10:14.567 --> 00:10:19.247 And that also has the added benefit of determining whether that actually 00:10:19.247 --> 00:10:20.537 needs to happen in the meeting. 00:10:20.537 --> 00:10:24.137 Because if you can't transform something into a verb, it probably 00:10:24.137 --> 00:10:25.817 doesn't deserve to be in the meeting. 00:10:25.937 --> 00:10:29.537 We know that disproportionately more time is spent on the 00:10:29.537 --> 00:10:31.667 earlier items in the agenda list. 00:10:31.667 --> 00:10:36.982 So, put your most important topics, typically, up on the agenda item list. 00:10:36.982 --> 00:10:42.742 Sometimes you might want to have some sort of less cognitively taxing item to warm 00:10:42.742 --> 00:10:47.272 people up, but in general, you also should think about the ordering of agenda items. 00:10:47.392 --> 00:10:51.707 Agendas also suffer from what's called the law of triviality, which means 00:10:51.802 --> 00:10:56.932 that essentially we're more inclined to spend disproportionately high 00:10:56.932 --> 00:10:59.692 time on the things that are easier. 00:10:59.777 --> 00:11:02.597 The agenda items that are less cognitively taxing. 00:11:02.717 --> 00:11:05.957 So another word for this law is called bike shedding. 00:11:06.017 --> 00:11:13.127 And that term bike shedding comes from an old story around two agenda items that 00:11:13.187 --> 00:11:19.007 were essentially different in terms of the cost associated with the agenda items. 00:11:19.162 --> 00:11:22.612 One was a nuclear power plant that was millions of dollars. 00:11:22.672 --> 00:11:25.852 And the second was a bike shed that was, I think a thousand dollars. 00:11:25.942 --> 00:11:27.742 It was in Britain, so it was in pounds. 00:11:27.952 --> 00:11:31.522 And essentially what they found is most of the conversation focused 00:11:31.522 --> 00:11:36.247 on the bike shed because it's much easier to start to think about, 00:11:36.247 --> 00:11:38.107 okay, what colors should the wall be? 00:11:38.137 --> 00:11:40.207 Should there be a light in the bike shed? 00:11:40.237 --> 00:11:43.777 Versus the nuclear power plant is much more cognitively taxing. 00:11:43.897 --> 00:11:48.127 It's much easier to skip that item, default to the person who has the 00:11:48.127 --> 00:11:51.757 best proposal, and avoid those tough conversations around the 00:11:51.757 --> 00:11:54.217 risky and cognitively taxing topics. 00:11:54.277 --> 00:11:57.607 So again, this intentionality is really important when we think 00:11:57.607 --> 00:11:58.927 about agenda items as well. 00:11:59.187 --> 00:12:01.527 Matt Abrahams: You taught me about bike shedding, but I've seen it happen 00:12:01.527 --> 00:12:04.497 in the meetings I've been in where we spend time on the trivial matters. 00:12:04.767 --> 00:12:06.087 So I heard a couple things there. 00:12:06.087 --> 00:12:09.027 I love the idea of leading with a verb, and I think this is 00:12:09.027 --> 00:12:12.267 important not just in agenda items, but in how you title meetings. 00:12:12.327 --> 00:12:15.597 Because you can set people's expectations just in the meeting title. 00:12:15.597 --> 00:12:19.017 And people have heard me say this before, I think the calendar invite is the most 00:12:19.017 --> 00:12:21.807 underutilized expectation setting tool. 00:12:21.807 --> 00:12:24.327 You can do it by what you call it, as you said earlier, about 00:12:24.327 --> 00:12:25.457 how long the meetings are. 00:12:25.777 --> 00:12:29.872 And this idea of thinking about cognitive effort for the agenda item. 00:12:29.872 --> 00:12:34.402 So what I heard you say is perhaps start with something that's less cognitively 00:12:34.402 --> 00:12:38.332 burdensome at first, just to get things moving, but then pretty soon after 00:12:38.392 --> 00:12:42.082 the more intense or important issues, and then save the ones that might be 00:12:42.082 --> 00:12:43.912 a little less intense for the end. 00:12:44.147 --> 00:12:45.347 Rebecca Hinds: In general, yes. 00:12:45.437 --> 00:12:49.577 Again, thinking about systems thinking, it's also important to 00:12:49.607 --> 00:12:53.237 consider, you know, have you had a heavy meeting day prior to that? 00:12:53.237 --> 00:12:55.037 Are you already cognitively taxed? 00:12:55.037 --> 00:12:58.607 Is the meeting happening at the beginning of the day or after lunch, or at 00:12:58.607 --> 00:13:00.617 the very end of, you know, a Friday? 00:13:00.737 --> 00:13:04.247 And so thinking holistically also about, okay, what is the context 00:13:04.247 --> 00:13:07.037 that people are walking into as they're walking into this meeting? 00:13:07.577 --> 00:13:09.437 Matt Abrahams: That is such an important point. 00:13:09.617 --> 00:13:13.247 We tend to fixate on our meeting and not the experience 00:13:13.247 --> 00:13:14.777 of the people in the meeting. 00:13:14.777 --> 00:13:18.257 And if this is my fifth meeting of the day and this is important 00:13:18.257 --> 00:13:20.897 work, maybe it's better to move the meeting to the following day. 00:13:20.897 --> 00:13:25.937 So as architects of meetings, we also have to consider how our participants 00:13:25.937 --> 00:13:29.877 are coming to us, and that I think amen and exclamation point to that. 00:13:30.552 --> 00:13:34.482 Many people might have heard at companies like Amazon, and I think 00:13:34.482 --> 00:13:38.292 Twitter did it as well, where everybody shows up with a written document 00:13:38.442 --> 00:13:41.532 and the first part of the meeting is reading the six pager or whatever. 00:13:41.772 --> 00:13:42.732 Do you have thoughts on that? 00:13:42.732 --> 00:13:46.392 I can see the benefit of alignment, because the reality is I ask my students 00:13:46.392 --> 00:13:49.182 to do homework and some show up having done it and some don't, and then all of 00:13:49.182 --> 00:13:52.632 a sudden I'm teaching a class where not everybody's on the same page, literally. 00:13:52.632 --> 00:13:53.592 What do you think about that? 00:13:53.722 --> 00:13:56.392 Rebecca Hinds: I think in general it's a very healthy practice. 00:13:56.392 --> 00:14:00.442 We see so many instances of people showing up unprepared for the meeting, 00:14:00.562 --> 00:14:04.432 and what they've done there is they've raised the bar in terms of what 00:14:04.432 --> 00:14:05.962 actually deserves to be a meeting. 00:14:05.962 --> 00:14:09.532 You can't schedule the meeting unless the memo has been written 00:14:09.532 --> 00:14:11.727 and is thoroughly thought through. 00:14:11.727 --> 00:14:16.197 And these are memos that often take days or even weeks to produce. 00:14:16.197 --> 00:14:22.227 And Jeff, you know, his mentality was if you couldn't take the time to flesh out 00:14:22.227 --> 00:14:27.327 your thoughts in a memo, you don't deserve to hijack people's time in a meeting. 00:14:27.477 --> 00:14:29.787 Now, I don't think every meeting should start with a 00:14:29.787 --> 00:14:31.707 written six page narrative memo. 00:14:31.792 --> 00:14:35.722 But I do think for the ones where there needs to be context setting, 00:14:35.752 --> 00:14:39.682 where it involves a lot of complexity, it can be a really healthy practice. 00:14:39.682 --> 00:14:44.002 The other thing that Amazon did with this memo culture is the study hall. 00:14:44.002 --> 00:14:47.542 So you would start the meeting independently reading the memo, 00:14:47.542 --> 00:14:51.472 making notes and if you read the memo, left your notes, and you had 00:14:51.472 --> 00:14:55.132 nothing left else to contribute, you were invited to leave the room. 00:14:55.132 --> 00:14:58.827 And I think that's another healthy practice because it again, starts 00:14:58.827 --> 00:15:02.097 to be more intentional about how we're designing the meeting with an 00:15:02.097 --> 00:15:06.777 asynchronous component that people can participate and then leave before 00:15:06.777 --> 00:15:10.497 they're wasting time synchronously in a meeting where they've already contributed 00:15:10.497 --> 00:15:11.907 their thoughts and perspectives. 00:15:12.327 --> 00:15:14.817 Matt Abrahams: I had not heard of the study hall idea, but I really like it. 00:15:15.297 --> 00:15:19.317 I am very excited to put into practice a lot of these things you've said. 00:15:19.317 --> 00:15:21.807 I do think that everybody's meetings can benefit. 00:15:22.872 --> 00:15:25.542 Before we end, I'd like to ask you three questions. 00:15:25.542 --> 00:15:27.282 One I'm gonna make up just for you, and two, I've been 00:15:27.282 --> 00:15:28.572 asking people for a long time. 00:15:28.572 --> 00:15:29.202 Are you up for that? 00:15:29.352 --> 00:15:29.802 Rebecca Hinds: I'd love it. 00:15:30.102 --> 00:15:32.082 Matt Abrahams: I'd like to give you a catharsis moment. 00:15:32.082 --> 00:15:35.232 Share with me what is one of the things that just bothers 00:15:35.232 --> 00:15:39.022 you the most about meetings and maybe provide a solution to help. 00:15:39.767 --> 00:15:43.487 Rebecca Hinds: So I think what we've talked about in terms of using meetings 00:15:43.487 --> 00:15:49.157 as a default solution and the duct tape for all of our problems in the 00:15:49.157 --> 00:15:53.717 workplace, I think what annoys me most is showing up to a meeting where it's 00:15:53.717 --> 00:15:58.277 clear there hasn't been design and intentionality going into that meeting. 00:15:58.517 --> 00:16:03.287 And so I think tools like the four DCEO test, treating meetings like a product, 00:16:03.287 --> 00:16:07.747 thinking about user-centric design, who is the audience, can be effective at 00:16:07.747 --> 00:16:12.697 helping to minimize that tendency, that we know is human nature, to use meetings as 00:16:12.697 --> 00:16:15.127 this cure all solution in the workplace. 00:16:15.637 --> 00:16:17.767 Matt Abrahams: I had a catharsis just listening to you say that. 00:16:17.767 --> 00:16:20.827 It was like, yes, those all, we need to fix all of that, so thank you. 00:16:21.277 --> 00:16:24.802 Question number two, who is a communicator that you admire and why? 00:16:25.467 --> 00:16:29.337 Rebecca Hinds: We talked about Jeff Bezos at Amazon, and when it comes to meetings, 00:16:29.337 --> 00:16:34.677 I have been really inspired by everything he's done over many years, decades. 00:16:34.677 --> 00:16:38.397 And his influence continues to be felt at, at Amazon where we 00:16:38.397 --> 00:16:40.197 did that collaboration cleanse. 00:16:40.287 --> 00:16:44.427 I think him raising the bar in terms of what deserves to be a 00:16:44.427 --> 00:16:47.967 meeting, he thought very carefully about the design of meetings. 00:16:47.967 --> 00:16:53.247 So often he would leave a chair empty in the physical meeting room to 00:16:53.247 --> 00:16:57.207 symbolize the customer, the idea that we should always be thinking about 00:16:57.207 --> 00:16:59.337 the customer voice in our meeting. 00:16:59.397 --> 00:17:02.787 That's inspired a lot of my thinking around hybrid and virtual meetings 00:17:02.787 --> 00:17:06.657 and creating some physical presence of the remote folks in the physical room. 00:17:06.867 --> 00:17:10.747 He famously had the two pizza rule, as well, where you shouldn't 00:17:10.747 --> 00:17:14.317 schedule a meeting if there are more attendees than two pizzas can fill. 00:17:14.497 --> 00:17:19.117 And so I think that intentionality is something that I admire among various 00:17:19.117 --> 00:17:22.327 communicators, but in particular, various leaders at Amazon, including Jeff. 00:17:23.322 --> 00:17:25.602 Matt Abrahams: Thank you for sharing all those things, the chair to 00:17:25.602 --> 00:17:29.832 represent the customer, reminding yourself who the true beneficiary 00:17:29.832 --> 00:17:31.452 of the meeting is, really important. 00:17:31.812 --> 00:17:33.282 My final question for you, Rebecca. 00:17:33.492 --> 00:17:37.452 What are the first three ingredients that go into a successful communication 00:17:37.452 --> 00:17:39.132 recipe for meetings or beyond? 00:17:39.517 --> 00:17:42.427 Rebecca Hinds: We've discussed the importance of matching the communication 00:17:42.427 --> 00:17:45.967 tool to the purpose, and I think that holds for meetings certainly, but it 00:17:45.967 --> 00:17:47.677 holds for all of our communication. 00:17:47.677 --> 00:17:50.827 Think about the purpose of the communication, the intent 00:17:50.827 --> 00:17:53.827 of the communication, and match the tool to that aim. 00:17:54.157 --> 00:17:58.147 Second, intentionality, as we've spoken about, we need to be approaching 00:17:58.147 --> 00:18:02.377 communication as something that is intentional, is intentionally designed. 00:18:02.437 --> 00:18:06.877 That's more and more important, the more expensive the communication tool is. 00:18:06.907 --> 00:18:11.012 But absolutely, just because communication is effortless doesn't mean 00:18:11.012 --> 00:18:13.232 it needs to be in our organizations. 00:18:13.412 --> 00:18:15.722 And then third, user-centric design, right? 00:18:15.722 --> 00:18:18.962 It's easy to come into a meeting thinking about, what do 00:18:18.962 --> 00:18:20.522 I need to say in the meeting? 00:18:20.522 --> 00:18:24.632 It's much more important to think about what do others need to understand 00:18:24.632 --> 00:18:26.582 and walk away with from the meeting. 00:18:26.582 --> 00:18:30.962 That user-centric design, designing for the audience, just as you would a product, 00:18:30.962 --> 00:18:34.682 is a hallmark of great meetings, and I think great communication in general. 00:18:34.952 --> 00:18:35.612 Matt Abrahams: Absolutely. 00:18:35.612 --> 00:18:37.592 Tailoring to an audience is critical. 00:18:37.682 --> 00:18:41.432 Making sure the tools fit the purpose and being intentional in in general. 00:18:41.882 --> 00:18:45.902 And thank you for intentionally sharing your advice for us. 00:18:46.202 --> 00:18:49.502 I know my meetings will be better as a result of what we've discussed, 00:18:49.502 --> 00:18:51.842 and I hope everybody listening will improve those meetings. 00:18:51.872 --> 00:18:52.622 Thank you so much. 00:18:52.692 --> 00:18:53.172 Rebecca Hinds: Thanks Matt. 00:18:53.172 --> 00:18:55.652 That was fun. 00:18:55.992 --> 00:18:57.897 Matt Abrahams: Thanks for joining us for another episode of Think 00:18:57.897 --> 00:19:00.022 Fast Talk Smart, the podcast. 00:19:00.172 --> 00:19:03.232 To learn more about communication and meetings, please listen 00:19:03.232 --> 00:19:05.372 to episode 124 and 125. 00:19:06.082 --> 00:19:10.822 This episode was produced by Katherine Reed, Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrahams. 00:19:10.912 --> 00:19:14.662 Our music is from Floyd Wonder, with thanks to the Podium Podcast Company. 00:19:14.702 --> 00:19:18.032 Please find us on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. 00:19:18.182 --> 00:19:20.282 Be sure to subscribe and rate us. 00:19:20.342 --> 00:19:25.032 Follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok, and Instagram, and check out fastersmarter.io 00:19:25.052 --> 00:19:29.072 for deep dive videos, English language learning content, and our newsletter. 00:19:29.192 --> 00:19:32.582 Please also consider joining our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community 00:19:32.582 --> 00:19:35.132 at fastersmarter.io/learning. 00:19:35.372 --> 00:19:38.402 You'll find video lessons, learning quests, discussion boards, 00:19:38.552 --> 00:19:40.922 our AI coaches, and book club.