The Surprising Science of Effective Meetings

Scientists are encouraged to experiment with new ideas, to collect data that tests those ideas, and to iterate. It seems we readily do this in our research, but not so much in our meetings. This is evidenced by the fact that most meetings are run the same way, with the same structure, and with the same cadence. And it’s been this way for decades.

Do you know why? Is there some evidence that showed this is the best way to run a meeting? Or is it just tradition?

• How do we know that most meetings should take about an hour?
• Who decided that weekly is the right cadence for this meeting series?
• What’s the right way to run a meeting?

You might be surprised to learn that there is science on the effectiveness of meetings. And as it turns out, there are data that you can collect that helps you measure how effective a meeting was. You probably know this is already true, especially if you’ve ever walked out of a meeting and thought “that was a waste of time”. If you felt it, then someone else probably felt it too. Even though the ‘science of effective meetings’ falls within the social sciences, it is still science. And it can be applied to our meetings.

Core Principles

• Meetings should have a clear purpose. If you don’t know why you’re having a meeting, then you probably shouldn’t be having it. Meetings should have a clear objective, and everyone should know what that is before the meeting starts. Your meeting structure might look very different depending on the objective. There’s more on this below.

• Meetings are expensive. During your next meeting you should mentally categorise attendees as ‘junior’, ‘mid-level’, or ‘senior’ and note the number of senior and mid-level attendees. Now estimate the hourly rate of a senior person, and a mid-level person, and compute the meeting cost. The junior people add costs too, but this is a quick mental estimate that will get you pretty close!

• Parkinson’s Law applies. Work expands to fill the allotted time. If you schedule an hour-long meeting, it will likely take an hour, even if the content can be covered in less. This suggests that shorter, more focussed meetings can be equally or more effective.

• Time spent talking correlates with perceived value. If you are the person who talks the most in a meeting, then you are likely to think that the meeting was more valuable than if you were a passive listener. This is a cognitive bias that can be mitigated by ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to speak, and that the meeting is structured to allow for this.

• The Facilitator is key. The meeting leader plays a crucial role in setting the tone, guiding discussions, ensuring participation, and achieving objectives. Effective facilitation isn’t innate; it is a learned skill. That means if you are running a series of meetings you should either actively work on your facilitation skills, or you should set up a rotation of facilitators so that everyone has an opportunity to learn and practice these skills.

• Quality over quantity of attendees. More people in a meeting does not necessarily mean more value. In fact, it can lead to inefficiencies and distractions. If people are not forced to be at the meeting, they will probably ‘vote with their feet’ and not attend. This might mean the meeting is not valuable to them, but it’s not necessarily a problem. If you have many people attend a meeting series at first, and then attendance wanes, you may have found the people who find the meeting valuable. Then you should focus on making the meeting more valuable to them, rather than trying to get more people to attend.

• Psychological impact. Poorly run meetings lead to frustration, disengagement, and mental fatigue. Conversely, well-run meetings can foster a sense of purpose, inclusion, and motivation.

• Preparation is paramount. A well-defined objective and a clear structure (which may be an agenda, or not) are far more important than the length of the meeting. The nuance lies in the intentionality behind them.

Objective Begets Structure

The structure of a meeting should be determined by its objective.

Let’s think about it in terms of meeting types. There are a few different types of meetings, and each type has a different objective. You may have attended these types of meetings:

• Team-building meeting: The objective is to foster relationships, build trust, and improve team dynamics.
• Research topic meeting: This might be a meeting to discuss a specific area of research, even if the attendees do not all work in the same group. The objective is to share knowledge, discuss ideas, and potentially collaborate on a specific topic.
• Decision-making meeting: The objective is to make a decision on a specific issue, such as selecting a project direction or allocating resources.

Each of these meetings has a different kind of objective, and should therefore have a different structure.

Team-Building Meetings

In the past my research group meetings had a specific structure to meet the objectives of team-building and a place to share progress and problems. The attendees included post-docs, graduate students, and undergraduates (including many in their final Honours year, which can be a very stressful time). The structure was:

• Rose & Thorns: Each person shares one positive thing (rose) and one challenge (thorn) from the past week. This can be about science, or not. In the first meeting everyone will say something about their science. Maybe in the second, too. And suddenly you will find that people will use Rose & Thorns to share something deeply personal, unrelated to science at all. They use that as a cathartic moment to share something on their mind, and to move on. All the science on effective meetings shows that this is a great way to start a meeting if the objective is to build relationships and foster a sense of community. It allows everyone to share something personal, which helps to break down barriers and build trust within the group. And it ensures that everyone has a chance to speak, which is important for engagement and participation.

• Equal-time updates: After Rose & Thorns, we take the time remaining and divide it by the number of people in the room. Each person had equal time to present, but that time included questions and discussion. This meant that everyone had an equal opportunity to share their research progress, challenges, and plans for the next week.

We also had a set of specific rules for these meetings:

1. Everyone presents. Everyone in the group is expected to present, regardless of their level of experience. This ensures that everyone has an opportunity to share their work and be heard.

2. Common format. Everyone would dump their slides into a Google Slide deck before the meeting. This would avoid any technical issues with sharing screens.

3. Group only. The meeting is only for the people in the group. This means that we can be open and honest about our work, and we can share our challenges without fear of judgement from outsiders. It also means that we can build relationships and trust within the group. This means we never had external visitors to our group meetings, which all participants actually preferred: there was plenty of opportunity to meet with visitors, and this was a time for the group to focus on each other.

4. Question ideas, not people. Our group had a wide dynamic range of experience, and expertise. Nobody was an expert in everything, and nobody was expected to know everything. That means all questions were good ones. And even when discussing ideas or results from other papers, we would focus on the ideas, not the people who wrote them. This helps to create a respectful place for discussion, but it also keeps people focussed on the science, rather than personal opinions or biases.

5. Review regularly. We would review the structure and rules of the meeting regularly, and make changes as needed. This ensures that the meeting remains relevant and effective, and that it continues to meet the needs of the group.

I implemented this group structure just before the pandemic started. At that time my group included six honours students who were all in the most stressful year of their degree (even without the pandemic). This meeting was forced online, but the structure remained effective. From regular reviews (and feedback passed on from students to other academcis, who later told me), all members of the group said this was the best hour of their week. Getting that kind of positive feedback is extremely valuable, especially when all of us were locked down in Melbourne for months on end.

Research Topic Meetings

A research topic meeting is a meeting where the objective is to discuss a specific area of research, even if the attendees do not all work in the same group. This is how we (Thomas Hilder and I) currently run the Inference With Data meeting series. This is a topic for any kind of data analysis, machine learning, or statistics. The attendees include academics, post-docs, graduate students, and undergraduates. The objectives are:

1. To facilitate a place to discuss problems and progress in statistical inference and data analysis.
2. To increase awareness of statistical methods used in different areas of physics and astronomy at Monash.
3. To improve cross-domain communication with the smallest possible glossary of domain-specific terms (i.e., cut the jargon).

The structure of this meeting is set to (try to) meet these objectives:

• Rotating chairperson. Each week a different person is responsible for leading the meeting. This person is responsible for encouraging people to add slides, and facilitating the discussion. This allows everyone to take turns leading the meeting, which helps to build leadership skills and ensures that everyone has an opportunity to contribute.

• Slides in advance. Each person is expected to add their slides to the Google Slide deck before the meeting. This allows everyone to see what will be discussed, and it helps to keep the meeting focussed.

• Equal-time updates. Each person has a set amount of time to present their slides. This ensures that everyone has an opportunity to speak, and it helps to keep the meeting focussed on the topic at hand.

• Only run as needed. We’re very willing to cancel a meeting if it was hard to get slides into the deck.

• Open to all. Anyone can attend the meeting, regardless of their level of experience or expertise. This allows for a diverse range of perspectives and ideas to be shared, and it helps to build a sense of community within the group.

• Focus on ideas, not people. As with the group meetings, we focus on the ideas being discussed, rather than the people who wrote them. This helps to create a respectful place for discussion, and it keeps people focussed on the science.

Decision-Making Meetings

A decision-making meeting is a meeting where the objective is to make a decision on a specific issue, such as selecting a project direction or allocating resources. In this case the facilitator is really key to the success of the meeting. The facilitator should be someone who is neutral, and who can guide the discussion without bias. There should be a clear agenda, with material provided ahead of time, and to ensure that all attendees have digested the material before the meeting.

Some key points to consider for decision-making meetings:

1. Start on time, end on time: Respect everyone’s time. Lateness breeds frustration and diminishes perceived value.
2. Facilitate, don’t dominate: The leader’s role is to guide, not lecture. Encourage participation from all attendees. If someone is quiet, invite their input.
3. Stay focused and on track: Gently steer conversations back to the agenda. Use a “parking lot” for off-topic but valuable ideas to be discussed later.
4. Encourage active participation: Create a safe space where everyone feels comfortable contributing. Discourage multitasking (e.g., phones away, no other screens).
5. Manage conflict constructively: Focus on the idea or problem, not the person. Encourage respectful debate to drive better decisions.
6. Summarise decisions and actions: Consistently recap what has been decided and what the next steps are.
7. Incorporate breaks for longer meetings: For meetings over an hour, include short breaks to maintain focus and energy.
8. Consider the meeting environment. Face-to-face meetings are often preferred for complex problem-solving and relationship building. For virtual meetings, ensure clear visuals and screen sharing.
9. Experiment with meetings. Experiment with stand-up meetings for quick updates; they can be significantly shorter and equally effective.

After the meeting:

• Circulate clear action notes and minutes promptly: Include meeting purpose, decisions made, and especially action items with assigned owners and deadlines. Notes should be concise and clear enough for those who didn’t attend to understand the outcomes.
• Follow up on action items: Ensure accountability by tracking progress on assigned tasks. This closes the loop and demonstrates the meeting’s effectiveness.
• Seek feedback: Periodically ask attendees for feedback on the meeting’s effectiveness, duration, and content to continuously improve.

Resources

Books

• The Surprising Science of Meetings: How You Can Lead Your Team to Peak Performance by Steven G. Rogelberg
• Death by Meeting: A leadership fable about solving the most painful problem in business by Patrick Lencioni
• Leading Great Meetings: How to Structure Yours for Success by Richard Lent
• Momentum: Craeting Effective, Engaging, and Enjoyable Meetings by Mamie Kanfer Stewart and Tai Tsao

Podcasts

• Freakonomics: How to Make Meetings Less Terrible
• How I Work: How to have a meeting that isn’t a complete waste of time