Steven Rogelberg is a global researcher in meeting science and a consultant for companies including Google, Facebook, Cisco, and the United Nations. This emeritus professor, multi-awarded (including the prestigious Humboldt Prize), teaches organizational psychology at the University of North Carolina. From his work, he made a best-selling book, The Surprising Science of Meetings (not translated into French). The book draws on research from management and behavioral sciences, survey interviews with more than 5,000 employees and success stories, to illustrate practices for getting the most out of meetings. Last year, Rogelberg was invited before members of the US Congress to provide guidance and advice on the subject.
Le Point: More than a hundred studies on meetings exist, do you think that managers have become aware of the problem of bad meetings and really want to change practices?
Steven Rogelberg: Leaders who are aware of bad meetings don’t necessarily think they’re the problem. Rather, they tend to think that others are, but not them. When you survey people leaving a meeting, our research reveals that the leader is the one who gives the most positive impression of the meeting. Much more positive than the participants. There seems to be a blind spot, where leaders think everything is fine but participants don’t. But if leaders say everything is fine, there is no motivation to make changes.
You say the goal is not to eliminate meetings but ineffective meetings. Why is it not a good idea to eliminate meetings?
It’s certainly good to eliminate ineffective or unnecessary meetings, but we don’t want to eliminate meetings for the sake of eliminating meetings. Meetings can be incredibly effective. We have data that shows that organizations that run effective meetings are more profitable than those that don’t. We know that meetings are the place for organizational democracy. Ultimately, they are what we want to make, which is wise choices about how long they last and who should attend them.
How do you evaluate whether a meeting is useful or not? It’s very subjective, right?
Yes, it’s true. I would argue that because meetings are collective experiences, when leaders and participants come together to discuss whether the meeting is necessary or not, how often it should take place, the collective belief is very informative about what ‘is the truth. So no single perspective can give you all the answers. But if we can begin to build a culture in organizations where it is acceptable and common to talk about how we should do our jobs, what is necessary and what is not, these conversations can become normative .
Steven Rogelberg, professor emeritus specializing in organizational psychology and author of the bestselling book “The Surprising Science of Meetings.” © Jason Dixson
You recommend calculating the money invested in meetings. Do you think if all leaders did this there would be fewer meetings or more successful meetings?
I advocate that leaders fully recognize that every meeting is an investment. They spend a lot of money on these meetings, and they ask employees to give them that precious resource called time. So when we start attaching meetings to euros, for example, it creates additional sensitivity to the importance of making sure that this meeting is actually worth it. So that’s the point of thinking about quantifying meeting time. We know that meetings cause fatigue, frustration, things that can motivate us to do better. But when you can specifically say that this meeting costs
In meetings, it is often the same people who monopolize the speaking time. How to solve this problem ?
This can be avoided by carefully designing the meeting. For example, we can start the meeting by reinforcing that we want to hear from everyone. The leader can be the facilitator by saying things like, “I would like to hear from this person about this topic now. What are your thoughts? » Additionally, we can try innovations like silent meetings, in which individuals silently type their ideas into a document, and others interact with theirs. A French company, Klaxoon, has done a really good job creating tools to get everyone deeply engaged.
Are meetings in start-ups, whose purpose is to change the world, more effective than in large groups?
We haven’t seen data suggesting that large companies have better or worse meetings than small companies. In contrast, one of our researchers found that the quality of meetings was related to the type of industry and the age of the organization. The best promoters of a good meeting are the leaders.
In your book, you give a lot of recommendations for preparing for meetings. But managers complain that it takes a lot of time, time they don’t have. How to resolve this dilemma?
I’ve found that it only takes a few minutes to prepare for a meeting. At the beginning, you have to decide who should be present, think about the objective to be achieved and the challenges to be overcome. When you have a meeting with the CEO of the company, you think about it before the meeting takes place. You take a few minutes to get yourself in the right mindset, because you don’t want the CEO to walk away saying it was a waste of time. We want leaders to make sure no one leaves the meeting feeling like it was a waste of time.
How do you explain the success of your book?
Instead of saying meetings are terrible, my book says we can make them better using science. I think it’s successful because it’s full of actionable steps that are easy to follow and backed by scientific research. This book is also distinguished by an optimistic approach. Excessive meetings are not inevitable. We can cure him.
According to the title of your book, meeting is a surprising science. What’s most surprising?
People are surprised to discover that the science of meeting is a real thing. For example, many think that having an agenda is a great indicator of the effectiveness of a meeting, but this is not true. By itself, the existence of an agenda does not predict the effectiveness of a meeting. What matters much more is the content of the agenda. Is it strategic? How is this agenda facilitated? Everyone thinks that having an agenda means you’re a good meeting facilitator, but that’s not the case. So there is an alternative solution. For example, I advocate that leaders frame the agenda in the form of questions. This way of doing things allows you to think much more strategically about the meeting. If you can’t think of any questions to ask, chances are you don’t need this meeting.
