Episode 3

full
Published on:

1st Oct 2025

Steven Rogelberg on Transforming Academic Meetings (CAL130, S7E3)

Dr. Steven Rogelberg, an organisational psychologist from the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, draws on his extensive research on workplace meetings to share how we might make acadmic meetings better. We discuss the inefficiencies of academic meetings, with Steven suggesting academics suffer from particularly ineffective meeting practices. He offers practical advice on improving meeting productivity, particularly for Faculty meetings, such as using targeted agendas and smaller group discussions, and stresses the value of bringing scientific rigour to meeting management. He also critiques the hybrid meeting format, advocating instead for fully virtual or in-person meetings. If you are looking for more insights about evidence-based meeting practices, I can highly recommend his books 'The Surprising Science of Meetings' and 'Glad We Met: The Art and Science of One-to-One Meetings' . 

Overview:

00:29 Introduction: The Meeting Dilemma

01:42 Introducing Dr. Steven Rogelberg

03:56 The Academic Meeting Problem

09:23 Common Mistakes in Leading Meetings

11:06 Strategies for Effective Meetings

13:12 Having a Meeting About Meetings

14:34 The Importance of Feedback and Audits

15:55 The Faculty Meeting

18:15 Challenges of Large and Hybrid Meetings

19:21 More Inclusive Alternatives to Large Meetings

22:20 Hybrid Meetings and Virtual Meetings

23:54 Final Takeaways and Resources

25:46 Postscript

30:16 End

Related links:

Steven's web page, LinkedIn page and online meeting resources

https://www.stevenrogelberg.com

Steven's books:

Rogelberg, S. G. (2019). The surprising science of meetings: How you can lead your team to peak performance. Oxford University Press.

Rogelberg, S. G. (2024). Glad We Met: The Art and Science of 1: 1 Meetings. Oxford University Press.

And his academic publications, for example the two we mentioned:

Rogelberg, S., Kreamer, L. M., & Gray, J. (2025). Thirty Years of Meeting Science: Lessons Learned and the Road AheadAnnual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior13.

Rogelberg, S. G., King, E. B., & Alonso, A. (2022). How we can bring IO psychology science and evidence-based practices to the publicIndustrial and Organizational Psychology15(2), 259-272.

And here is a template to help you reflect on your meetings.

Transcript
Geri:

Welcome to Changing Academic Life.

2

:

I'm Geraldine Fitzpatrick, and this is

a podcast series where academics and

3

:

others share their stories, provide

ideas, and provoke discussions about what

4

:

we can do individually and collectively

to change academic life for the better.

5

:

Do you love going to your faculty

meetings or departmental meetings,

6

:

however you might call them where you are?

7

:

If you're like many people,

I'm guessing probably not.

8

:

Meetings take up so much of our

time as academics and researchers.

9

:

Often they just don't feel

like a very effective or

10

:

valuable way of spending time.

11

:

Meetings came up as a topic in our

last episode where Deborah Boehm Davis

12

:

talked about the many meetings she ran

as both departmental chair and Dean.

13

:

And she also shared how she realized that

many of the meetings just weren't the

14

:

most effective way to work with people,

and so she started using a new strategy.

15

:

Of sending out long agendas with

all of the materials that people

16

:

could pre-read before the meeting.

17

:

And then when they came to the

meeting, they'd identify together

18

:

what were the most pressing

issues, and then they'd focus their

19

:

time in discussing those issues.

20

:

And I thought it could be useful to

build on this then, and to hear from

21

:

a world leading expert about what

the science says about meetings.

22

:

And that expert is Dr.

23

:

Steven Rogelberg, an organizational

psychologist who holds the title of

24

:

Chancellor's, professor at University

of North Carolina, Charlotte, the

25

:

Distinguished National, international

and Interdisciplinary Contributions.

26

:

And his research is all about how

to make workplace meetings better.

27

:

He has over 200 research publications

on the topic and has numerous

28

:

awards and honors, reflecting the

quality and value of that research.

29

:

The most recent one, being a Raymond

Katzell Award for doing research that

30

:

makes a difference for people in society.

31

:

He's really committed to bringing

organizational psychology science, and

32

:

evidence-based practices to the public

so that it can make a difference.

33

:

In walking the talk, he's published

two books that have been listed on

34

:

more than two dozen best of lists.

35

:

One book is the 2019 book called The

Surprising Science of Meetings, how You

36

:

Can Lead Your Team to Peak Performance.

37

:

And then More Recently, in

:

38

:

called Glad We Met the Art and

Science of One-to-One Meetings.

39

:

His webpage, stevenrogelberg.com

40

:

is a treasure trove of useful

resources, as well as collating

41

:

numerous talks and interviews.

42

:

He's been frequently interviewed in many

major media, outlets internationally and

43

:

has given numerous talks and keynotes.

44

:

So I'm really honored that he's

been able to speak with us here

45

:

about what the science of meetings

might have to say to us in academia.

46

:

In particular, we focus

on departmental meetings.

47

:

So I hope you enjoy this conversation

and can find something really

48

:

practical to take away at the end.

49

:

Steven, thank you so much for joining

me, especially under the conditions

50

:

where you're not feeling so great.

51

:

Steven: Well, I am thrilled to be here

and a cold will not stop me for in

52

:

having this conversation with you, so

I really appreciate the invitation.

53

:

Geri: Thank you.

54

:

And I mean one of the reasons for the

invitation is your amazing research

55

:

on meetings and you have some really

staggering figures about the time

56

:

and cost of meetings and despite

that investment, how the majority

57

:

of people say their meetings are

unproductive and a waste of time.

58

:

And I'm just thinking about

academia because a lot of your

59

:

research has been in organizations.

60

:

Does academia have a

similar meeting problem?

61

:

Steven: Yes.

62

:

Absolutely bad meetings are an epidemic

across all organizational types, but

63

:

I think academics might be the worst.

64

:

I really do.

65

:

I think it might be the worst.

66

:

Worst.

67

:

And that's for a couple reasons.

68

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

69

:

Steven: But one is we are horrible

at providing training to leaders.

70

:

The foundational skills that are

essential to their leadership, right.

71

:

Often we promote people,

their research records, and so

72

:

people don't have the skills.

73

:

At the same time, while it's very

well intentioned, our meetings and

74

:

academics are so, so, so, so, so large.

75

:

And we do it in the spirit of inclusion.

76

:

But the research actually shows that as

meeting size increases, not only does

77

:

ineffectiveness increase with it, but

people's feelings of inclusion decreases.

78

:

So we think we're being inclusive,

but it's actually the opposite.

79

:

People experience it as performative.

80

:

Yes.

81

:

So when you think about a lack of skills.

82

:

And you think about

too large of a meeting.

83

:

And also in academics, we

tend to meet out of habit.

84

:

We have a lot of meeting rituals

that we don't ever just stop and

85

:

go, wait, why are we doing this?

86

:

So those are some unique forces Yeah.

87

:

That we haven't,

88

:

Geri: Yeah.

89

:

That's depressingly reassuring to know,

because that totally reflects my own

90

:

experience of just too many meetings.

91

:

And yeah, the performativity of

it and the lack of skills and

92

:

training I've never been trained on.

93

:

I know.

94

:

Well, meetings or any

leadership skills really.

95

:

I think there's a little bit of a shift.

96

:

Steven: Isn't that fascinating?

97

:

Yeah.

98

:

It really is fascinating when you

think about an organizational type

99

:

that promotes people to leadership

positions, but really for all intents and

100

:

purposes, does not prepare them for it.

101

:

Geri: Yeah.

102

:

Yep.

103

:

It does not prepare them.

104

:

And what do we do?

105

:

I mean, we end up just

perpetuating what's been done.

106

:

Exactly.

107

:

Steven: Yeah.

108

:

We just keep recycling the

same dysfunctional practices.

109

:

So yeah, it's a big problem, but, um,

there are some academic institutions that

110

:

actually wanna do something about it.

111

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

112

:

Steven: For example, I was just at

University of Tennessee and helping their

113

:

senior leadership, um, been at University

of New Mexico and other universities.

114

:

So I do think that thoughtful

deans and Provost realize that

115

:

this is a good thing to do.

116

:

Geri: Yeah.

117

:

Steven: That bad meetings really disengage

their people and cost tremendous time

118

:

that could be used in so many better ways.

119

:

Geri: Yeah.

120

:

Which is interesting as well, given that

we're supposed to be scientists, but we

121

:

don't consider evidence-based practices

for around things like meetings and

122

:

leadership practices more generally.

123

:

Steven: That is so true.

124

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

125

:

Steven: It's a blind spot that we have.

126

:

Geri: Yeah.

127

:

Yeah.

128

:

And is that, I wonder if it's hubris

as well, because we're academics,

129

:

you know, we know how to do things.

130

:

Steven: Yeah.

131

:

I mean, I think there's a lot

of things that humans assume

132

:

they're good at, that they're not.

133

:

Geri: Mm.

134

:

Steven: Let's go for a basic one.

135

:

Let's go to marriage

and picking a partner.

136

:

Clearly with 50% divorce rates

we're not that good at it.

137

:

Geri: Yeah.

138

:

Steven: And yet, if you ask

people, they will say, oh no, I

139

:

could definitely pick a partner.

140

:

There's been research done on people in

prisons and they ask these individuals who

141

:

evaluate their ethicality and integrity,

and compared to the general population.

142

:

They rated themselves as

being more ethical and higher

143

:

integrity than the population.

144

:

So we generally think that

we are better than we are.

145

:

Yeah.

146

:

Yeah.

147

:

And this blind spot not only

leads us to reifying the bad

148

:

practices we've experienced, but

also prevents us from learning.

149

:

Mm-hmm.

150

:

Right.

151

:

We generally assume that the

problem is everyone else, not us.

152

:

Right.

153

:

I am, I'm the academic that

absolutely can run good meetings.

154

:

Geri: Yeah.

155

:

Steven: But you're probably not.

156

:

And it takes work.

157

:

I mean, I had to work really hard

on my own meetings like it, when I

158

:

first started as a leader, I thought

I was good, but I was actually making

159

:

mistakes and I had to really work on it.

160

:

And I had to collect feedback from

people and suggestions and it helped.

161

:

Geri: So what, what were some of

the key mistakes that you made, do

162

:

you think, when you first started

163

:

Steven: I privileged

harmony in my meetings.

164

:

Geri: Uhhuh.

165

:

Steven: So I didn't really

want people to be fighting.

166

:

I privileged harmony,

and that's a mistake.

167

:

We want disagreement.

168

:

We just want it to be

resolved constructively.

169

:

Geri: Yeah.

170

:

Steven: So the phrase that I really like

is this idea of positive turbulence.

171

:

So a good meeting leader

creates positive turbulence.

172

:

Creates a safe space for

people to resolve it.

173

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

174

:

Steven: So initially, because I

privileged harmony, I wasn't creating

175

:

the conditions for disagreement.

176

:

And then I embraced it.

177

:

I said, okay, no, we need disagreement.

178

:

We have hard things to talk about,

so let's disagree, but let's do it

179

:

in a really healthy, informative

way that attacks ideas, not people.

180

:

Geri: Mm.

181

:

And you talked about not learning

some of the leadership skills.

182

:

I imagine that in the process of making

that change, you might have needed to have

183

:

called some people out sometimes where it

did start to become more personal attack.

184

:

How might you practically engage

in that sort of conversation?

185

:

Or what would you actually say

186

:

Steven: At the start of the meeting,

if the leader of the meeting says

187

:

to the attendees, we have some

really important topics to discuss.

188

:

I know that not everyone's

gonna see it the exact same way.

189

:

We need you to disagree with each

other, but let's talk about keeping

190

:

it on the idea not the person.

191

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

192

:

Steven: So basically, I'm

trying to normalize a particular

193

:

behavior, but the fact is.

194

:

Until I talk about it,

people don't know it.

195

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

196

:

Steven: So often meeting leaders

don't set expectations upfront.

197

:

Yeah.

198

:

Right.

199

:

They don't say, Hey, you know what,

everyone, let's keep our contributions

200

:

to no more than 30 seconds so

we can create space for others.

201

:

Let's be sure to listen to each other

before we formulate our counter argument.

202

:

So put it out there.

203

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

204

:

And these are really important people

skills and I like really like the

205

:

idea of the setting expectations.

206

:

Because that also gives permission

then to say, we said 30 seconds,

207

:

can we just give someone else space?

208

:

It gives you the opportunity,

the permission to intervene then.

209

:

Steven: Yeah, exactly.

210

:

Yeah.

211

:

Um, you know, basically, this will

sound funny, but we actually need to

212

:

talk more about meetings, and every

once in a while we actually need

213

:

to have a meeting about meetings.

214

:

Geri: Yes.

215

:

Steven: Because how could we not?

216

:

Yeah, like if you think about it,

you have all this discontent, all

217

:

this frustration, all this misery.

218

:

Why don't we talk about it constructively?

219

:

We're trained to solve problems.

220

:

Is this the one problem we can't solve?

221

:

Of course not.

222

:

So we need to, every once in a while,

if you're a department chair, you need

223

:

to look at your department meetings and

say, is this really working for folks?

224

:

How can I make it better?

225

:

And every once in a while we need to do

a meeting audit with our people to try

226

:

to identify meetings that aren't needed.

227

:

Geri: Yep.

228

:

Steven: So while I absolutely get

the silliness of the notion of a

229

:

meeting about meetings, but we have

to have a meeting about meetings.

230

:

Geri: No, but it's in line with

that thing of setting up the

231

:

expectations for the beginning.

232

:

You often talk about being

intentional in your meetings.

233

:

Exactly.

234

:

It's being intentional about your

meetings, not just in your meetings.

235

:

It's what makes sense.

236

:

Yeah.

237

:

And you

238

:

Steven: can really position

yourself as a hero, right.

239

:

So mm-hmm.

240

:

If I'm meeting with my department

and I say, listen, you all are

241

:

stretched so far and you attend a

lot of meetings that are frustrating.

242

:

I don't want to be part of that problem.

243

:

I want to be a positive

force in your world.

244

:

Geri: Yeah.

245

:

Yeah.

246

:

Steven: So let's look at our

meetings to make them better.

247

:

So you really are positioning yourself.

248

:

Yeah.

249

:

As a hero.

250

:

And you know, faculty will

be like, oh, that's great.

251

:

Thank you.

252

:

Geri: And as you articulate so eloquently

in one of the books, in doing that

253

:

as well, it builds trust and probably

increases the likelihood of engagement

254

:

in meetings when you do have meetings

because people know that it's a meeting

255

:

that you've thought about and that

you are going to run in a good way.

256

:

That you think that there's value in

them giving their time to this meeting.

257

:

Steven: You are completely right.

258

:

Geri: What would be your advice

to a department chair then?

259

:

So there's the have a meeting

about meetings, having done an

260

:

audit and gathering feedback.

261

:

You talked about that as well.

262

:

Steven: So I would, I would

just start with the feedback.

263

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

264

:

Steven: I would ask people, I would

just do a very quick little survey.

265

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

266

:

Steven: Asking people.

267

:

To evaluate like department

meetings, what's going well, not

268

:

so well, and ideas for improvement.

269

:

Geri: Yeah.

270

:

Steven: I would also ask them what

meetings are they regularly attending

271

:

that perhaps aren't needed that could

be improved, and what are their ideas?

272

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

273

:

Mm-hmm.

274

:

Steven: So basically the, you know,

meetings are shared experiences.

275

:

So therefore we want to engage

the collective in solving it.

276

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

277

:

Yeah.

278

:

Steven: And the good

news is by doing that.

279

:

You're basically changing

the norms in that department.

280

:

So when, let's say program directors have

meetings right now, they're on notice.

281

:

Geri: Yes.

282

:

Yes.

283

:

Steven: So you can start cascading

healthy and effective process.

284

:

Geri: Yes.

285

:

Yes.

286

:

That's the, that's part of

the whole setting the culture.

287

:

And you've just had a paper that you've

published just in July that was reviewing

288

:

30 years of research on meetings.

289

:

Yeah.

290

:

And that reflects some of the

recommendations you have for the

291

:

organizational level about the audit

and doing all of this sort of work.

292

:

Steven: Yes.

293

:

Geri: So in, in the work that you've

done with other universities, has

294

:

it often been talking about the

faculty level type meeting, the

295

:

department level meeting and all?

296

:

Steven: All the above.

297

:

Yeah.

298

:

Geri: All.

299

:

Okay.

300

:

Steven: Yeah.

301

:

You know, it's very interesting when you

think about organizational expenses.

302

:

Geri: Yeah.

303

:

Steven: And we often think IT

is probably our most expensive

304

:

thing that we do as an entity.

305

:

But in most organizations, meetings are

actually the most expensive thing by far.

306

:

Geri: Yeah.

307

:

Steven: You know, the time by salaries,

not to mention opportunity costs.

308

:

Geri: Yeah.

309

:

Steven: And it,

310

:

we manage that budget.

311

:

We make sure it's working for us.

312

:

Geri: Mm.

313

:

Steven: But when it comes

to meetings, we don't,

314

:

Geri: Nope.

315

:

Steven: So this is an

opportunity for universities,

316

:

right, to say, you know what?

317

:

Let's stop wasting our people's

time and causing frustration.

318

:

Geri: And it's probably, I'm just thinking

about the research that's showing that

319

:

academics have a higher rate of burnout

and stress than the general population.

320

:

And all of the research is showing

that that's increasing as well.

321

:

And that for all sorts of reasons

with the managerial culture and

322

:

performance measures and so on.

323

:

Yeah.

324

:

But you know, like instead of giving

a yoga program or a mindfulness

325

:

program for people to attend,

this would be far more effective.

326

:

In respecting people's time.

327

:

It's a way of showing that respect for

people's time and helping them navigate.

328

:

Steven: I really like that.

329

:

Yeah, I like that.

330

:

A lots and trade-offs.

331

:

You know, we, we tell our colleagues,

you need to do more with less.

332

:

They're going to shoot, they're

going to be pretty angry.

333

:

Geri: Yeah.

334

:

Steven: But if we say, yeah, here are

some things that we have to work on.

335

:

Yeah.

336

:

But let's make some cuts elsewhere.

337

:

Right?

338

:

By removing some wasted meetings.

339

:

So.

340

:

Just piling on people is not

where people are at right now,

341

:

especially in universities in the us.

342

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

343

:

Yeah.

344

:

Steven: And so yeah, we need to hear

messages of support, less wasted work.

345

:

Those are really critical.

346

:

It's, it's critical for all universities.

347

:

It's just that we have some

unique challenges right now.

348

:

Geri: You do have some unique challenges.

349

:

I'm just trying to think about the

tension between the performativity

350

:

of large faculty meetings and the

amount of time that's wasted if

351

:

you've got your 50, 60, whatever, a

hundred faculty that're supposed to be

352

:

sitting in a room or hybrid as we're

increasingly doing now at our place.

353

:

And, the notion of inclusion.

354

:

And some of the research that talks

about academics wanting to have a voice.

355

:

And they like having a voice as we know.

356

:

That thing then about how do you navigate

that tension of making everyone feel

357

:

like they can have a say or hear about

what's going on, but use their time well.

358

:

What would be some of the top tricks

that a departmental chair or meeting

359

:

facilitator could do with a large meeting?

360

:

Steven: The large meetings are

obviously very hard and tricky.

361

:

And typically in academics

people are posturing.

362

:

And there's not really

engagement on ideas.

363

:

Basically everyone's just positioning

their comment that they want to make.

364

:

So I think we have to think

differently about the process.

365

:

Geri: Mm-hmm.

366

:

Steven: We need to do more, um, maybe

sequential, smaller group meetings, right?

367

:

So if a chair wants to, let's say, settle

on this curriculum issue, what they

368

:

could do is invite everyone to have input

via a survey or some document, right?

369

:

So now everyone's voice.

370

:

Then there's a committee of, let's

say, of six people who, you know, kind

371

:

of collect that, put it all together.

372

:

And then, you know, perhaps they can

engage in a process for narrowing down

373

:

the types of op options by having voting.

374

:

But that's another way of including

all voices, and you can keep sharing

375

:

the findings for each one of these,

376

:

you know, then you could potentially

create, another small group that refines

377

:

the ideas and then it's sent back out

to people who then approve the refining.

378

:

So basically what we're doing is, we're

not adding more time to people's schedule,

379

:

we're just making the time more productive

by breaking it up and spreading it out.

380

:

But the process I just shared, which is

just off the cuff by the way, it's real.

381

:

Right?

382

:

It's inclusive.

383

:

It actually uses people's voices.

384

:

Yeah.

385

:

And accommodates what they learn.

386

:

It's an iterative process.

387

:

So basically this thought of putting 25,

30 people in a room and saying, yeah,

388

:

let's come up with a group decision.

389

:

That's rubbish.

390

:

Not possible.

391

:

But we can do these other

types of approaches, right?

392

:

Soliciting input, small groups, going

back out, having people vote, rank

393

:

order, small group refining like that

is a way of truly engaging with people.

394

:

Geri: And it sounds like it would

encourage much more thoughtful

395

:

contributions and input and

be more inclusive for people.

396

:

So I don't know about your, department

or faculty, but we have many of us

397

:

have very multicultural areas and people

with different languages, uh, can often

398

:

find it difficult to express themselves.

399

:

Especially where you have a lot of the

very active people who like to talk a lot.

400

:

Yeah.

401

:

And so this provides.

402

:

Both the opportunity for more thoughtful

input as well as getting more voices.

403

:

Steven: Exactly.

404

:

Yeah, absolutely.

405

:

You know, when we ask people to respond

to some worry via email or form Right.

406

:

That's starting to privilege people

who write better than they speak.

407

:

Geri: Mm.

408

:

Yeah.

409

:

Steven: And we definitely

have those people in the cast.

410

:

Yes.

411

:

Geri: Yep.

412

:

Steven: So, you know, let's make sure

that we design an eclectic experience

413

:

so that everyone is privileged.

414

:

And disadvantaged at various times.

415

:

Mm.

416

:

The bottom line though is that

no one should think that they can

417

:

truly generate consensus once a

meeting goes beyond 20 people.

418

:

It's just not, it's not real.

419

:

It's.

420

:

Geri: No, it's a tick

in the box, isn't it?

421

:

That says, I've consulted everyone.

422

:

Exactly.

423

:

Does your research say anything

about hybrid and, yes.

424

:

Yeah.

425

:

Steven: Yes.

426

:

So sadly, hybrid are the worst.

427

:

Those people who are attending remote

or just unplugged their multitasking.

428

:

They don't feel included.

429

:

Geri: I have to just

put my hand up to that.

430

:

Steven: Um, so yeah, they're

just there, but not there at all.

431

:

The best practice is not a hybrid meeting,

but either a fully virtual meeting Yeah.

432

:

Or for a fully in person meeting.

433

:

Geri: Yeah.

434

:

Yeah.

435

:

Steven: And I think it's important

to recognize virtual meetings

436

:

actually have more promise than

even face-to-face meetings.

437

:

Geri: Oh, okay.

438

:

Steven: Right.

439

:

So virtual meetings create

a more democratic setup.

440

:

Everyone's pictures on equal playing,

there's no head of table effects.

441

:

Oh.

442

:

The use of the chat function

allows for more voices to emerge.

443

:

People who are more comfortable

writing can have their voice,

444

:

greater integration of voting.

445

:

There's a lot of inherent positives

associated with virtual meetings.

446

:

I'm not saying you

shouldn't have face-to-face

447

:

Geri: No.

448

:

Steven: But I'm saying virtual meetings.

449

:

Geri: Yeah.

450

:

Steven: Stock up.

451

:

Geri: And that's part of the

intentionality then, isn't it?

452

:

About what, um, medium is going to be best

for the sort of topics we want to have.

453

:

Because you can also do the

breakout groups in so you can get

454

:

lots of small discussions as well.

455

:

Steven: Excellent.

456

:

Geri: Just in wrapping up, is

there's some final takeaway that you

457

:

would wanna leave us with about, you

know, if there's one thing that people

458

:

could do better, what would it be?

459

:

Us people in Yes.

460

:

Academia for our colleagues.

461

:

Steven: Yes.

462

:

So, you know, my books

have a lot of ideas.

463

:

Right.

464

:

And

465

:

Geri: Lots.

466

:

Steven: I'll share one of the ones that I

think is particularly good for academics.

467

:

So when we look at agendas,

most agendas are structured as

468

:

a set of topics to be discussed.

469

:

What I wannt o encourage leaders

to do is to frame their agendas as

470

:

a set of questions to be answered.

471

:

By framing your agenda as questions,

now you have to really stop and

472

:

think, why are we having this meeting?

473

:

It's to answer these questions.

474

:

By framing your agenda as

questions, you have a much better

475

:

idea of who needs to be there.

476

:

They're relevant to the questions

477

:

By framing your agenda as questions,

you actually know if the meeting

478

:

has been successful or not.

479

:

The questions have been answered.

480

:

And by framing your agenda as

questions, it creates an engaging

481

:

challenge that draws them in just

like we see with our students.

482

:

Hmm.

483

:

And finally, if you can't think

of any questions, it likely

484

:

means you don't need, you don't

485

:

Geri: need a meeting

486

:

Steven: and that might be a great

way of wrapping up our call.

487

:

Geri: That sounds great.

488

:

Because I did read something that

said people's favorite meetings

489

:

were the meetings that got canceled.

490

:

Steven: Yeah.

491

:

That's sad but true.

492

:

Geri: Yeah.

493

:

So Steven, thank you so much for

your time and for your generosity

494

:

and all the resources that you share.

495

:

I'll point people to those resources

and to your books 'cause you have

496

:

lots of tools, templates, checklists.

497

:

Yep.

498

:

Yep.

499

:

So thank you very much.

500

:

Steven: My pleasure.

501

:

My pleasure.

502

:

Thank you so much.

503

:

Geri: What a great call to action

to stop and reflect on what meetings

504

:

we have if we need to have them,

and how to make them better.

505

:

So in terms of being more intentional

about meetings, we can take Steven's

506

:

last questions and reframe them

as: why are we having this meeting?

507

:

Who needs to be there?

508

:

How will they engage?

509

:

And how will I know if the

meeting has been successful?

510

:

And he talked about the value of framing

an agenda as questions because they can be

511

:

the anchor points for how you answer those

questions around your intentional meeting.

512

:

We never got to discuss it, but I

can also share what Steven's book

513

:

would say about Deborah's strategy of

sending out the reading beforehand.

514

:

His evidence-based practice

recommendations is about providing

515

:

an agenda ahead of time that includes

additional information such as the

516

:

goals for the meeting and the purpose

of each person's attendance there.

517

:

And he does say about providing materials,

preparatory materials in advance of

518

:

the meeting, like sending any necessary

reading or introduction materials.

519

:

But his proposal is to limit the

amount of materials where possible.

520

:

And he also makes mention in his book

on some of the practices at Amazon, for

521

:

example, about time for silent reading.

522

:

So if people, or on the assumption that

people don't have time to read beforehand,

523

:

providing explicit time at the beginning

of the meeting for that silent reading.

524

:

So I'm really grateful to Steven

for all that he shared here.

525

:

I also just want to say that Steven seems

like an amazing human being, that he

526

:

still did this call with me despite being

under the weather and was so present.

527

:

I also want to just recognize him for

how amazingly responsive and respectful

528

:

he's been in all his communications

with me in setting up this call.

529

:

And I also think he's a bit of a

role model in how to translate our

530

:

research so that it can be more

accessible to the public as he's

531

:

done with his meetings research.

532

:

And for that reason, I'm really

happy to strongly recommend his book,

533

:

the Surprising Science of Meetings.

534

:

It's a really practical book, and

what we talked about here is just a

535

:

tiny flavor of what he offers there.

536

:

The book also includes lots of

tools and checklists to support

537

:

putting the ideas into action.

538

:

I'll put the relevant links on the

episode webpage, for example, to

539

:

his research papers, including the

journal paper on bringing science

540

:

to the public and his recent journal

paper, 30 years of meeting science

541

:

lessons learned and the road ahead.

542

:

I'll also provide a PDF template that

you can download that I constructed

543

:

based on having read his book.

544

:

So it may be useful for you if you do

want to conduct your own meeting audit.

545

:

And I'd leave you with a final

question then to think about how might

546

:

you be more intentional about the

meetings you run if you are a leader.

547

:

Or a meeting facilitator.

548

:

And what can you do if you are a

meeting participant to contribute to

549

:

making your meetings better as well?

550

:

You can find the summary notes, a

transcript and related links for this

551

:

podcast on www.changingacademiclife.com.

552

:

You can also subscribe to Changing

Academic Life on iTunes, Spotify.

553

:

And I'm really hoping that we can

widen the conversation about how

554

:

we can do academia differently.

555

:

And you can contribute to this by rating

the podcast and also giving feedback.

556

:

And if something connected with

you, please consider sharing this

557

:

podcast with your colleagues.

558

:

Together we can make change happen.

Show artwork for Changing Academic Life

About the Podcast

Changing Academic Life
What can we do, individually and collectively, to change academic life to be more sustainable, collaborative and effective? This podcast series offers long-form conversations with academics and thought leaders who share stories and insights, as well as bite-size musings on specific topics drawing on literature and personal experience.
For more information go to https://changingacademiclife.com
Also see https://geraldinefitzpatrick.com to leave a comment.
NOTE: this is an interim site and missing transcripts for the older podcasts. Please contact me to request specific transcripts in the meanwhile.

About your host

Profile picture for Geraldine Fitzpatrick

Geraldine Fitzpatrick

Geraldine Fitzpatrick (Geri Fitz), is an awarded Professor i.R. at TU Wien, with degrees in Informatics, and in Positive Psychology and Coaching Psychology, after a prior career as a nurse/midwife. She has International experience working in academic, research, industry and clinical settings. She is a sought-after facilitator, speaker, trainer and coach who cares about creating environments in which people can thrive, enabling individual growth, and creating collegial collaborative cultures. She works with academics and professionals at all levels, from senior academic leaders, to mid and early career researchers, to PhD students. She is also a mentor for academics and has been/is on various Faculty evaluation panels and various International Advisory Boards. An example of a course is the Academic Leadership Development Course for Informatics Europe, run in conjunction with Austen Rainer, Queens Uni Belfast. She also offers bespoke courses.