In Web3, which is filled with meetings every day, how to improve your meeting efficiency? | Depth Conversation

Editor’s note: Against the backdrop of the just-concluded Token2049, it has sparked a discussion on how to enhance the effectiveness of conferences, especially when the conference content often appears redundant. It is hoped that truly outstanding conference agendas will be presented in the form of unresolved issues, in order to enhance participants’ sense of purpose and involvement. At the same time, it is emphasized that participants should be relevant to the discussion topics, in order to avoid inefficiency due to excessive participation. A good conference atmosphere depends on the active guidance of leaders, who need to follow team dynamics and promote the exchange and collision of different viewpoints. In addition, regular one-on-one meetings are also an important means to enhance employee engagement and retention rates, especially when managers are able to listen to and understand employee needs. Overall, improving the quality of meetings should follow their main purposes, structural design, participant selection, and feedback mechanisms, to ensure that each meeting brings substantial value.

Summary of the core discussion issues:

The necessity of meetings and the key to successful meetings

· Meeting frequency and agenda settings

· Administrator’s mindset and participants

· Meeting Efficiency and Feedback Summary

· The format of the meeting and the importance of one-on-one meetings

· The Relationship Between Guidance and Feedback

The necessity and objectives of the meeting

**Host: Are there really so many meetings now? In the United States, there may be over 100 million meetings every day, some of which are very successful, while others are not satisfactory. Today, we are going to discuss how to improve meetings. Steve, did you come to Oslo for this meeting?

Steve: Yes, this is the meeting I have always wanted to participate in.

Host: How did you become interested in the conference?

Steve: Actually, I can’t explain it clearly. It’s just that I am filled with meetings every day, but I always feel no sense of accomplishment, which makes me very frustrated. Is this feeling common among countless working people? The answer is yes, days full of meetings are exhausting.

Host: What is the key to a successful meeting?

Steve: There are several key factors to a successful meeting. First, clear objectives. Studies have shown that the best meeting hosts have one thing in common: they see themselves as managers of other people’s time. When you think this way, you become more intentional in the selection, design, guidance, and ending of meetings. We usually maintain this management awareness when meeting with important stakeholders. However, when meeting with teams or colleagues, we often relax this standard. We will discuss how to embody this goal awareness in specific choices.

Meeting Frequency and Format

Host: So when should the meeting be held?

Steve: Meetings should be held with clear purposes, requiring interaction and participation.

Host: Should we schedule regular meetings, such as every Monday?

Steve: If there is sufficient reason to do so, such arrangements can be made, but meetings should not be held just out of habit. We should be more cautious and ensure that meetings are only scheduled when absolutely necessary.

Host: So when should we send the email?

Steve: Some emails can actually be transformed into meetings, while some meetings can be replaced by emails. The key lies in whether the content requires interaction. If the content requires participation, then a meeting is an ideal form. Let’s discuss a technical approach that is closely related to meeting agendas. Everyone knows the importance of setting an agenda, but I would like to propose an alternative method to help determine when to hold a meeting and when not to.

Rather than listing the agenda as a topic for discussion, it’s better to see it as a question to be answered. By framing the agenda as a question, you need to pause and think carefully: Why am I calling this meeting?

In this way, you will have a clearer idea of who the key participants in the meeting are, as they are closely related to these issues. At the same time, this will enable you to better judge whether the meeting is successful - if the questions are answered, the meeting is effective. If you can’t think of any questions, then maybe there is no need to hold a meeting.

Meeting participants, scale, time, and complete summary of the whole process

Host: What is the mindset of a manager?

Steve: This means that when you invite people to a meeting, you respect their time. When you have this managerial mindset, you will make choices more carefully to ensure that the investment of this meeting time is valuable, making people feel that it is not a waste, but a gain.

Moderator: Who should attend the meeting?

Steve: The people attending the meeting should be those who can answer important questions. During the epidemic, in order not to make anyone feel excluded, we often invite many people to participate at will. The desire to expand the size of the meeting stems from three factors: first, out of goodwill, wanting everyone to participate; second, laziness, casually occupying others’ calendars; third, uneasiness, especially in the background of remote work, leaders lack management confidence, so they express their management presence by increasing the number of meeting participants.

Host: What is the ideal size of the meeting?

Steve: Depending on the desired interaction effect, it can be challenging to create interaction with more than 8 people. The host must have strong guiding abilities.

Host: How long should the meeting last?

Steve: The meeting time should be controlled within the necessary time, but the meeting time is often filled up. This is Parkinson’s Law, where work expands to fill the time allocated. If the meeting is scheduled for 60 minutes, it will take the full 60 minutes. However, we can take advantage of this principle. If we shorten the meeting time to 25 minutes, we can still accomplish the task. Studies have shown that reducing the designated meeting time by about 5 minutes actually creates positive pressure, enhances focus, and improves team performance.

Host: Is it helpful to record the meeting content for those who cannot attend?

Steve: Yes, keeping a record of the meeting helps those who are absent feel okay.

Host: How to make the meeting effective and attractive?

The host needs to be aware that they are the host of the meeting, they need to welcome participants, make introductions, express gratitude, and help everyone transition from the previous state to the meeting. For example: I haven’t heard your opinion yet, Gon, what do you think? Or: Sandy, I know you are doing similar work, can you share it? This way, the host can encourage different viewpoints to collide and push for summaries at the end of the meeting.

**Host: You mentioned the importance of conflicts in meetings. We once invited Pixar’s co-founder Ed Catmull, who mentioned Steve Jobs. He once fired two board members because they never disagreed with him in meetings. He said, ‘If you don’t raise objections, you’re not contributing to the company.’ So how do you create an environment where people are willing to express different opinions?

Steve: Of course, we hope to have conflicts in the meeting, but they should be conflicts of ideas, not conflicts of personalities. To create a culture of such intellectual conflict, leaders need to express their expectations clearly first. During the meeting, they should encourage this kind of collision of thoughts. In addition, silence is also an effective way to create conflict. If the group interacts without sound, such as typing together in a document, the brainstorming effect will be better. In this way, everyone can contribute ideas at the same time, without being influenced by the first speaker, thus obtaining more diverse opinions.

Host: How to become a good listener?

Steve: Listening has multiple components, and the key to listening is to care about what the other person is saying. Therefore, active listening means truly engaging in the other person’s words and making an effort to understand what they are saying. For example, using phrases like ‘help me understand’ or ‘please elaborate’ is to better interact with the other person.

Host: How often should one-on-one meetings take place?

Steve: We have one-on-one communication every day, but I want to talk about something different. The book I wrote is called ‘Nice to Meet You: The Art and Science of One-on-One Meetings’. In this context, one-on-one meetings are conducted between managers and direct subordinates, rather than being prepared for the manager. It is a dedicated space for employees to express their thoughts and ideas, and managers only need to respond to the content of the employees. Research shows that when managers regularly conduct these one-on-one meetings, they can better follow the challenges, thoughts, concerns, and opportunities of their employees, and the engagement of employees will be higher, making it easier to retain top talent.

We conducted the investigation from two aspects. First, we inquired about people’s preference for the frequency of one-on-one meetings with managers, and the vast majority chose once a week. Then, we observed the relationship between frequency and work engagement, and found that the best effect was achieved by having one-on-one meetings every week or every two weeks. Monthly meetings often lead to a lack of continuity in the relationship, and discussions become outdated and fragmented.

Host: How many one-on-one meetings should a manager have?

Steve: Managers should have one-on-one meetings with each of their direct reports. Ideally, the number of direct reports should not exceed ten. The length of these meetings is not important, but regularity is key. A 20-minute high-quality meeting per week is just as effective as an hour-long meeting. As a manager, if you feel like you don’t have time for one-on-one meetings, you will lose out on the best talent.

**Host: If one-on-one meetings are so important, why do people hesitate to have them?

Steve: Because everyone is busy with time management, they often think about which meetings can be skipped. An alternative title for my book is Meetings That Can Never Be Replaced by Emails, because one-on-one meetings really are.

Host: Can you talk about the importance of one-on-one meetings?

Steve: A one-on-one meeting refers to an in-depth discussion between two participants, which is crucial for building trust, solving problems, and driving personal development. Such meetings can facilitate more direct communication, enabling both parties to better understand each other’s needs and challenges. Typically, senior executives speak the most at meetings, but they may not truly grasp the dynamics of the meeting. The higher the leader’s position, the easier it is for them to immerse themselves in their own speech, thinking it’s great. They believe that the more people speak, the better the meeting experience. Therefore, they may feel very successful at the end of the meeting, but other attendees may not necessarily have the same feeling.

Host: What role does guidance play in this?

**Steve：**The concept of coaching and one-on-one meetings is a perfect fit, and good mentors usually do not have personal agendas, but engage in genuine interaction with the mentee. These one-on-one meetings provide an opportunity for guidance and coaching, but it is the employee who initiates the process. If an employee mentions a specific issue, the manager can provide a solution, while the mentor will ask how you think this issue should be resolved?

Host: In your opinion, which is better, internal mentor or external mentor?

Steve: This depends on the specific role and the seniority of the employee within the organization. Generally, internal mentors can provide more relevant information, while external mentors may be more suitable in certain situations.

Host: How to end a meeting?

Steve: Although the meeting will end, there is often no clear conclusion. The best meetings should stop five or three minutes before the end, summarize, and clarify that we have discussed these topics.

Different Forms of Meetings

Host: In our foundation, we will score the conferences and there will be a leaderboard after the conference. Is this a good idea?

Steve: Good, but the use of data needs to be more nuanced. As I mentioned earlier, leaders often believe they are better at chairing meetings than others, which leads to blind spots in their perception. When they think the meetings are running well, they are usually unwilling to make changes, so feedback and data become especially important in helping raise awareness.

Host: Should we have a standing meeting?

Steve: Sometimes yes, but not always. Research shows that standing meetings generally take half the time and produce similar results. But if the meeting is long, no one would want to stand all the time. There are many options for leading a meeting, such as keeping quiet, having participants stand, or having paired discussions before group discussions. For example, a 15-minute quick meeting can be conducted in a standing format, but standing is obviously not the best choice for an eight-hour retreat meeting.

Host: What are the differences between online meetings and face-to-face meetings?

**Steve：**Before the epidemic, the evaluation of virtual meetings was generally low, and people were more inclined to face-to-face communication. However, as time goes on, people’s adaptability to virtual meetings has increased, and the effectiveness has gradually risen. Now, the effectiveness of virtual meetings is basically on par with face-to-face meetings.

Interestingly, virtual meetings have more potential in certain aspects. Because virtual meetings are essentially democratic, everyone is equal and there is no head table effect. In addition, online chat can effectively bring in more voices, and plugins such as anonymous voting and fast consensus make discussions more efficient, reducing the possibility of being influenced by dominant voices. Therefore, virtual meetings have many advantages and even surpass face-to-face meetings in certain aspects.

Host: What do you think about multitasking?

**Steve：**People often multitask during meetings, actually doing their work. This behavior may harm the effectiveness of the meeting, but it is beneficial to the organization. It can be said that multitasking is a symptom of a bad meeting.

“Original Link”