Speaker 1: How I Work is having a little break for a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks over Easter, so I have hand picked
Speaker 1: some of my absolute favorite episodes from the last year
Speaker 1: to play for you, and I'll be back with new
Speaker 1: interviews from Thursday, May one. Like many of us, you
Speaker 1: probably spend a significant amount of your week in meetings,
Speaker 1: But how many of those meetings actually feel productive? Are
Speaker 1: they driving your team forward or just draining time and energy.
Speaker 1: Today we're going to learn how to change that and
Speaker 1: turn meetings into one of the most powerful tools in
Speaker 1: your toolkit. I'm thrilled to have Professor Stephen Rogelberg back
Speaker 1: on How I Work to help us make the most
Speaker 1: of our meetings. Stephen is an organizational psychologist and a
Speaker 1: professor who has received awards for his research into meeting effectiveness,
Speaker 1: and Adam Grant has even described Stephen as the world's
Speaker 1: leading expert on how to fix meetings. In this episode,
Speaker 1: Stephen will reveal the common mistakes we all make when
Speaker 1: it comes to meetings, how to prepare a meeting for
Speaker 1: success before it even starts, and how you can be
Speaker 1: the most effective meeting leader ever. Welcome to How I Work,
Speaker 1: a show about habits rituals and strategies for optimizing your day.
Speaker 1: I'm your host, doctor Amantha Imber. According to Stephen, there
Speaker 1: are about one billion meetings held around the world every day.
Speaker 1: That is a lot of meetings, and I think we
Speaker 1: can be sure not all of them actually need to happen.
Speaker 1: So the first rule for holding an effective meeting is
Speaker 1: to figure out if you even need to be having
Speaker 1: a meeting in the first place. You know, the saying
Speaker 1: this meeting could have been an email. But how exactly
Speaker 1: do you figure out if something deserves a meeting or not?
Speaker 1: Even this is apparently quite simple.
Speaker 2: Well, the general rule of thumb is that a you
Speaker 2: have a compelling topic, and b that compelling topic needs
Speaker 2: engagement and involvement. Right, So there's that two pieces to it.
Speaker 2: If something is not compelling or doesn't need engagement, then
Speaker 2: you don't need a meeting.
Speaker 1: You make it sound so simple. Are there some rules
Speaker 1: of thumb or different categories of things that we might
Speaker 1: want to be talking about that we can go Yes,
Speaker 1: that definitely needs a meeting?
Speaker 2: No, there isn't. There really is just this general intentionality
Speaker 2: to step back and say, Okay, I'm putting this together.
Speaker 2: Who really needs to be there and do I need
Speaker 2: to actually have this meeting. But let me tell you
Speaker 2: a technique, right that can be helpful because I know
Speaker 2: you like specifics and practical tips, so let me share
Speaker 2: one of that you obviously know about agendas, and agendas
Speaker 2: are typically organized by topics. So what I want to
Speaker 2: challenge meeting leaders to do is to organize their agenda
Speaker 2: as a set of questions to be answered. By framing
Speaker 2: your agenda's questions to be answered, now you actually have
Speaker 2: to stop and really think about why you're having this meeting, right,
Speaker 2: it's to answer these questions. So that's a way of
Speaker 2: addressing one of the things you talked about. By framing
Speaker 2: your agenda's questions, you now have a better sense of
Speaker 2: who to invite the relevant to the questions. You know
Speaker 2: if the meeting has been successful, the questions have been answered.
Speaker 2: Questions creates an engaging challenge for attendees that brings them
Speaker 2: in and to your question. By framing, if you just
Speaker 2: can't think of any questions, a likely means you don't
Speaker 2: need a meeting. So I think this question based approach
Speaker 2: can serve as a nice litmus test for figuring out
Speaker 2: whether you need a meeting or not.
Speaker 1: Now you mentioned that questions will help us figure out
Speaker 1: who to invite. What should we be thinking if we
Speaker 1: are the meeting organizer and we're deciding who should I invite,
Speaker 1: and maybe we're questioning, oh, we're borderline on some people, Yeah,
Speaker 1: what should we do?
Speaker 2: So it's almost like think about planning a wedding. Right
Speaker 2: when we plan a wedding, we know who has to
Speaker 2: be there, and then we know, well, these people might
Speaker 2: be nice to have. The must haves are very clear.
Speaker 2: It's the nice hat to haves that gets it's in trouble,
Speaker 2: especially because once we invite one of the nice to haves,
Speaker 2: then we feel pressure to invite additional ones. So the
Speaker 2: general thinking is, let's identify the must haves and then
Speaker 2: the nice to haves. Let's just have a separate conversation
Speaker 2: with them. Let's tell them, Hey, we're having a meeting
Speaker 2: around X, Y and Z. I don't think it's highly
Speaker 2: relevant to you. If you have any input on it,
Speaker 2: let me know. If not, you know, I'm going to
Speaker 2: keep you in the loops so you can decide to
Speaker 2: attend future meetings if you like. When you do that,
Speaker 2: when you kind of close the loop, in some way
Speaker 2: for these nice to haves, and you do deliver some
Speaker 2: quick meeting notes like, they are so relieved, they are
Speaker 2: so grateful that you're respecting their time. So really, I
Speaker 2: think the exercise is to think of this. I do
Speaker 2: think this wedding analogy works. You know, this whole must
Speaker 2: have nice to have. Focus on the must haves and
Speaker 2: the nice to haves. Let's give them a break and
Speaker 2: figure out another way that they can still be in
Speaker 2: the loop. Provides some input without losing their time.
Speaker 1: What else can we do before the meeting to give
Speaker 1: it the best chance of success.
Speaker 2: Well, let me frame it this way. In our research,
Speaker 2: the best meeting leaders appear to have something in common,
Speaker 2: and what they have in common is a similar mindset,
Speaker 2: and that mindset is a mindset of stewardship. They're a
Speaker 2: steward of others' time. The thought of people leaving their
Speaker 2: meetings saying it was a waste is so uncomfortable to
Speaker 2: them that they act with intentionality. And this intentionality is
Speaker 2: instead of just you know, dialing the meeting in using
Speaker 2: default calendar settings, right, you're making choices. You're saying, Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm having this meeting. This is how long I think
Speaker 2: it should be, this is who must be there, So
Speaker 2: you're just being intentional. And furthermore, one of the things
Speaker 2: I talk about in my book is this idea of
Speaker 2: a pre mortem, and a pre mortem is where you
Speaker 2: start to think about what are the potential challenges and
Speaker 2: problems that could arise in the meeting? And given that,
Speaker 2: how should I design the meeting? And so it's just
Speaker 2: stepping back and giving it a little bit of thought.
Speaker 2: And interestingly, we act with intentionality all the time when
Speaker 2: we're meeting with important stakeholders because we don't want those
Speaker 2: people to leave the meeting saying that was a waste
Speaker 2: of time. But we typically don't act with intentionality when
Speaker 2: it comes to meeting with our peers or directs. So
Speaker 2: this intentionality is just saying, all right, people are giving
Speaker 2: me the biggest gift. They have their time, so how
Speaker 2: can I honor that time? And so are you? Tightness
Speaker 2: of invites ordering of the agenda, right, hit the most
Speaker 2: important things first, you know, not the superficial stuff. Right,
Speaker 2: Keep the meeting as short and tight as possible. You
Speaker 2: can always find more time to meet. But we know
Speaker 2: from Parkinson's law that work expands to fill whatever time
Speaker 2: is allotted to it, So keep it tight, you'll get
Speaker 2: it done. And those are some really important intentional design
Speaker 2: factors to keep in mind.
Speaker 1: What else have you found that the best meeting leaders
Speaker 1: have in common?
Speaker 2: So that's the main one, but then there's other ones
Speaker 2: that fall from that. For example, facilitation when one of
Speaker 2: the best predictors of people's perceptions of an ineffective meeting
Speaker 2: is the leader doing more talking than the attendees. The
Speaker 2: more the leader talks, the more the ratings go down.
Speaker 2: And that makes a heck of a lot of sense, right,
Speaker 2: because the leader is supposed to be facilitating. That's their job, right,
Speaker 2: They've called this party together and their job is to
Speaker 2: get these voices out. It doesn't mean that they can't
Speaker 2: talk during it, but the mean it does mean that
Speaker 2: they shouldn't be dominating because they invited people. If they dominate,
Speaker 2: the meeting could have just been an email. So that
Speaker 2: propensity to facilitate is really critical. And what underlies that
Speaker 2: is this desire to listen, right, to truly engage and include.
Speaker 2: And then the other characteristic of really good meeting leaders
Speaker 2: is they understand that meetings need an end ding. So
Speaker 2: we know meetings end. Right, everything ends, but an ending
Speaker 2: is something different.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: An ending is where you stop three to five minutes
Speaker 2: before the end and you say, okay, well did we
Speaker 2: actually decide and for each of these things, who is
Speaker 2: the dri the directly responsible individual? And what did we
Speaker 2: not decide? You know, so we know that these are
Speaker 2: things that we have to discuss at another time. At
Speaker 2: the same time, during this ending, you're recording this key information,
Speaker 2: so you're not a ten can stay in the loop.
Speaker 2: So that is another key thing that really differentiates excellent
Speaker 2: meeting leaders from not so excellent meeting leaders.
Speaker 1: What else can we do during a meeting to get
Speaker 1: the best outcome, whether that be facilitation techniques that work,
Speaker 1: or other strategies that you found.
Speaker 2: I mean, facilitation is absolutely the most key, but you know,
Speaker 2: there's lots of different ways to have a meeting, and so,
Speaker 2: for example, silence in meetings is phenomenal. The research shows
Speaker 2: that when people brainstorm in silence typing directly into their computers,
Speaker 2: they generate nearly twice as many ideas, and the ideas
Speaker 2: tend to be more creative, right, because everyone can talk
Speaker 2: at once and you're not influenced by that very first
Speaker 2: thing you hear, so a meeting leader can say, Okay,
Speaker 2: depending on what we're trying to solve, maybe silent brainstorming
Speaker 2: could be really meaningful. Again, depending on what you want
Speaker 2: to solve, Sometimes a standing meeting is really a helpful.
Speaker 2: Standing meetings generally take half as much time and yield
Speaker 2: the same quality decisions. You might choose to get people
Speaker 2: into pairs before the conversation. What we've found is that
Speaker 2: when you tell people, hey, again, to pairs and start
Speaker 2: to talk about this problem or issue for just three
Speaker 2: minutes and then we'll all come together. When you do
Speaker 2: that and then you return to the big group, people
Speaker 2: are participating, right, you've kind of greased the rails. So
Speaker 2: that's another technique that could be super helpful. So there's
Speaker 2: lots of choices, and that's I think a really key
Speaker 2: takeaway for your listeners is that we need meeting leaders
Speaker 2: to think about things and make choices. You know, we
Speaker 2: have around a billion meetings a day around the globe
Speaker 2: and they generally all look the same. That's not good, right,
Speaker 2: Let's mix it up. Let's change it up and position
Speaker 2: yourself as a leader as part of the solution, as
Speaker 2: opposed to being part of the problem.
Speaker 1: Have you seen particularly effective ways to open a meeting,
Speaker 1: whether it be effective, creative, what have you seen that works?
Speaker 2: So the opening of a meeting is indeed important, and
Speaker 2: the best practice is after you know, three to five
Speaker 2: minutes of just kind of conversation and some quick notes,
Speaker 2: you go hard on the most important topic. It's also
Speaker 2: at times helpful for the meeting leader to start the
Speaker 2: meeting sharing what her hopes are for the meeting. That
Speaker 2: you know, right when you say listen, I really want
Speaker 2: everyone to engage. You're here because I need your voice.
Speaker 2: We also need people to disagree with one another, not
Speaker 2: personally but about ideas, right, So starting the meeting with
Speaker 2: some expectations increases the chances of those behaviors happening. So
Speaker 2: that's really valuable. Another key thing is, you know, a
Speaker 2: meeting leader has to recognize that they are inherently a host,
Speaker 2: right they call this meeting party together. So what does
Speaker 2: a host do? A host welcomes people, a host makes introductions.
Speaker 2: A host is also sensitive to their own mood state. Interestingly,
Speaker 2: one of the best predictors the mood of a meeting
Speaker 2: is the mood of the leader coming into the meeting,
Speaker 2: and mood actually matters. When the mood of the meeting
Speaker 2: is better, people listen to one another, they tend to
Speaker 2: be more creative, and they tend to disagree more constructively.
Speaker 2: So those are some really key things that leaders can
Speaker 2: do at the start.
Speaker 1: It's interesting about mood. What can we do if we
Speaker 1: know that the meeting is going to be a difficult
Speaker 1: one in terms of the conversation that we're tackling. What
Speaker 1: can we do to give that meeting the best chance
Speaker 1: of success.
Speaker 2: Well, I think I'm going to circle back to what
Speaker 2: I mentioned earlier about this idea of framing your agenda
Speaker 2: as questions to be answered. So now when you submit
Speaker 2: that agenda, you are signaling very clearly what's going to happen.
Speaker 2: Most of these agendas actually don't really do a good
Speaker 2: job signaling to people what's the critical matters. So I
Speaker 2: think that that is a really useful strategy for getting
Speaker 2: people ready to go and to participate.
Speaker 1: We'll be back with Stevens soon, and when we return,
Speaker 1: he'll be sharing some of the quirkier, unique things that
Speaker 1: you can do to engage people in a meeting and
Speaker 1: what the biggest predictors of meeting satisfaction are. If you're
Speaker 1: looking for more tips to improve the way you work
Speaker 1: can live. I write a short weekly newsletter that contains
Speaker 1: tactics I've discovered that have helped me personally. You can
Speaker 1: sign up for that at Amantha dot com. That's Amantha
Speaker 1: dot com. What else can we do during the meeting?
Speaker 1: What are some of the more quirkier techniques that you've
Speaker 1: seen to engage people and get the best out of people?
Speaker 2: So the silent one certainly is quirky, but I'll add
Speaker 2: that interestingly, taking a break. You know, even if you
Speaker 2: have a sixty minute meeting, taking a three minute break
Speaker 2: in the middle of the meeting is quirky and really effective. Generally,
Speaker 2: it does a couple of things. First of all, we
Speaker 2: all know that people are technology addicted, so that little
Speaker 2: break people can check their phones as opposed to doing
Speaker 2: it during the meeting. Next, what typically happens when you
Speaker 2: have a break is after that break, someone will say, hey,
Speaker 2: I was also thinking about X right, Because typically meetings
Speaker 2: are kind of like a runaway train. They get momentum,
Speaker 2: and when you have a break, it breaks that momentum
Speaker 2: and allows for other content to emerge. So that's another
Speaker 2: interesting possibility that you can play with. The Other thing
Speaker 2: that maybe is a little quirky that works is to
Speaker 2: do some of these voting apps to test consensus. We
Speaker 2: often rely on determining whether there's consensus based on the
Speaker 2: loudest voices, and that's not effective. So if we quickly
Speaker 2: stop and say, hey, you know, I want to get
Speaker 2: a pulse of where folks are out. We're talking about
Speaker 2: these three things, where's everyone out? Which ones do you support?
Speaker 2: And do it via an app. That's a nice way
Speaker 2: of really getting a good feel for things and figuring
Speaker 2: out whether you could go in different directions. You can
Speaker 2: also use that voting to say do you think we
Speaker 2: need to keep talking about this? Are you ready to
Speaker 2: make a decision?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: So there's a lot of check ins that can happen
Speaker 2: in a very safe way that allows you to be
Speaker 2: a meeting leader that's sensitive to the broader dynamics, just
Speaker 2: not the loudest voices.
Speaker 1: I love the idea of voting apps. It also makes
Speaker 1: me think of very large meetings, But what is your
Speaker 1: research found in terms of the optimal size for a.
Speaker 2: Meeting doesn't exist. There's no such thing as an optimal size.
Speaker 2: It just always comes down to what you're trying to achieve,
Speaker 2: and depending on what you're trying to achieve, that determines
Speaker 2: the size. Now, if it is around decision making, you know,
Speaker 2: once you start passing eight people, it's just hard to
Speaker 2: truly facilitate. You have to be a very skilled facilitator
Speaker 2: to bring out more voices. So that's something to keep
Speaker 2: in mind. If the meeting is more of a tell
Speaker 2: show questions than you know, like a town hall, then
Speaker 2: those meetings can be really large because you're not really
Speaker 2: looking for folks to deeply engage on the content. So
Speaker 2: depending on what you're trying to achieve, that kind of
Speaker 2: determines who needs to be there and who doesn't need
Speaker 2: to be there.
Speaker 1: I'd love to know more about those town hall meetings
Speaker 1: because you know, ideally, well, what you said is that
Speaker 1: the facilitator of the meeting, the leader of the meeting,
Speaker 1: would do best not to talk so much. But typically
Speaker 1: in a town hall, the leaders talk a lot. So
Speaker 1: what does a great townholl look like?
Speaker 2: We just have to remember what town halls do well
Speaker 2: and what they do bad. They're not for discussion. So
Speaker 2: the best town halls are just short and the best
Speaker 2: town halls bring up critical issues and not the superficial issues,
Speaker 2: because the superficial issues could just be handled via email
Speaker 2: or you could record yourself talking. So if you're putting
Speaker 2: people into a context where they're just going to be
Speaker 2: listening to someone talk, I mean, just keep in mind that,
Speaker 2: you know, our batteries for that are pretty darn low.
Speaker 2: So keep it short, keep it really short.
Speaker 1: What does short mean? What is short?
Speaker 2: I think most town halls can be twenty minutes.
Speaker 1: That is a lot shorter than most town halls.
Speaker 2: I suspect, yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1: What is your opinion on AI tools in meetings? What
Speaker 1: can help us and what can hinder?
Speaker 2: You know, I fully embrace it. I think there's lots
Speaker 2: of possibilities. I think AI could be extremely helpful with
Speaker 2: the scheduling of meetings, finding some good openings for folks
Speaker 2: in thoughtful ways. I think AI is fantastic for capturing
Speaker 2: the meeting notes. We've really gotten better at that. You know,
Speaker 2: even the built in packages into Zoom what have you
Speaker 2: does a great job capturing what are the key takeaways
Speaker 2: from the meeting. It's awesome. I think AI excels with that,
Speaker 2: which is great. Again as a way of managing number
Speaker 2: of attendees. What I'm still struggling with is AI serving
Speaker 2: in any type of facilitation role. So there are startups
Speaker 2: that are playing with that. You know, where the AI
Speaker 2: is putting real time feedback saying, hey, this person hasn't talked,
Speaker 2: or here's who's talking the most, and the leader is
Speaker 2: able to monitor that, you know, then there's AI saying
Speaker 2: you know, actually prompting saying you know that might say
Speaker 2: you KNOWMANTHD, what do you think? So I'm not as
Speaker 2: keen on that. I want the meeting leader to do that.
Speaker 2: I really do. I don't want to punt that to AI.
Speaker 2: Over time, the AI facilitator is going to get better
Speaker 2: and better and better. But I don't think that fundamentally
Speaker 2: changes the need for the meeting leader to be thoughtful
Speaker 2: in the design and execution of the meeting. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I love use of AI definitely for scheduling and note taking,
Speaker 2: though I think it's very, very helpful.
Speaker 1: I'd love to know about meeting satisfaction because that's something
Speaker 1: that you've measured many, many times. What are the biggest
Speaker 1: predictors of meeting satisfaction, some of which we might have covered,
Speaker 1: But I'm wondering if there's other things that we haven't covered.
Speaker 2: So participation is a key one. Relevance of the meeting
Speaker 2: is a key one. The leader facilitating definitely a key one.
Speaker 2: The types of participation and listening of other attendees is
Speaker 2: really important. And then interestingly, one of the better predictors
Speaker 2: of meeting satisfaction is actually food. Yeah. Yeah, having food
Speaker 2: and meetings seems to make people pretty darn excited. But
Speaker 2: I would argue it's not the food in and of itself,
Speaker 2: but food helps people make separation from what they were
Speaker 2: doing before the meeting to the meeting itself, which I
Speaker 2: think allows them to be more focused. Food can also
Speaker 2: elevate mood into a more positive direction, which also can
Speaker 2: lead to a more positive meeting. But yeah, snacks can
Speaker 2: be helpful.
Speaker 1: What else can we do to elevate mood?
Speaker 2: Steven? You know, I think a meeting leader expressing appreciation
Speaker 2: and gratitude set's a really key stage for that. Even
Speaker 2: during trying and difficult times, we can always find opportunities
Speaker 2: to express appreciation and gratitude. So I think starting these
Speaker 2: types of engagements with those types of reflections can get
Speaker 2: people in a really good headspace.
Speaker 1: Hm, I would love to explore what happens after the meeting,
Speaker 1: like what is in our control after the meeting ends,
Speaker 1: to make sure that it was time will spent.
Speaker 2: If the meeting has a proper ending, like I mentioned,
Speaker 2: with things being recorded and DRIs being identified, the chances
Speaker 2: of action happening is so much higher. So it really
Speaker 2: comes down to that ending and doing it well. You know,
Speaker 2: once that's documented, then the leader is very well positioned
Speaker 2: to follow up and make sure that these things actually happen.
Speaker 2: But so often at the end of the meeting, you know,
Speaker 2: people are actually not clear what was decided, They're not
Speaker 2: clear who's responsible, so action doesn't happen and leaders don't
Speaker 2: follow up. So having that proper ending just increases the
Speaker 2: chances of all those things happening.
Speaker 1: Are there ways that you encourage people to just keep
Speaker 1: track on this was an action that came out of
Speaker 1: the meeting, and so we need to track that or
Speaker 1: do we just have trust?
Speaker 2: You know, I think trust is great and I think
Speaker 2: should always be the lead strategy. But there's no reason
Speaker 2: why the meeting outcomes can't be recorded into an asynchronous
Speaker 2: document that everyone can look and track, and people can
Speaker 2: provide updates of how what the progress they're making. So
Speaker 2: I think that's perfectly fine action to take, and I
Speaker 2: think people generally welcome it.
Speaker 1: I'd love to know from all the research that you
Speaker 1: have done, what have been some of the more surprising
Speaker 1: findings that you found in your research. Well.
Speaker 2: I think it's always surprising that agendas in and of
Speaker 2: themselves do not improve meeting quality. I think that's something
Speaker 2: that's surprising, but when people reflect, it's not much of
Speaker 2: a surprise because so many agendas are just recycled meeting
Speaker 2: to meeting. And then what matters more is what's on
Speaker 2: the agenda, right, is it truly compelling? And what matters
Speaker 2: even more is how you facilitate discussion of that agenda.
Speaker 2: So this idea of just having a piece of paper
Speaker 2: with topics isn't all that inspirational. This is why in
Speaker 2: my book I titled the chapter agendas are a Hollow Crutch,
Speaker 2: because so often leaders think by having an agenda that
Speaker 2: they're a good meeting leader, and they're not. So that
Speaker 2: to me is kind of a fun surprising finding. Another
Speaker 2: I think interesting finding is to me has always been
Speaker 2: this idea that when you survey people coming out of
Speaker 2: a meeting, there is one person who says that was
Speaker 2: really good, and that person is the leading leader, the
Speaker 2: meeting leader. The meeting leader seems to have this inflated
Speaker 2: sense of how well the meeting went, and why wouldn't
Speaker 2: they right, they are talking as much as they want.
Speaker 2: And so this disconnect, though, I think is really important
Speaker 2: because given this disconnect, meeting leaders aren't all that motivated
Speaker 2: to make many changes to how they run meetings because
Speaker 2: they think it went pretty well. So overall, they generally
Speaker 2: think the meeting problem is due to others, not themselves.
Speaker 1: How can we overcome that? How can we give leaders
Speaker 1: a bit more of a clear idea of what's going on?
Speaker 2: Yeah, So, like I'm working with this company called Cairos.
Speaker 2: Kairos and this Canadian company. They're really cool and basic.
Speaker 2: What they do is they've created a solution where leaders
Speaker 2: can actually see how they are at running meetings and
Speaker 2: then they're given feedback and they're provided with tools and
Speaker 2: tricks and tips to address the feedback they received. So
Speaker 2: a technology solution, I think is a great way of
Speaker 2: addressing the issue. But then there's lower fidelity solutions as well. So,
Speaker 2: for example, the meeting leader can every once in a
Speaker 2: while survey their people and ask them what's going well
Speaker 2: not so well, and ideas for making the meetings better.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: Meetings are shared experiences. Leaders know that people are frustrated
Speaker 2: by meetings, so if you position yourself there's someone interested
Speaker 2: in solving it. It's a great reflection on you.
Speaker 1: I love that advice, Steven. I am so glad that
Speaker 1: you agreed to meet with me for a second time.
Speaker 1: You are such a fountain of knowledge when it comes
Speaker 1: to meetings, and I so appreciate your time. I hope
Speaker 1: I've used it respectfully. I let you do most of
Speaker 1: the talking, so I did that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're a great facilitator. I totally feel so, and
Speaker 2: that's why I decided to do it again. So thank you,
Speaker 2: appreciate it, and yeah, thank you for helping bring the
Speaker 2: science to your audience.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I hope you love this chat
Speaker 1: with Stephen as much as I did. There are definitely
Speaker 1: a few strategies I think we can all implement into
Speaker 1: our next meeting. If you want to learn more about Stephen,
Speaker 1: you can check out his website Stepnogelberg dot com. He
Speaker 1: has a ton of resources there to help you out
Speaker 1: with your next meeting. As well as links to his books,
Speaker 1: which are awesome and believe it or not, he doesn't
Speaker 1: make a single cent from his book sales because he
Speaker 1: donates everything he makes from them to cancer research. You
Speaker 1: can find a link to his website in the show notes.
Speaker 1: If you like today's show, make sure you get follow
Speaker 1: on your podcast app to be alerted when new episodes drop.
Speaker 1: How I Work was recorded on the traditional land of
Speaker 1: the Warrangery people, part of the cool And Nation.