Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(Ep. 389)
by Stephen J. Dubner
Produced by Matt Frassica
September 18, 2019 @ 11:00pm
* * *
I’d like you to be particularly open-minded today. I’d like you to entertain
the possibility that two absurdly disconnected stories may in fact have a
deep connection — and that if you’re willing to see it through, this
connection may yield insights that substantially improve your life. Or not.
But let’s try. The first story is set in the Okavango Delta in Botswana.
WALKER: Yeah, right now I’m studying three species of spiral horned
antelopes.
In the Okavango, Walker was studying a species known as the African wild
dog.
WALKER: So what’s amazing about this study site is these dogs have
been followed for 25 years. So they are raised with vehicles right
there. And they’re so habituated that they really don’t recognize the
vehicle.
This allows the researchers to get close enough to record really good
video.
In the videos the dogs lie around, keeping cool in the shade. Sometimes
they pile on each other and play. And sometimes the dogs make these
strange sounds.
WALKER: It’s really odd. The sounds they make are unvoiced, kind of
like sneezes.
WALKER: Yeah, a rally is— African wild dogs are incredibly social
animals. So they spend their whole lives in packs.
In each pack, there are dominant dogs and less-dominant dogs. Let’s say
the pack has just been lying around, and the dominant dog gets up.
WALKER: And he greets other dogs. Just like your dog greets you
when you get home from work. They try to recruit other pack
members to stop resting and sleeping in the shade, to go hunt. And
that either ends in a successful rally, where the whole pack leaves the
resting site and goes to hunt, or an unsuccessful rally, where they lie
back down.
WALKER: Sneezes really only happened in those rally events. The only
other sneezes that we observed, it was 15 percent of them, looked like
they were just sneezing because they got dust in their nose.
they were just sneezing because they got dust in their nose.
So what did the sneezing have to do with the rally events? Were they
some kind of communication? Well, consider our second story. It’s about
this person:
Specifically:
Have you ever been to a meeting where no one says what they really
think? Of course you have.
Remember, the sneezes happen when one of the dogs rallies the pack to
go hunting. Hallie Walker was trying to discern the difference between a
successful rally and an unsuccessful one. It turned out the sneezes were a
strong indicator.
Could it be that the sneezes are how the dog pack votes on whether to go
hunting? That a sneeze means “Sure, let’s go hunting now!” And no
sneeze means, “Nah, let’s lie in the dirt for a while.”
WALKER: So our research actually didn’t establish any direct causality.
That’s the kind of subtlety I definitely want to get across. So we have a
very strong correlation between the number of sneezes, so it could be
that they’ve already decided and they’re clearing their nasal passages
to leave. It is a cue. We know for sure that it’s a cue. But we don’t know
for sure that it’s a signal. If that makes sense.
But Walker did find a relationship between the number of sneezes and the
status of the dog that attempted the rally.
WALKER: When a dominant individual was the one that got up and
started the motion—
Now picture: same meeting but instead of being led by the global sales
manager, it’s the assistant to the regional manager.
Have you ever been in that meeting? Yes; yes, you have. You have been in
every kind of terrible meeting there is. How do we know? Because we
asked Freakonomics Radio listeners for their meeting stories, and here’s
what you told us:
Hagai SCHACHOR: I have no idea what I’m doing there because it’s
not relevant to my work at all.
SCHACHOR: And to add to that, the guy who invited all of us said, “I’ve
got to run, enjoy the meeting,” and he just, poof, left.
JOHNSON: Until they were literally climbing up on the table and each
had a knee on the table, shaking fists and screaming at each other.
* * *
There are of course many kinds of meetings, with different rules and
customs and outcomes depending on where they’re held and with whom.
You’ve got community-board meetings and family meetings and the
weekly floor meeting in a college dorm. You may belong to a knitting club
or a rugby team or a religious group that meets regularly. With such
variety, there’s no way this episode can be remotely encyclopedic. So we
will focus on the most standardized meetings: the ones held by
professionals in offices, whether it’s a construction company or a tech or
healthcare firm; whether it’s a non-profit or an academic or government
department. Because all those places have a lot of meetings.
DUBNER: So does that fact mean that the people who end up running
companies or institutions are basically the people who are good at
meetings?
ROGELBERG: Oh, I wish that was the case. But, no, that does not
appear to be the case. Some of the research I do looks at satisfaction
with a meeting. And if you survey people immediately after a meeting,
one person is invariably more positive than everyone else. And this one
person is the meeting leader. The person who’s leading the meeting
says, “Hey, this is really good.” And why wouldn’t they feel that?
They’re controlling the whole experience. They’re talking the most.
They’re like, “Hey this is nirvana.” But everyone else is reporting much
more negative experiences.
is jarring, because senior managers are the ones calling the most
meetings. So if senior managers are calling them unproductive, we
know we have a problem.
ROGELBERG: Hey, that’s a really good guess. Yes — that’s right. There
is no organizational intentionality around this. And with no
organizational accountability, leaders are just part of this system,
where bad meetings are just the cost of doing business. Like the rain is
in London. So I study meetings because I dislike them tremendously. I
study them because I know it is a source of frustration for so many
people.
Okay, so: we hold a lot of meetings even though most people don’t like
meetings and consider them unproductive. But there’s a wrinkle:
Okay, it may not come as a shock to you that meetings do not always
serve their advertised purpose. Or that there was barely a purpose at all.
We heard this sentiment from several listeners — including, here, Michael
Conklin, who used to work in the oil-and-gas industry:
ROGELBERG: I just want the leader to think about how long the
meeting should be. So give it a set of goals. Make a decision. This is
particularly important given something called Parkinson’s Law. And
Parkinson’s Law is this idea that work expands to whatever time is
allotted to it. So if you schedule an hour, it’s going to take an hour. But
if you schedule 48 minutes, it’s gonna take 48 minutes.
If you doubt the legitimacy of Parkinson’s Law, consider this story from a
listener named Chad Wiebe. He’s a financial planner in Canada.
Chad WIEBE: So my boss at the time said, “Let’s have a four-hour long
meeting,” which is excruciating. So at the end of this planning meeting
we had half an hour still to fill. I put my hand up and I said, “You know
what, I think it would be really appreciated if we just cut everybody
loose a half hour early, let everyone get back to the office a little bit
earlier.” And I was met with silence for about 10, 15 seconds before
one of my other middle managers piped up and said, “You know what?
I just brought in a client who’s a magician.” And so, we hired a
magician. For half an hour. It was unbelievable.
Here’s Steven Rogelberg’s advice: rather than hiring magicians to fill out
your scheduled meeting time, set a tight time frame and use that
tightness to your advantage.
about how that meeting should be facilitated. And we do this all the
time when it comes to meetings we have with customers. When we
meet with a customer, we think about that in advance. But when it
comes to employee meetings, we just dial it in. We rely on habits. And
a great example is the research shows that 50 percent of agendas are
recycled. We would never do that with customers.
DUBNER: I feel like every time you call a meeting that involves a lot of
people from different arenas, you are inevitably asking each of them to
waste a lot of time.
ROGELBERG: Meetings are getting larger and larger and larger. And
this phenomenon is not happening out of bad intentions. Typically we
just don’t want to exclude anyone. And at the same time, technology
makes it so easy for us to just hijack someone’s calendar. And the
research shows that larger meetings are just filled with additional
dysfunction. While people generally complain about having a meeting,
they complain just as much if they are not invited to a meeting. Given
they complain just as much if they are not invited to a meeting. Given
this reality, there’s a couple of things that we can do. So first of all, we
can actually design the agenda such that part of the agenda is
relevant to a large group of individuals, and then part of it is relevant to
a smaller section of that. So a big group attends for part of the
meeting and then people leave. And then it’s a smaller group that has
additional discussion. And what a leader can do is once they start
thinking about meeting attendees as being core vs. secondary, that
can be a very useful distinction.
PARKER: Most of us have been raised with the age-old adage “the
more, the merrier.” And for most gatherings, unless it’s literally a rave,
a soccer match, or a concert, the more is the hairier or the scarier.
PARKER: The more specific your purpose is, the more people can
actually see themselves and say, “What I do is not actually relevant to
that.” So don’t make exclusion personal. Make it purposeful.
DUBNER: At some level? At every — no, sorry, yes, yes, sorry, no, no,
no.
PARKER: Well, actually what I love about how you’re talking about it is,
it should be thought of as a form of imposition. And you only take the
meetings or the gatherings where you think that you are willing to
tolerate that imposition. And what you’re talking about is, I actually
think your instinct to say, I want to have my days free, I want to think, I
want to write, I want to interview, is a much healthier instinct, because
you’re raising the bar for anything to get through to you. For many of
the companies and organizations I work with, I don’t say gather more, I
say gather better. In many cases that means gather less.
* * *
Here’s an idea Parker got from someone who ran a weekly staff meeting.
She’s like, but the second thing that has been most interesting is, I
didn’t realize this, but people have started to say more real stuff in the
context of work, because by starting the meeting with including a
thorn as the base default, I didn’t realize I was playing a role as
cheerleader, and they didn’t think that I could handle or wanted to
have 50-50 thorns. It’s changed the norms of what’s acceptable and
what we talk about for the rest of the meeting.
PARKER: Whether it is panels that are asking guests to talk about all of
their successes or launch a product, or whether it is a meeting in
which you’re talking about how wonderful or how great things are. And
so part of the unwinding of the cult of positivity is to go back and ask,
what is the purpose of this gathering? And often, positivity prevents
progress.
The problem with meetings is that the proportion of good use of time
and bad use of time is out of whack. That’s the critical issue. It’s just
figuring out how can we increase the proportion of good time over bad
time? Good time is when the attendees of the meeting are interacting
in a genuine way such that the decisions and solutions being
generated might surpass what any one individual could have done by
themselves. And that time is not necessarily free of conflict. In fact, we
want conflict in meetings. What we don’t want is personal conflict, but
we want conflict around ideas. So if you have a group going to battle
with incredible passion around ideas — that is a fantastic meeting.
Especially if it’s a safe environment and people go “Wow, that was
amazing that we could have this level of disagreement. But in a way
that does not castrate everyone in the room.”
meaning design, and the other was the body, meaning the future
would be architecture, bricks and mortar. And the architects came
back. And we basically said, “Welcome back to the cage match. In one
corner” — I was the emcee, I was like — “In one corner you have the
body, and the other you have the head.” And fortunately for us, the
two architects were game. And so they started jeering and raising their
hands over their shoulders. We assigned coaches to each of the sides,
they threw white towels around their neck, we played the Rocky music,
right? We interrupted the script. And I said each side has two minutes
to say the strongest possible argument for the future of the vision of
the firm, whether it’s architecture or design. And then they get two
minutes for rebuttal. And everybody else — this was the key insight —
everybody else has to physically choose a side. No neutrality and no
wallflowers. And what that did was, it broke the norm of implicit
consensus, which there wasn’t.
DUBNER: And what was the outcome of this architect cage match?
PARKER: So at the end, the group voted, and the best argument was
the body.
PARKER: Well, the troublemaker is a really useful role. Would you think
of yourself as a smoother-over or a troublemaker?
DUBNER: Who, me? You haven’t figured that out by now? I’m plainly
the troublemaker.
We also heard from some listeners who’ve taken an entirely different path.
Steven Rogelberg has found some other small measures to alleviate the
pain. Snacks (of course). Getting people to switch out of their usual seats.
Using anonymous surveys so people can raise objections without fear of
reprisal. The research shows that just asking attendees to rate a meeting
raises the quality of meetings at that firm. And what about when people sit
through meetings staring at their phones?
PARKER: First, issue a last call. So the same way that a bar has a last
call, they flash the lights or you literally say, “last call.” And most
meetings, most gatherings, don’t end — they stop. We run out of time,
and then everyone scatters.
ROGELBERG: People want to feel that their time was well spent. And
this becomes a cue to tell you that indeed it was. If you know you have
absolutely answered these compelling questions, then you leave there
saying, “Ah, I accomplished something.”
PARKER: And to have a good memory at the end, which is what do you
most want people to remember, and don’t end on logistics. End on
what you want people to remember.
All right — job done, then. Thanks, Priya Parker and Steven Rogelberg.
Thanks to our anthropologist and behavioral ecologist friends — and the
African wild dogs, of course. And a big thanks to all the Freakonomics
Radio listeners who sent us their meeting stories.
* * *
Here’s where you can learn more about the people and ideas in this
episode:
SOURCES
RESOURCES
EXTRA
The Surprising Science of Meetings: How You Can Lead Your Team
to Peak Performance, by Steven Rogelberg.