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 Ahead. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 13.

Rogelberg, S. G., King, E. B., & Alonso, A. (2022). How we can bring IO psychology science and evidence-based practices to the public. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), 259-272.

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

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.