The Surprising Science of Meetings

by Steven G Rogelberg

  Why does the shared information dominate discussion and unique information stay buried? When we present shared knowledge, it is reinforced by others in the form of social approval. Nods, supportive glances, and smiles are common reactions we receive (and relish) when we present information that others believe is true. Shared knowledge does not rock the boat. Unique knowledge, on the other hand, can do just that, as it may serve to challenge ideas and thinking, which is essential to avoiding groupthink (the phenomenon that a group’s desire for harmony leads to the pressure to conform and to a lack of critical decision-making). In fact, one of the key tactics known to prevent groupthink is to make sure contrarian and unique perspectives surface during the course of discussions. Reflecting on the failed Bic underwear example, what Bic really needed was a meeting in which attendees voiced concerns, such as (1) disposable fabrics are not very comfortable, (2) is this product really needed?, and (3) does our strong image as a pen company truly position us to pursue this underwear initiative? It is clear: for organizations, getting relevant unique and contrarian perspectives to the forefront is critical.

  Could silence actually be a solution to this problem? Imagine the following scenario: Six people are in a room brainstorming solutions to a dilemma. When the brainstorming is done, researchers identify how many ideas were generated and they assess the quality of those ideas. Now imagine six different people in a room, generating ideas on the same problem but in a noninteractive manner—recording their ideas on paper. Upon completion, researchers once again identify the number of ideas generated and the quality of the ideas. Over eighty studies have been conducted using this or similar types of situations, with remarkable results. The participants who interacted during the meeting produced significantly fewer and lower-quality ideas than the non-talking meeting participants. These effects became larger and larger as meeting size increased.

  Three reasons are offered to explain why the non-talking meetings performed better than the talking meetings for brainstorming. First, there was an absence of “production blocking.” In a meeting, the general rule of thumb is that only one person can speak at a time (despite the fact that we often talk over each other). This creates some speaking logjams where ideas are at risk of being forgotten or tabled because an attendee no longer feels they are relevant or needed by the time this person has the opportunity to speak. Furthermore, finding that speaking window of opportunity can prove challenging. Leigh Thompson, a management professor at Northwestern University, found that only a few people do 60–75 percent of the talking in traditional brainstorming meetings. This dominance leaves little time for others to get their ideas in.

  A second reason is that attendees who silently wrote down their ideas did not fear social humiliation, especially when written contributions were de-identified. They could contribute freely. Early content shared by others did not frame their reality or create norms around what were socially acceptable ideas and what were not—the table was entirely clear for whatever the attendee wanted to serve up.

  The third and final reason is that the silent writing meetings fostered a process in which all attendees had to participate—the paper and pen were directly in front of them. Thus, an attendee could not hide behind others’ contributions. Overall, a written silent discussion seemed to reduce the risk that great ideas lay dormant and undiscovered.

  As meeting leaders, we must do what we can to capitalize on the critical, unique, and important ideas of our attendees in an effective and efficient manner, because what is the point of bringing folks together if we don’t? There are techniques, leveraging silence, we can use to help with this.

  A Quiet Path Forward: Brainwriting

  Brainwriting represents a series of techniques that strategically use silence to generate ideas and to prioritize ideas. Essentially, brainwriting involves silently sharing written ideas in meetings around a particular topic. Attendees participate in parallel and so there is no need to take turns. Unlike most meetings, where individual contributions are readily apparent, there is a level of anonymity in brainwriting. It is not necessary to include names or identifiers on what each person writes. Additionally, to carry out brainwriting, a facilitator is needed, and the meeting leader does not necessarily need to be that person. The core role of this facilitator is to manage the simple brainwriting process. The facilitator also reminds people of the need for silence during the process. All attendees must respect the silence, as side conversations will derail the process. That said, the meeting leader or facilitator can call silence off at any point, but the key is that it is officially called off for everyone.

  The data on brainwriting and its related forms really are quite positive. When implemented, the range of content generated, as well as the satisfaction and participation levels, is an indication that people like it and that it works. One recent study found that brainwriting groups produced 20 percent more ideas and a whopping 42 percent more original ideas as compared to traditional brainstorming approaches. Brainwriting can take on a number of forms, depending on specific need. I will share a few versions just to illustrate the range of options, but each can be adapted further to achieve meeting goals. What they all have in common is their potential to yield tremendous amounts of unfiltered ideas and thoughts in a way that does not compromise peace and goodwill.

  Simplified Brainwriting with Voting

  This version of brainwriting is as simple as you get, but still impactful. All you need is a pen and paper (loose-leaf sheets, index cards, or even large Post-it notes). Then all attendees gather together. Each person in the meeting is asked to neatly respond to a prompt on a piece of paper. The prompt is a key question, tied centrally to the meeting goal. Here are some examples organizations have used:

  • What are one to three key things we can do to improve cross-functional communication?

  • What are one to three key things we should do to improve our vendor procurement processes?

  • What are one to three key things we should do to improve how we on-board new employees?

  The questions are answered by each person, in writing and in silence. Thus, individual responses are not tainted by others or their responses. Only one idea is put on each piece of paper. So, if you have ten people in the meeting, each coming up with three key things, you will have thirty pieces of paper. A small variation of this procedure is to encourage attendees to interact with written ideas so as to create more ideas. A brainstorming prompt is distributed to attendees. However, it is open-ended in nature (e.g., don’t just identify one to three ideas; come up with as many ideas as you can to accomplish x, y, z, etc.). Once again, only one idea is put on each piece of paper. Each idea is placed in the middle of the conference table, face down. Then, after participants have run out of ideas, they reach into the middle of the table and draw pieces of paper with new ideas listed. Perhaps reading those ideas will inspire new ones, perhaps not. Regardless, participants can keep drawing papers from the middle and returning them as needed to see if or what inspiration surfaces.

  The responses are collected by a facilitator (or two, or three, or four) who sorts responses into piles of conceptually similar ideas (this could take place after the idea-generation meeting or during it). For example, thirty ideas may be boiled down to anywhere from three to ten themes (aka “buckets”) of similar ideas. Once the buckets are created, the group is ready for the next phase. In the event the group is left with a small number of buckets, the group could choose to discuss and flesh out each bucket in this or future meetings. Alternatively, leaders can use a voting process for whittling down the number of buckets needing to be discussed. In this case, the facilitator posts the five to ten buckets of ideas on the wall using tape or pins. Each person then considers the top priorities to be worked on. This voting can occur one person at a time, with others’ backs turned for complete anonymity, or—at the other extreme—as a free-for-all, where everyone just goes up and places their marks (or stickers) on the ideas they want to see pursued. Votes
are tallied and the top x number of ideas or priorities are identified for future discussion and exploration. This dramatically narrows down future ideas to be discussed, in a very inclusive and democratic fashion. The entire process is noteworthy for being inclusionary, engaging, time-effective, and generally free from pressures to conform. These meetings can often take a third of the time that traditional brainstorming meetings take.

  Brainwriting with a Written Discussion

  Brainwriting with a written discussion takes the techniques just discussed up a notch by fostering a highly inclusive discussion, but doing so entirely in writing. Let’s say a team of individuals meets to consider or evaluate a set of five to ten concepts or ideas. For example, I have seen this applied to a meeting evaluating five advertising campaigns, or a meeting evaluating seven ideas for a new employee training program, or a meeting evaluating three ideas for a new product concept.

  Each idea or concept goes on pieces of poster paper, which are then taped to the wall or to various tables in the room. They will typically be spread out so as to provide some level of comfort and privacy once the brainwriting process starts. Attendees, armed with pens, roam around the room where the ideas are posted, adding comments or thoughts or things to think about for each idea listed. Comments vary in form and nature. I have seen comments ranging from “I love this idea,” to “Hey, I think this can work, but we need to keep in mind that what we do in the United States may not work as well for our associates in France,” to “Not sure if our customers would actually want this,” to a substantive and fairly detailed critique. Participants can also add comments or thoughts in response to a written comment.

  If attendees are not inspired to write anything on a poster, that is okay. They just move on and come back to the idea later. As people mingle about the room, it is clear that as the comments and reactions to the comments accumulate, a discussion of sorts is occurring—but in writing. The process ends after it looks like the flow of comments has dried up. Groups can then proceed to sticker voting or to a discussion on how to proceed; the choice depends on the content and needs of the meeting.

  Before closing this section, let me share a particularly memorable example of one leader who used brainwriting. This leader chaired an eight-person task force established by the vice president of human resources to design a mentoring program for new hires. The leader wanted to deliver a meaningful solution but was concerned about the ambiguity and generality of the mentoring program’s stated mission (e.g., was this for all new hires regardless of position and location; did it apply to internal promotions?). Thus, she wanted to engage her task force in addressing this concern at the very first meeting.

  She opted to employ a brainwriting technique. She gave everyone a handful of index cards with the following instructions: “On each index card I want you to write down one question you would want answered by the VP of HR about our scope and mission prior to us starting. After you write the question, put it in a pile on your right.” She then explained that each attendee should keep writing questions on index cards until he or she ran out of ideas (extra blank cards were in the middle of the table as well). Once people could not think of an additional question to write, they could then reach over to their left and draw a card that was passed to them. With that card, they could then do one of three things: (1) read it, be inspired to write a new question on a new index card, then pass both to the right; (2) read it, not be inspired, pass it to their right, and then draw another card; or (3) read it, decide they would like to add a small comment or add-on to the index card, then pass it to the right.

  The leader commendably decided to not be part of the actual process. Instead, she focused exclusively on managing the process. She made sure the process never felt like it was dragging. She read facial expressions and cues to get a sense of when to push the process along. When the process was complete, a rich set of issues emerged, including who the mentoring program should apply to, types of resources available, past history with mentoring programs, and what prompted the task force charge. She then met with the VP of HR for clarification around the issues generated. The leader and the entire task force were very pleased with the process. Not only did it result in more enriched information on which to build a well-aligned and effective mentoring program, but it also set the tone for future meetings by establishing norms of innovation, experimentation, inclusion, and enjoyment.

  Continuing Down the Quiet Path: Silent Reading

  The next technique leverages silence in meetings in a unique way—for quiet reading. Yes, simply reading silently is used as a technique to promote meeting effectiveness. It is particularly well suited for agendas involving a proposal of an idea, concept, or initiative. In many organizational meetings, formal presentations are followed by meeting participants’ discussion and evaluation of what was presented. Amazon, and, more specifically, CEO Jeff Bezos, questioned the value of this practice—and for good reason. Bezos wanted ideas to be evaluated on their merits and not influenced by the flash, personality, and speaking talents of the presenter. Nor did he want the implicit pressure to be socially cohesive to dictate the choices attendees made in meetings. Ultimately, he wanted to create an idea meritocracy and saw collective silent reading as a key mechanism to do so.

  From that, Amazon initiated a pretty standard practice: ideas, concepts, and proposals had to be written down thoroughly. Meetings then began with a silent period of time to read the fully self-contained document (e.g., questions were typically not asked while reading). This could be anywhere from ten to thirty minutes and did not occur in advance of the meeting—it was part of the meeting itself. Specifically, Bezos and his leadership team at Amazon recognized that folks had busy schedules and it was hard to devote time to pre-meeting work. By building this work into the meeting, everyone was placed on the same plane, allowing everyone to have a common experience and, most importantly, be assured that this work was actually done prior to discussion. In turn, upon starting the meeting, everyone was fully prepared. There were no more complaints about certain individuals shirking their pre-meeting responsibilities. The only person who had to prepare extensively before the actual meeting was the written report “presenter.”

  Writing in advance of the meeting requires the presenter to think deeply and cogently about what he or she is proposing before engaging extensively with others and using their time. These written reports, no more than six pages, generally follow an accepted flow, which includes topics such as the problem at hand, data that bear upon understanding aspects of the problem, proposed solutions, and how the proposed solutions impact customers. Amazon even provides training programs on how to best write these white papers.

  After the silent reading period is complete, a vigorous discussion typically occurs. The discussions tend to be deeper than what one usually gets in meetings, as the written document brings to life a very detailed formulation of ideas and rationale. It has much more depth than a presentation. It is not superficial by any stretch. Because people read faster than a presenter can present, the additional content comes at no time cost. Furthermore, reading gives people control over knowledge acquisition—they can reread a piece if they want. This self-pacing helps with comprehension. When passively listening to a presenter, the mind can more readily stray or wander—something more difficult to do when reading.

  The bottom line is that reading the document relative to a presentation allows for much more extensive content, with more retention at an efficient pace. This in turn triggers deep dives, debates, and valuable discourse. It is common practice for the most senior manager to hold comments until hearing others’ ideas so as not to sway the discussion prematurely. Typical outcomes of the discussion could be a rejection of what was written (e.g., not a priority to pursue right now); a proposal to revise the written document to address a set of concerns and potentially have another meeting; or an acceptance of the document and its plan, schedule, and follow-up activities.

  In addition to the process
just outlined, a “lite” version of this technique exists. Namely, the silent reading technique can be used for any type of preparation materials and readings; it does not have to be as formal as a white paper. Meeting preparation is simply made during the first part of the meeting itself so that all attendees are fully engaged with the materials and are on common ground prior to discussion. I have not seen research on this per se, but in speaking with attendees after a process like this, early reports were extremely positive.

  Putting It Together

  Before closing, let’s take a step back to put this all in a broader context. Effective meeting leaders recognize that they are orchestrating and designing a meeting experience when they bring folks together. They are stewards of others’ time and, as a result, must plan diligently. When all participants arrive at the same time and work interactively on a task—a typical meeting style that takes place millions of times a day—leaders are actually deciding to use a tool. Let’s give this tool a hypothetical name: the simultaneous verbal interaction technique (aka the SVIT). Quite the wordy name and a horrible acronym, yes, but it helps make the point that a choice has been made to use a particular meeting technique, without even recognizing it.

  The SVIT is the most conventional meeting tool of choice. We typically default to it. However, many other compelling tools exist. The more unconventional tools, like brainwriting and silent reading, represent essential alternative options available to meeting leaders as they consider their meeting goals. What differentiates successful meeting leaders from the unsuccessful ones is the willingness to pick the right tool for the job at hand. Effective meeting leaders have an open-mindedness to consider all possible tools given the goals of the meeting. Then, after trying a technique, the leader can reflect and learn. Adapt and grow. And remember, even if a tool works really well, that does not mean it should be used unequivocally for all future goals. But, as meeting leaders, we do have compelling evidence-based options to consider. We know that silence can indeed be golden. As Will Rogers once said, “Never miss a good chance to shut up.”