Olivia: There are about 55 million meetings a day in the United States. According to one study, the annual cost of all this meeting time is $1.4 trillion. That's trillion with a 'T'. And the most shocking part? Over $250 billion of that is considered pure waste. Jackson: Whoa. That is an insane number. It's like setting a pile of money the size of a small country's GDP on fire every single year. Just gone. Poof. For what? Stale donuts and someone reading their PowerPoint slides to you? Olivia: Exactly. And that's the massive, universally felt problem that our book for today, The Surprising Science of Meetings by Steven G. Rogelberg, sets out to solve. Rogelberg is one of the world's leading organizational psychologists, and he's basically dedicated his career to this. He argues that we've just accepted this colossal waste as a 'cost of doing business,' but the science says we absolutely don't have to. Jackson: I'm already hooked. Someone, please, tell me there's a better way. So if meetings are so demonstrably bad and expensive, why are we all still trapped in them? And more importantly, why do the people who call the meetings often seem to be the only ones enjoying them?

Olivia: That question gets right to the heart of the first major psychological trap the book explores. It’s a phenomenon called the "Lake Wobegon Effect." It’s named after a fictional town from a radio show where, as the host said, "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average." Jackson: Which is, of course, statistically impossible. You can't have everyone be above average. Olivia: Precisely. And this bias is everywhere. The book cites these hilarious studies. For example, 88% of US drivers rate their own driving skills as being in the top 50%. Even more wild, a study of prisoners found that the vast majority rated themselves as "better than the average inmate" on traits like kindness, morality, and even law-abidingness. Jackson: Hold on. Prisoners rated themselves as more law-abiding than other prisoners? That’s some next-level self-deception. Olivia: It’s a powerful, fundamental human bias. And here's how it connects to our topic: meeting leaders are subject to the exact same effect. Rogelberg's research consistently finds that leaders rate their own meetings far more favorably than the attendees do. There's a huge perception gap. Jackson: Oh man, I've definitely sat in meetings where the leader is beaming at the end, saying 'Great discussion, team!' and I'm mentally composing my grocery list and wondering if I can sneak out without anyone noticing. But why is the gap so big? Is it just pure ego? Olivia: It's a bit more complex than just ego. The book points to a fascinating reason: the person who talks the most in a meeting is the most likely to think it was a good meeting. And who usually talks the most? Jackson: The leader. Of course. They're steering the ship, they're engaged, they're getting their points across. Meanwhile, the rest of us are just passengers on this voyage to nowhere. Olivia: Exactly. Your level of participation directly correlates with your perceived satisfaction. So the leader is having a great, engaging time, while others might be completely checked out. The book shares a classic case study, let's call it the 'InnovateTech' weekly status meeting. It was supposed to be a quick check-in, but it had ballooned into this long, unfocused, and dreaded weekly ritual. The manager, Sarah, was trying her best to keep it on track, but one person would drone on about data, another would go off on a tangent about a new idea, and a third would complain about budgets. Jackson: That sounds painfully familiar. That's not a meeting; it's a group therapy session without a therapist. Olivia: And Sarah, the leader, was in the thick of it, probably feeling the stress but not realizing just how soul-crushing it was for her team. She was too busy trying to facilitate. It wasn't until she brought in an outside consultant that she got objective feedback and saw the full picture: no clear agenda, no time limits, no focus. She was blind to how bad it had become because she was living inside the "Lake Wobegon" bubble. Jackson: So the first step is realizing you're probably not as good at meetings as you think you are. That's a tough pill to swallow for a lot of leaders. Olivia: It is. But accepting that is the gateway to actually fixing the problem. And that starts by looking at the basic mechanics of a meeting, which are also full of hidden psychological traps.

Jackson: Okay, so if we've accepted our own fallibility, where do we start? What's the first thing to fix? Olivia: It's the most fundamental element of all: the clock. Rogelberg brings up this brilliant concept from the 1950s called Parkinson's Law. Jackson: Parkinson's Law? Sounds serious. Olivia: It's actually quite funny. The law simply states: "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." The book gives this wonderful, vivid example of an elderly lady whose only task for the day is to send a postcard. A busy person would do it in three minutes. But for her, it takes an hour to find the card, half an hour to find her glasses, an hour and a quarter to write it... the task expands into an all-day epic of doubt and toil. Jackson: I feel personally attacked by this. That is a perfect description of how my simple 'reply to one email' task can somehow take up the entire 30 minutes I have before my next call. Olivia: We all do it! And this is exactly what happens with meetings. Why are most meetings 60 minutes long? Because that's the default slot in our calendar software. So, we schedule an hour, and Parkinson's Law ensures the discussion, no matter how simple, will expand to fill that hour. Jackson: So the solution is to just schedule shorter meetings? Olivia: Yes, but with intention. Rogelberg suggests a 48-minute meeting, or a 25-minute meeting. These odd numbers do two things. First, they break the autopilot of the 30 or 60-minute block. Second, they create a buffer, a little transition time between meetings, which reduces the cascading effect of everyone being five minutes late to everything all day. It’s a small change with a huge psychological impact. Jackson: I like that. It signals that time is being managed deliberately. What about the people in the room? I've been in meetings with 20 people where only three of them talk. Olivia: That's the next piece of the machine to fix: size. The book is very clear on this: the bigger the meeting, the badder it is. There's a concept called "social loafing." The best illustration is a classic experiment where people were asked to play tug-of-war. When pulling alone, they gave 100% effort. In a group of three, their individual effort dropped to 85%. In a group of eight, it plummeted to just 49%. Jackson: So the more people you add, the less effort each individual puts in. We all think, 'Oh, someone else will handle it.' We hide in the crowd. Olivia: Precisely. That's why you get those meetings with 20 people and a lot of silent nodding. Amazon famously has the "two-pizza rule": never have a meeting where two pizzas can't feed the entire group. It keeps the group small, accountable, and engaged. Jackson: Okay, but here's the pushback. What about inclusivity? I've seen people get really offended when they're left out of a meeting invite. The book even mentions that people dislike not being invited to a meeting more than they dislike the meeting itself. It's a status signal. Olivia: That's the paradox, and it's a great point. Rogelberg addresses this directly. The solution isn't to just slash invite lists and leave people feeling marginalized. It's to change the culture around what a meeting is for. You can have a smaller core group for the decision-making, but you must be diligent about communicating the outcomes. Send detailed notes immediately after. Gather input from people before the meeting. Assign one person to be a "representative voice" for a larger team. You can keep people included in the information flow without forcing them to be a spectator in a meeting where they have nothing to contribute. Jackson: That makes sense. It's about separating the need to be informed from the need to be present. So, we've got shorter meetings and smaller meetings. What about the agenda? I was always taught that a good agenda is the holy grail of a good meeting. Olivia: And this is where the book delivers another surprising insight. Rogelberg's research found that simply having an agenda is only a very minor predictor of meeting effectiveness. Jackson: What? No way. I thought an agenda was Meeting 101! Olivia: It is, but a lazy, recycled agenda is what he calls a "hollow crutch." Just listing topics isn't enough. A strategic agenda is different. It should be framed as a series of questions to be answered, not just topics to be discussed. It should have timings. And most importantly, every single item should have a DRI—a Directly Responsible Individual. This is a practice Apple made famous. For every item, someone's name is next to it. They are responsible for leading that part of the discussion. It creates ownership and completely changes the dynamic. Jackson: Okay, so a shorter, smaller meeting with a strategic, question-based, DRI-assigned agenda. That already sounds a million times better. But what about when you're actually in the room? How do you stop it from becoming that slow, soul-crushing monologue we all dread?

Olivia: This is where the most counter-intuitive and fun science comes in. To fix the dynamic in the room, Rogelberg suggests we need to rethink the most basic activity of a meeting: talking. Jackson: Wait, so you're telling me the solution to a bad meeting is... no talking at all? That sounds like a recipe for the world's most awkward silence. Olivia: It sounds that way, but hear me out. The book makes a powerful case against traditional brainstorming. When we all shout out ideas, we run into problems. The loudest or most senior person's ideas get more weight. Introverts or people who need time to think don't get a chance to contribute. And we suffer from "production blocking"—you're so busy listening to someone else's idea that you forget your own. Jackson: I know that feeling! I have a brilliant idea, someone else starts talking, and by the time they're done, my idea has vanished into the ether. Olivia: Exactly. So, the solution is a technique called "brainwriting." It's simple. The leader poses a question, and for the next 5-10 minutes, everyone silently writes down their own ideas on sticky notes. No talking. After the time is up, you go around the room and one by one, people put their notes on a whiteboard and briefly explain them. Studies show brainwriting groups produce 20% more ideas and 42% more original ideas than traditional brainstorming groups. Jackson: Huh. So everyone just sits there writing? It sounds a little awkward, but I can immediately see how it would help introverts or people who are intimidated by the HIPPO—the Highest Paid Person's Opinion. Olivia: It completely levels the playing field. It's an idea meritocracy. Amazon takes this to an extreme. In many of Jeff Bezos's senior meetings, there are no PowerPoint presentations. Instead, the meeting begins with 15 to 30 minutes of total silence as everyone reads a detailed, six-page narrative memo that was prepared beforehand. The discussion that follows is incredibly deep and informed because everyone starts with the exact same, rich context. Jackson: Wow. That's a serious commitment to deep thinking. It's the polar opposite of showing up and just winging it. Are there other, maybe less intense, hacks for changing the energy in the room? Olivia: Absolutely. The book is full of them. One of the simplest is to just stand up. Research found that standing meetings are, on average, 34% shorter than seated meetings, but they produce decisions of the same quality. Jackson: I love that. It's a great way to make sure nobody gets too comfortable and starts to ramble. Your back starts to hurt, and suddenly you're very motivated to get to the point. Olivia: It also increases physiological arousal and engagement. Another one is the walking meeting. The book cites Stanford research showing that walking boosts creative ideation by over 80%. It breaks down formality and helps people talk more freely. And finally, the simplest hack of all: food. Jackson: Ah, the power of the donut. Olivia: Don't underestimate it! The book points out that providing snacks consistently correlates with more positive feelings about meetings. It's a small gesture, but it creates a positive mood, and that positive mood acts as a "social and intellectual lubricant," making people more open, more creative, and more collaborative. It deflates negative energy before it can even start. Jackson: So you're saying I can improve my team's performance with a box of cookies. I think I can get budget approval for that. This is all fascinating. It feels like we're taking this thing we all do on autopilot and applying a layer of intentional, scientific design to it. Olivia: That's the perfect way to put it. It's about moving from unconscious habit to conscious design.

Jackson: So, if I'm listening to this and I'm feeling both inspired and a little overwhelmed, what's the one big takeaway? If I can only change one thing about my meetings tomorrow, what should it be? Olivia: I think the single most profound idea in the book is to shift your mindset from being a meeting leader to being a meeting steward. You are not the star of the show. You are the guardian of your team's most valuable, non-renewable resource: their time and their attention. Every decision—the length, the invite list, the agenda, the use of silence—should flow from that one principle. The book's real message is that great meeting leadership is actually a form of servant leadership. You're there to serve the attendees and help them do their best work together. Jackson: That's a powerful reframe. It's not about my agenda; it's about stewarding their collective intelligence. So, what's a concrete action step? Olivia: The most courageous and useful thing you can do is to pierce your own "Lake Wobegon" bubble. After the next meeting you lead, send a one-question, completely anonymous survey to the attendees. Just ask: "On a scale of 1 to 10, how valuable was this meeting for you?" Jackson: Oof. I'm scared to know the answer to that. Olivia: Exactly. But the answer, whatever it is, is your starting point. It gives you a baseline reality. The data might sting, but as Rogelberg shows, that's where the science of improvement truly begins. Jackson: A simple, powerful, and slightly terrifying first step. I love it. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.