This is v good: https://www.inc.com/jeff-steen/steve-jobs-3-point-formula-for-leading-effective-meetings-was-brilliant-we-need-to-get-back-to-it.html
Steve Job’s Meeting Heuristics (Rule of 3)
- Convening works best with 3 in the meeting, max 5 — or no accountability
- Have no more than 3 agenda items (each chunk of info is max 1-2 mins)
- Schedule no more than 3(0) minutes — don’t waste people’s time
Sheryl Sandberg’s Meeting Heuristics (default max 10 mins)
- “Does this meeting require feedback from others, or is it just informational?
- If I do need input/feedback, is a meeting a more time-effective way to get it than a message or email?
- Would a meeting provide anything that an email or message wouldn’t (such as in-the-moment feedback on problems that are constantly evolving)?”
And the follow-on post is more concise: https://www.inc.com/jeff-steen/i-used-2-question-rule-to-cut-10-hours-of-meetings-every-week-my-productivity-has-doubled.html
Jeff Steen’s Meeting Rule of 2
If answer is no to both, then decline:
- “Will I have anything to contribute?
- Will I have anything to gain that I can’t gather via meeting notes or recording?”
Jeff Steen’s Corollary to Calling Meetings:
- “Can I send a non-critical email or message instead of holding a meeting?
- If not, why is a meeting important? (This reasoning goes in the meeting invite. If there’s not a good reason, I scrap the meeting until I have one.)
- If a meeting is deemed necessary, will each attendee have something to contribute that will be critical to my work? If not, I cut them from the list.”
