––By Robert and Stefanie

What if I told you that a single, almost invisible change in your meetings could skyrocket your team’s effectiveness and transform every session from a mundane necessity into a powerhouse of productivity and innovation? It’s not a high-tech tool or a costly consultant. It’s something far simpler, yet incredibly more powerful. 

Picture this: We’re sitting in a conference room—virtual or physical doesn’t matter. We’re surrounded by some of the brightest minds, ready to tackle the issues of the day. Now, you and I, we’ve been in plenty of these sessions. We’ve seen the good, the bad, and the downright time-wasters. 

But what if we could tip the scales to make every meeting count? 

Now, please don’t groan just yet—I promise you, this won’t be another one of those yawn-fests where we talk in circles about being more efficient. No, today is about a different concept.

So, let’s start by talking about feedback. You know the drill: the end of the meeting rolls around, everyone’s itching to leave. And then someone asks for feedback. Cue the chirping crickets. 

But what if we switched things up? What if, instead of that awkward silence, we had something concrete to work with every single time? 

That’s where the concept of “The Observer” comes into play. Think of it as a ‘meeting auditor’—someone who’s got the task of tuning into the nuances of our discussions, without the personal stakes. One dedicated Observer is more powerful than gathering feedback from all attendees. If you ask everybody, nobody feels responsible to give qualitatively good feedback. Even if you knew that feedback is mandatory for all participants, would you take notes during the meeting? To be honest, I wouldn’t, and just say something that comes to my mind right at that moment.

The Observer role

The job of the Observer isn’t to scrutinize but to provide a bird’s-eye view of our meeting’s mechanics. It’s like having a coach who watches the play from the sidelines, offering insights post-game to sharpen our strategies. Because it is their and only their responsibility to step back and observe the meeting from a meta-level, they can recognize and highlight moments that we might miss when we’re in the thick of it.

Importantly, you don’t want the same person to be the Observer all the time. Rotating the Observer role keeps things balanced. It’s about sharing the responsibility (just not all at the same time) and benefitting from the variety of insights each member brings to the table. When you can get diverse perspectives on how well the team did in the meeting. Plus it avoids having any single person (like the PI) being typecast as the ‘feedback giver,’ keeping the playing field level.

What the Observer pais attention to and takes notes on

The Observer assesses communication patterns (Is it balanced or do some people speak more than others?), notices how conflicts are handled for improved resolution strategies, and pais attention to the use of time and meeting structure for disciplined management. Additionally, they review the effectiveness of decision-making processes, whether there is focus and full participation by all meeting attendees. They pay attention to the impact of technology and non-verbal communication cues, all to ensure that meetings conclude with clear, actionable outcomes and responsibilities. 

But it’s not just about keeping the train on the tracks; it’s about ensuring everyone’s on board and contributing. Your meetings should be symphonies, not solos. An effective meeting Observer can spot those moments when someone’s voice isn’t being heard and suggest ways to bring their ideas to the forefront. This isn’t just about fairness; it’s about harnessing the full potential of our collective brainpower. The Observer could also comment on the participant list and point out if meeting attendees were not necessary to achieve the meeting goals. From this observation, you may want to refine your meeting structure. Even if it sounds contradictory at first, having more 1:1 conversations between team members instead of a team meeting might save collective team time.

So one part of the role of the Observer is to pinpoint areas for improvement. But it’s equally important to address all the good things that happened. A thorough feedback session should not only uncover the gaps but also shine a light on what’s working well. The Observer highlights achievements, such as our adherence to the agenda, the lively exchange of well-thought-out questions, and the preparation each member brings to the table. Recognizing when everyone has contributed meaningfully, the session can reinforce these positive behaviors. 

Changes that having an Observer facilitates

Acknowledgment of these strengths instills a sense of accomplishment and motivates the team to maintain high standards in future meetings. This balanced feedback approach ensures that while we strive to improve, we also build upon the solid foundation of our current successes.

Nowadays, I always use an Observer in meetings, but when the Observer has finished, I invite all other attendees to build on that feedback or to add another point.

We’ve all been in those meandering discussions in a meeting that could have used a course correction. When you hear feedback repeatedly that the conversation went off the rails, it changes your perception. You and others reflect more if it is necessary to start a conversation which only loosely relates to the agenda. You are also much more empowered to intervene because all meeting participants heard the feedback before. Thus, you become more conscious of staying on track, more thoughtful in your contributions, and collectively more effective.

The Observer can be pivotal not just for keeping our meetings on track but for enhancing the depth and quality of our conversations. Once, an Observer pointed out the complete absence of questions in one of our sessions. This resulted in a fundamental change in how we engaged with one another. We committed to making inquiry a core part of our interactions, transforming our meetings from passive information exchanges to active understanding hubs. This shift towards a question-centric culture didn’t just happen; it was cultivated, actively driven by the constructive feedback from our Observers. It reminded us that the true measure of a productive meeting lies in the curiosity it ignites to understand the motivations and the reasoning of others better.

But what about creativity, spontaneity, and letting our thoughts roam free?! 

Now, you might be wondering, “Isn’t all this focus on structure and efficiency a bit rigid? Shouldn’t we use meetings to also take time to let our thoughts flow and allow for conversations which might lead to another interesting outcome?” 

A clear answer from our side to both questions is, “No!” Efficiency is all about freeing up time to have inspirational conversations and time for other important activities too. But the better approach is to attribute time for those separately and choose a format that gets you the best results (hint: group brainstorming is actually not a great way to unleash group creativity but that’s a different topic). Stefanie’s group found that scientific discourse in lab meetings was derailed by side-discussion about logistics of projects. As a result of this insight, we decided to have separate meetings for logistics and scientific discussions, which made both more effective.

Consider the compounding effect of trimming just a little fat from your weekly team gatherings. It’s not about rushing through but about refining your process, building on the feedback of the Observer. If we shave off only a couple of minutes, that adds up to a substantial chunk of time annually that can be reallocated to your research. 

Just a small example: if you can reduce the length of your weekly team or lab meetings by just half an hour, how much time do you save? You personally save half an hour each week, which piles up to half a week each year. Multiply this with the number of your team members, and you get the full potential. If your team has 8 members this would add up to a whole month. Who wouldn’t want that extra time for discovery?