The value of having effective and high-quality meetings cannot be overstated for organizations. Our intention with this book is to improve the quality of remote meetings by empowering remote facilitators with actionable methods grounded in principles. Earlier in this book we told three true stories that illustrated some of the common challenges experienced in remote meetings. In this chapter we retell two of these stories to illustrate how you might weave together what you have discovered. Finally, we conclude by grouping what we have discussed into three different perspectives: the principles, the science and the practices.

Remember the team that was comfortable in person but struggled in remote meetings? The group norms that they unconsciously relied on had become invisible. The remote meetings accidentally favored verbal communication, which took more effort than expected. The technical barriers they experienced interrupted flow and overall, their meetings felt slow and uncomfortable.

Below is a series of snapshots from one of one of their later Sprint Reviews (see figures 25, 26, and 27). For those not familiar with Agile frameworks, the Sprint Review is a Scrum meeting in which the team comes together at the end of an iteration (a timebox in which they agreed to complete a certain piece of work). The purpose of a Sprint Review³⁵ is to allow the team and interested stakeholders to look at what has been built, provide feedback (maybe something was not built the way someone had imagined it would be), and then to use the outcomes of this feedback to inform and update the overall plan.

When setting the frame for the session, we brought attention to group norms and allowed the group to add/change the ones we suggested (see figure 25). We did not need to spend much time here. However, this simple upfront acknowledgment provided clarity, which simplified interactions in the session.

Sprint Reviews can feel a little tense. The remote team meetings had a history of tension and so we chose to bring people into the space with a check-in question (see figures 26 and 27) that invited lightness as well as got people thinking creatively about how their last cycle of work went. What was interesting is that some of these metaphors were used to explain things in the rest of the session and came up again in the retrospective. There were smiles, sighs, and nods of agreement as people shared their perspectives. The atmosphere felt lighter and as facilitators we had the sense that people were feeling a l ittle more engaged and connected in the space.

Each slide had some kind of writing mechanism for the attendees who needed time to think, felt hesitant to interrupt but wanted to raise a point, or were not quite sure how to add what they wanted to. These sticky notes, which we had pre-created and left empty, filled up quickly and decreased the frustration and anxiety that had previously resulted from not being heard. We also discussed some interesting topics as a result of what was written.

As far as possible, we tried to capture the conversation visually to make it easy for the group to think together. We had a screenshot of the team’s virtual sprint board (see figure 28) so that people had easy access to information without having to search through tabs and risk getting distracted. Timeboxes and instructions were made visible. At times people struggled with audio, yet they could still see what was being written and did not lose too much context. As such, the impact of technical glitches on the whole group was minimized (see figure 29).

Once we had finished looking at the work we moved the discussion to reflect on the project plan. We worked off an existing timeline that the team was working on (see figure 30). While it is not perfectly neat, the intention was for it to be easy to see and add to the timeline (we had a more accurate one that we would update offline). We allowed time for people to write ideas (which is how the sticky notes came to be filled) and we moved the blocks on the timeline based on the discussion (see figure 31).

Finally, we concluded the session by going through the previous slides and copying anything that looked like an action to this slide (see figure 32). People did this together so it went really quickly. Then we asked the simple questions: “Who will own it?” and “By when will it be done?” and in so doing, we summarized actions from the meeting.

Overall, the meeting flowed more smoothly as a result of the increased clarity and ease of contribution. The small moments of joy shifted the group toward feeling more positive and engaged. Where they had accidentally been biased toward verbal communication, the group now had written and visual communication available to them too. Pre-prepared mechanics meant that communication in the session felt easier and smoother. The team, once again, felt that their meetings were achieving meaningful outcomes.

Now we’ll return to the story of the fully remote project kickoff where there were over 20 people, from three different countries, with very little familiarity. The size and diversity of the group posed interesting challenges. We were mindful that not everyone felt comfortable speaking English. We also knew from discussions prior to this meeting that one of those locations was experiencing provider-related Internet issues and so we suspected that technical difficulties might arise.

A lot of work went into the preparation for this session, some of which involved finding out the purpose and outcome from the project sponsor. Once that was established, we spent 10 minutes beforehand with each of the attendees to understand what their expectations were and what they needed from the session. This was an important step in understanding the different perspectives that would be in the space. There were a few loud voices with strong opinions, so providing spaces for the whole group to have thinking and writing time was a power-distribution mechanism.

Right at the beginning, one of the first concepts we introduced was a “parking lot.” We explained that anyone could add a sticky note with a topic of conversation that required further exploration offline (see figure 33). This allowed any-one at any time to indicate if there was something they wanted to speak more about.

The second mechanic we used in this session was breakout groups; we divided the group into smaller murmur groups. The smaller groups allowed for more intimate discussion and they were able to select a representative to report back to the larger group. In this way, everyone’s opinion was heard without having to have the whole group listen to each person speak. Because each breakout room had its own digital collaboration space (each breakout room had a link which, when clicked, took the group to another virtual whiteboard), we as facilitators were also able to have a look and see if certain groups were struggling to write something or if they were stuck (see figure 34).

This is an example of the virtual whiteboard each small group saw when they clicked on their links. We had pre- created a template to guide the group’s conversation (see figure 35).

We then moved on to a discussion of the project values. We thought it would be one of the most contentious issues, so we had to think carefully about how to present this section. This can be a topic where verbal discussion does not sufficiently surface misalignment. We prepped the architect for this project beforehand to introduce this section and to provide his opinion and choices for the project by moving the sliders. Because we had prepped him and showed him the mechanic (see figure 36), it was easier for the other participants to understand how it worked. Participants seemed to enjoy using the slider to indicate their thoughts without having to immediately explain (see figure 37). This was a low-barrier mechanism for surfacing opinions and visually validating outcomes.

Because so much preparation went into thinking about each individual’s experience of the session it went fairly smoothly. Creating spaces where participants could add their thoughts at any time lowered the barrier for contribution. Once this session was over the team was able to use the slide deck as documentation for decision-making going forward.

The vehicle you choose for your safari impacts your experience; we hope you never find yourself on a rickety bicycle on such a trip. Similarly, everyone in a remote meeting will have a different experience unless attention is paid to leveling the playing field. This matters because meeting outcomes are affected by the degree to which everyone is able to contribute. If some voices are silenced because they are unable to hear, struggle to understand the language, or experience technical limitations, they are literally excluded. Both individual motivation and meeting quality are sacrificed. How can you create an equal opportunity for all to participate in meetings?

Moving from game reserves and into the city, when we think about traffic we think about how things flow and how frustrating it can be to be stopped frequently when driving. The flow and resolution of ideas and conversation in meetings impacts both individual engagement as well as the quality of thinking. Distractions and technical glitches can break flow. Unclear expectations both of the meeting and how to participate in a remote space can make the conversation feel jerky as frequent stops are made to clarify and align. What can you do to enable the flow of conversation in meetings?

Building on the image of traffic, road signs are essential sense-making tools. They assist in both guiding behavior as well as reducing cognitive load while driving. Visuals can play a similar role in meetings by making it clear where in the conversation the group is, what is coming next, and reducing the amount of information we need to keep in mind at once. How can you guide with visuals in a way the helps the group to grapple with abstract concepts, validate their understandings, and focus on what is important?

Imagine you finally make it out of traffic, maybe thanks to some incredibly well-timed traffic lights, only to get stuck behind a slow driver with no means to overtake them. You might feel frustrated unless you come to understand that person’s circumstances. Our ability to understand and connect with another person impacts the way we behave and the way they behave in turn. It can be incredibly difficult to create connection in remote meetings when the space is limited in connection opportunities. However, by paying attention to the human space, you can model behaviors, draw people out, and authentically nurture connection within a remote meeting.

Having finally arrived at your destination, the last thing between you and stepping out of the car is a teeny-tiny parking spot, a crowded café, and a flood of anxiety that steadily rises as you struggle and panic. Too much and too l ittle stress have implications for our ability to perform optimally. If people perceive threat in a meeting, the quality of their thinking is compromised. Alternatively, if people are able to engage in playful learning, it is far more likely that constructive, meaningful outcomes will be reached as a result of more engaged, open thinkers. How you set the tone of the meeting, the way you frame questions, the behaviors you model, and the lightness you bring all serve to shift the atmosphere away from threat and toward playful learning.

Finally, linking back to the minibus story we began with, imagine jumping in only to realize that this is the first time the driver is driving this vehicle. Do not let your meeting suffer the cost of your inexperience with a tool. Take some time to think about security, access, ease of use, and how to interact with the tool before you put it in front of people. If you can master your tools, you are able to focus on the session and the attendees will feel at ease in the hands of a safe driver.

The eight “Under the Hood” sections in this book went a little deeper into what is happening behind the scenes when we experience certain things in meetings. SCARF is a neu- roscientific model for understanding the key domains from which we can interpret threat or reward (things that make us want to move away from or toward something). Each letter represents a domain along which we might perceive threat.

Building on threat detection, we explored what happens in our brains when we experience social pain, such as feeling excluded, and how these experiences activate the same parts of the brain that physical pain does. When experiencing pain our brains are not in optimal problem-solving states. How might we, as facilitators, create equal opportunity for people to participate and in so doing, avoid causing people to experience social pain and prevent our meetings from suffering from the effects thereof?

Thinking about things a little more positively, we uncovered what happens when our brains experience “aha” moments and why they feel so good. Our brains are wired to enjoy closing feedback loops and when we do, the chemicals released activate reward networks, which make us want to do more of something. Alternatively, preventing people from closing feedback loops can lead to frustration and disengagement. If you can enable flow, you create the conditions in which people can create connections, arrive at insights, and feel good while doing so.

In order to reach an insight, our brains need to hold a certain amount of information in our conscious awareness in order to examine it and make connections. This ability, our working memory, is heavity constrained: we can only recall about four pieces of information without the quality of that information being sacrificed. Visuals can be used in a variety of ways to reduce cognitive load in meetings. Visuals can also be incredibly powerful when we consider the role that metaphor plays in deconstructing abstract constructs into relatable pieces as well as in assisting our brains in storing information. If we are able to better comprehend and recall information, meeting conversations and in-turn outcomes will reap the rewards.

Moving on from abstract thought, we returned to the social dynamics of meetings and the neuroscience of social connection. Studies have found that feeling understood and connected activates the same reward circuits described in “aha” moments. Additionally, feeling understood and connected seems to reinforce social behaviors in a self-perpetuating cycle. By nurturing connection in a meeting, you create social conditions that support optimal mental performance.

Having explored the impact of positive social interactions, we took a closer look at what happens when we experience stress. The chemicals our brains release when we detect threat have an inverted-U relationship with our ability to engage in higher-order thinking, such as analyzing information or making decisions. Too little stress and our brains kick into holiday mode, too much stress and we can experience stage fright. Alternatively, when our brains are engaged in playful learning, we are able to connect new information in novel, joyful ways. In playful learning there’s sufficient activation of the prefrontal cortex to keep us engaged and propel us to keep going. By enabling playful learning, your meeting attendees avoid fear-based responses and are able to engage is quality thinking and learning.

Meeting outcomes are affected by the quality of thinking that occurs within them. By avoiding fear and threat-based responses, you give people a chance to think clearly and remain focused. By creating the conditions for ideas to flow, insights to be reached, and playful learning to occur, you not only avoid possibly negative side effects of fear but create the optimal conditions for thinking. Finally, by paying attention to the social aspects of a meeting, you attend to the group dynamics that can inhibit engagement or create and maintain collaborative behavior.

We have talked about a lot of mechanics and methods in this book. Any practice is only as powerful as the skill with which it is applied and the appropriateness of it to the given context. These methods can be subtle ways to shift your meetings. If you start with one or two, over time your meetings will evolve into more collaborative spaces. Below is a summary (Table 1); you might notice some techniques that overlap or build on each other.

Remote meetings can be quite vulnerable spaces for facilitators and participants. We encourage you to experiment and model the behaviors you’d like to see regardless. Face- to-face collaboration will possibly always feel easier, smoother, and more natural. However, as you continue to practice and fine-tune your remote facilitation, you may discover new potential for your teams and organi zations in distributed environments. There is always something more to learn and discover and we hope whether it be in your teams, organizations, or communities of practice, that you continue to seek better ways to achieve healthier remote interactions. We hope that by reading this book you now feel a little braver in remote meetings.