When we think about meetings, vulnerability is one of the first words that come to mind. Brené Brown defines vulnerability as, “Uncertainty, risk and emotional exposure.”⁴ As you walk into a meeting, outcomes can be uncertain, the process for achieving them may be unclear, and, if you’re really attached to the outcomes, there is a degree of emotional exposure you will probably endure to defend what you value.

Meetings are one of the most common mechanisms for collaboration, and they house immense potential for organizations. High-quality meetings directly influence an organi zation’s ability to achieve its outcomes. At the same time, meetings have the potential to be profoundly vulnerable spaces. Perhaps this is one of the main reasons that so many people struggle with remote meetings: a cocktail of factors, such as technical barriers and invisible group norms, increase the uncertainty and risk in an already vulnerable space. In this chapter, we highlight three stories that illustrate some of the most common challenges of remote meetings. We also look at a model from neuroscience of how human beings perceive threat in social situations. How we solve these challenges will be the work of the remaining chapters.

We facilitated a co-located software engineering team working on their company’s core back-end technology. The team had the autonomy to choose how they worked. One of the decisions they made was to work from home one day a week because most team members had long commutes.

The team’s in-person meetings flowed; despite two individuals being more outspoken, differing opinions were voiced and heard. Lighthearted comments were passed and more often than not, outcomes that the team believed in were reached . . . except on remote days. The same team in a remote setting often lost their sense of humor, and despite desires to be otherwise, found themselves in meetings that often felt tense and awkward, with the two more dominant voices occupying a lot more airtime than usual. The team was frustrated that their remote meetings felt less engaging and a lot more draining.

Some of the above might sound familiar. Perhaps you have witnessed dynamics shift in a remote space. Despite the trust built over the team’s two years of working together and their shared commitment to succeeding with remote work, remote meetings were difficult.

As we explored how to improve these meetings, the challenges we were experiencing became clearer:

• Group norms are invisible: While it is easy to replace explicit norms, the implicit norms that guide behavior are difficult to identify. For example, it is usually quite easy to sense if someone would like to speak if you see them breathe in, lean forward, or raise their hand. Even if the group reestablishes new remote norms and chooses to keep their videos on or use a “raise hand” mechanism, the experience is not the same. As social beings, a lot of our interactions are guided by intuition rather than overt rules. Replacing all the subtleties that help us navigate social interactions is really difficult.

• Overreliance on verbal communication: In the colocated meetings, the team would mix their communication styles by speaking, using sticky notes, or writing on the physical board. Unintentionally, this subtle action provided alternative communication mechanisms and leveled the playing field for different kinds of thinkers. People who needed time to think before speaking (typically the more introverted team members) were able to write their thoughts down. Contrasted with the remote calls in which 100 percent of the communication was often verbal, some people experienced the space as significantly more stressful. The absence of visuals can often result in biases towards certain kinds of thinking.

• Technical barriers break flow: Each time someone missed something that was said, asked for it to be repeated—or, worse, gave up trying to hear—the flow and focus of the meeting changed. With each interruption, frustration rose.

• Communication takes additional effort: To convey an idea in person, participants could draw on a whiteboard or use hand gestures to provide additional information that might be difficult to convey with words. To do so was relatively easy and quick. The team lost this ease of communication because they had to seek and prepare alternative tools, which felt less fluid and accessible.

The small things we overlooked and took for granted in person became more obvious in a remote space. The change in environment changed behavior. If unaddressed, that change could have led to the formation of unhealthy behaviors and mindsets about meetings.

A few years ago, we worked with a global financial technology firm that had a weekly meeting in which people across the business dialed in to discuss the top priorities for the company. Participants were spread across Africa, Europe, and Asia. The person responsible for holding the meeting did not have facilitation experience so we invite you to withhold judgment. The meeting usually began by screen-sharing a document in which numerous people had to account for the status of their project, answer any questions from the audience, and justify any delays. There were usually between 30 and 40 people on these calls. The owner of the meeting would insist that each participant turn on their video so that they could ensure everyone was paying attention.

It is relatively common for organizations to have status reporting-flavored meetings. It is also not uncommon for these kinds of meetings to feel intimidating, unsafe, and defensive. What saddened us in these meetings went beyond these common pitfalls of reporting-style behavior. The atmosphere, regardless of the content, was more often than not tense. This tension led to unhelpful behaviors cropping up and skewed the outcomes being reached:

• People who were usually positive and engaged at work would become defensive, withdrawn, or the other extreme—aggressive.

• The information did not flow smoothly throughout the session, which led to people feeling frustrated or disengaged.

The remote environment really influenced the behavior of attendees. No one wanted the meeting to be this way and yet no one was aware of why the meeting was so.

This example illustrates four additional challenges we often observe in remote meetings:

• Isolation exaggerates fear: When people joined this call, they were already a little nervous (due to the reputation of this meeting). On days when there was a heated argument or a possibly hostile accusation, the feeling of being alone and separate compounded the fear. Rather than being in a room in which participants could see each other, and feel a sense of related- ness, everyone was in their own space wondering what others were thinking and feeling. This uncertainty and “separateness” compounded the fear. Thinking about SCARF, those with a high need for Relatedness may have particularly struggled with this.

• Multitasking is both easy and expensive: We see this often in remote meetings. In this particular meeting, we came to understand that about 80 percent of people on this call had other tabs open and were multitasking. Group norms tend to result in most people paying attention in in-person meetings; it’s really obvious if someone starts scrolling on their phone next to you. On calls though, it’s much easier to drift into another space. The result this had on the meeting was that people lost context and in turn responded with possibly inappropriate or incomplete information. These poor responses further complicated the meeting by resulting in:

  •   Increased frustration for other participants

  •   Poorer-quality outcomes

  • Some people perceiving these kinds of behaviors as a threat to Fairness; not all participants were putting in the same effort

• A facilitator’s power is exaggerated/amplified: Facilitators hold an intangible kind of power in a meeting. Often without question, a group will go along with the facilitator’s suggestions or be more swayed by their ideas. This is why it is particularly important for a facilitator to maintain a neutral stance to enable the group to reach their own solutions. In remote spaces, we have observed that facilitators, if unaware of their wake, can have an exaggerated effect on the group. If the vulnerability of the remoteness has resulted in people feeling a bit more nervous and tentative than usual, a facilitator (or the authoritative voice in the room) is relied upon even more than in a co-located meeting. Similarly, opinions voiced by the facilitator are more likely to be adopted, possibly skewing the outcomes and silencing voices too hesitant to challenge. Depending on the person, this might be perceived as a threat to one’s Status (the group is valuing what this person says over what I think), Autonomy (I don’t feel like I can say and do what I want to), and Fairness (it upsets me that not everyone is being heard in the same way).

• Inability to see faces creates uncertainty: A pattern that we observe frequently in remote meetings is that the ambiguity of the space/lack of control often leads to the emergence of more controlling behaviors. For example, someone feels “out of control” because they cannot see people’s expressions or what they are doing, and in reaction to this feeling they make people turn on their videos. This impacts both individual Autonomy (I don’t have any control over how I engage in this space) and the tone of the meeting. Being in a remote space already feels vulnerable; by using force, participants often feel more exposed. If someone feels uncomfortable in that moment, being forced to turn on their video is a direct threat to their Autonomy, which in turn affects their ability to think creatively going forward.

Vulnerable meetings can become especially vulnerable and scary when conducted in a remote setting. If the facilitator lacks this awareness and the methods for mitigating this feeling, the likelihood of reaching quality thinking and outcomes in remote meetings is really low. But fear not: there is hope for these kinds of spaces, which we’ll share in upcoming chapters.

The beginning of a project plays a crucial role in setting the tone for interactions going forward. This story is about a project kickoff for a mobile technology development team spread across Europe and Kenya. The key stakeholders were in South Africa. The project was the first of its kind for the organization, entailing a lot of cross-team communication and alignment with external service providers. Upfront we knew that not everyone knew each other or had worked together before. The goal of this meeting was to ensure that everyone involved understood the goal of the project as well as what was expected from everyone throughout the project.

This kickoff presented interesting challenges to creating Fairness, Relatedness, and Autonomy. See if you can spot how:

• Not everyone spoke the same language at home: Working with three different countries that had different first languages meant that meeting attendees did not feel equally comfortable speaking English in the session. The fact that there were 20-plus people already posed a challenge to hearing all voices. The fear of being misunderstood or sounding different made potential speakers feel that much more vulnerable. How many opinions, thoughts, and suggestions are missed if people do not feel comfortable speaking? We were also aware that participants needed time to process what was being said and make sense of it.

• Cultural nuances impact the space: Understanding the impact of cultural differences was crucial in creating a safe space. For one of the represented cultures, it was commonplace to have their leader speak on their behalf. This group was generally less outspoken than the other team from country Y. Another consideration was the words we chose and their implications. One mistake we made was to use the word “tribe” to describe an activity. While “tribe” is innocuous from our frame of reference, we learned that for some African cultures it has quite divisive connotations.

• Lack of familiarity: Remote calls are challenging enough when everyone knows each other. Meetings can be even more daunting (for facilitators and participants) when the majority of people on the call do not know each other. A challenge we faced as facilitators during this meeting was finding a way to get participants to introduce themselves in a fun, nonthreatening way. Had we been unable to establish this trust, people might have felt less safe and wondered “Is it okay if I ask a question?” or “Will it be acceptable if I raise a concern?”

• What time is it again?: If we use Cape Town as a baseline, we had participants on the call that were two hours ahead and some that were two hours behind. We had to find a time that accommodated all time zones as best as possible. The energy in the room can change if you’re scheduling a session during someone’s lunchtime or at the end of the day. Some organizations face far greater time zone differences. While it might not be possible to find an ideal time for everyone, awareness and acknowledgment of this can make people feel more respected.

In this chapter we have touched on a few of the difficulties commonly faced when collaborating in remote meetings: frustration, withdrawal, and boredom. These symptoms can arise when a person’s social needs are not met. Cultural and language barriers, uncertainty in what is expected, invisible group norms, and numerous distractions are but a few of the threats faced in remote meetings. No meeting is free of challenges, whether in person or remote. By paying attention to Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness, we minimize the chance that a person perceives a remote space as threatening. Having an awareness of the factors that complicate remote interactions is the first step in overcoming them.

Choose a remote meeting you held recently and pick a question to reflect on. We encourage you to write these answers somewhere so you can see how your understanding of remote facilitations deepens:

• What group norms might attendees be unable to see?

• How is verbal communication being balanced by other forms of communication?

• What impact are technical barriers having?

• How much effort is going into communicating for participants?

• How much fear is in the air?

• How much multitasking were you doing? What was the cost that you paid?

• How comfortable is everyone with the language being spoken?

• How much consideration are you paying to time zones?

• What cultural norms might you be overlooking?

• How familiar are attendees with one another?