Study: <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-19786-001.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-19786-001.html</a>. It doesn't say "we're doing them wrong", it just says they are very boring and tend to make people less engaged than in-person meetings. There are no suggestions for how to do meetings differently.
One tip that someone gave me in 2023 that I wish I'd gotten in 2020:<p>Turn off self-view.<p>I found it much less distracting and tiring once I could no longer constantly see myself or see the moving face while I was talking.
I am always confused when someone calls a "stand-up meeting" where everyone is sitting down in their own home. Usually starting with personal updates from everyone and catching up.<p>The whole point of a "stand-up meeting" is to keep it as short as possible (because standing up is uncomfortable). If you remove that it inevitably stretches into those hour-long meetings where no one can stay focused while everybody else gives super long updates and people find something else to do (not hard in your own environment) while waiting their turn.<p>The fix is to have a clear agenda and someone actively running the meeting to keep it on track, keep it moving, and push conversations that don't interest the larger group to subsequent smaller meetings or email.<p>You have to adjust for the lack of discomfort and social clues.
I spend a lot of time in meetings and work remotely 99% of the time. We spend so much time in meetings without giving them much thought to designing them for each purpose. Is the meeting a 1:1? Is it a 1:N status shareout? Maybe it should be an email. Is it an N:N status standup? Is it a group brainstorming session? There are best practices for brainstorming (and research shows that brainstorming individually produces more and better results than as a group).<p>I highly recommend the book "The Surprising Science of Meetings: How You Can Lead Your Team to Peak Performance" [1] or, for a quick summary, the author's webinar "The Surprising Science of Meetings: Evidence-Based Insights Leaders Need to Gain a Competitive Advantage" [2].<p>[1] <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190689218" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190689218</a><p>[2] <a href="https://youtu.be/8rDuumUtfAM" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://youtu.be/8rDuumUtfAM</a>
This is terribly written. I have a lot of useful virtual meetings, they are usually me and one or two people and it has a specific task to be done that is known beforehand where people have things prepared and we either join things or have to come to an agreement or decision. It's not useful to classify all meetings the same. And I feel that virtual or in person meetings are vaguely similar, the issue is the cost of human hours in virtual meetings may appear hidden or they be too easy to schedule, so people may schedule more meetings that may be unnecessary in virtual settings when they don't few the need to check with each party if they will be available at the specific place, which is required when meeting in person.
<i>Walking and other automated activities can boost your energy levels and help you to concentrate on the meeting. But if you're trying to focus on two things that require cognitive attention simultaneously, you can't hear if something important is happening in the meeting. Alternatively, you have to constantly switch between tasks. It's really taxing for the brain</i>, Nurmi says.
I agree virtual meetings are tiresome, but aren't in person meetings tiresome too? I honestly don't feel like there's that much different between an in person meeting and virtual meeting in terms of mental strain.
I have yet to read the article but most of the presential meetings tire people too in my experience.<p>It is not helped by the fact that only a small fraction of workers are good MCs.
"sleepiness during virtual meetings is caused by mental underload and boredom"<p>Seriously? Drop the word "virtual". Nonproductive meetings bore people, whether virtual or physical.