A Lesson On the Psychology of Meetings from SNL and Google, with Charles Duhigg | Big Think

[@AdamHicks20]

Was MacDonald one of the group Norms?

[@TheGerogero]

It's kind of fucked up that "be kind to each other" is so revolutionary.

[@BardicLiving]

Right?

[@isis5888]

This is really true within close-knit friend groups. My friends and I, about six of us, rely on non-verbal cues and facial expressions during conversations. We can pretty much all tell if one of us isn't comfortable with the topic or is feeling left out.

[@samysaid1989]

really insightful. psychological safety sounds like what introverts are looking for

[@speadskater]

One of the Better episodes that's been put out in a while. Good job.

[@ProProboscis]

+speadskater One of the best dude, it's a superlative otherwise if you wanted to use better then it's better than...

[@LowLightVideos]

Yes, were on it. Ever heard of: "Genius is 20% Inspiration and 80% Perspiration". So your Team consists of 20% extremely intelligent people and 80% of people who are needy; there's a _special_ way of assigning work to them, double checking to ensure reasonable progress, and applying the necessary fixups to interface their shoddyness with the *work* of the Knowledgable. That's so the Boss can hire the majority for cheap and mind-suck from the best instead of finding people who can actually *do* the job. So when the Winners 'Team Up' (make their own clique, or jump ship enmass; making a big hole in the Organization) there will always be a Mole (one who knows where they hid the Keys, even IF they don't know where the Room is, or understand the basic principle of how a Lock works). So the Boss will never be 'the Fool' and always feel like HE (recently, these last couple of decades Women have come into _real_ money, so the *_HE_* can also be Ivana) contributes something; because the Company Owner is too cheap to rely on Financial Reward alone - they NEED the needy, the dependant, the vulnerable - people whose LIFE is mostly at work (and they can't afford to lose their life). This 'Team Building' style is profit/production focused - not focused on INVESTING on a TEAM and then saying we paid and got what we paid for. Look at NASA (or Soviet deep cover Agent), do you think they want to discover 10 or 20 years ago some idiot (even the one paying) gave the wrong Order and led everyone down the wrong road. This IS why people get fed up after many years and go to the Competition (or create their own). Look what happened to Bill Gates.

[@FinaleCadence]

Best video from you guys in a while

[@therebex23]

The whole point of teamwork in the first place is idea generation. If there is a dominant member of the team, it negates the whole point of being on a team. Some people are naturally dominant, but that's one of the benefits of having a team of mixed personality types; the dominant members learn to share the podium as well as active listening skills and introverted members learn how to effectively share their thoughts.

[@rajivranjantcs]

Liked it. I was wondering how this would work when a agile team is functioning with team members geographically apart!!

[@duranarts]

Fire the guy making your thumbnails.

[@paulgracey4697]

I'm one who thought the original SNL could not possibly last. It seemed to be the opposite of the Fifties era live comedy shows I saw when young, structured around a well-known, but past his/her prime performer with a team of writers to develop enough material for an hour live show, was now going to feature a bunch of unknowns, writing for themselves mostly. I gave it a year, tops. I do not watch SNL all that often now that it is an institution, but I do admire the fact that it has survived at all. The meeting style explains a lot of that longevity, as does the original Live 50's model where the writers often became famous in their own right.

[@maqusss]

Agree. It amazingly well at my university when afterclass group of students gathered to solve super hard formal logic tasks. I kind of miss that.

[@GoalGuys]

Really great video!

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

The trick is not to over do it with trigger warnings and safe spaces that protect from any and all conflicting opinions. The highly offended will wreck this model in a hurry, or so I'm hearing from other parts of the interwebs.

[@Axle-F]

How dare you say that. Never speak to me or my son ever again. /s

[@Cadmus9501]

Not the "highly offended", it's the "easily offended".

[@seandavis7948]

The same thing has happened with the South Park team, it's so cool

[@letmewatchthisvideoo]

Feel like all these videos describe me in my thinking.

[@LeonidasGGG]

A great team only exist with a great leader.

[@davidcantrell9870]

excellent analytic. I think it really is the best strategy from what I have experienced in life as well, at least for creative teams. Of course the individual quality of the members matters greatly. My local town is emblematic of that as they have decided by committee about the aesthetics of our main tourist attraction for years. .. and most of their decisions have been poor ones as they as a group are lacking in aesthetic understanding, just being politicians.

[@OutputzBeatz]

This is great stuff!

[@gld123]

Thank God for management consultants. Where in the world would we be without them?

[@cheesefingerb]

Getting stuff done

[@emmanuelramirez6593]

Nice.

[@maximus5415]

Not to be a contrarian, but you have to look at your demographics and people involved. A room full of actors and comedians is going to have a vibe VERY different than a room full of programmers and graphic designers. I've been in plays, musical jam sessions, engineering think tanks, and in a room full of mathematicians; if experience has taught me anything, it's that people are different. I don't see how forcing someone to speak gives them psychological safety.

[@JLrazmataz]

I've read his book and researched psychological safety a lot. I also work in leadership and team development. It's not about "forcing someone" to do something. It's the exact opposite. It's creating transparency and trust so people feel that what they think and feel matters. Demographics matter a lot, and he's not saying they don't. He's saying above demographics, people need to feel safe.

[@LindyBakerClairvoyant]

The belief that crossing the arms means not open to what is going on, is old school. Many people do that when they are relaxed and listening. Also, it is a widely generalized statement to say that comedians hate other people. It is a part of the construction of a joke sometimes, but that is not what most of their natures are about. Sign me Standup Comedian 5 years.

[@nathanpen1031]

And ... the bottom line is that the people on the team adjust so they can exist in Michel's meeting environment. Don't look like you are concerned in the meeting or you will be singled out! Everyone is happy wa la!

[@andrewbutler4822]

thank you Big Think for my newly formed neuron pathways

[@rodbotic]

I agree completely, assuming everyone has the same goal/ purpose with the meeting. Someone whom is trying to sabotage(/be political/troll), is only out to destroy any progress within said meeting.

[@caswir]

+rodbotic and it's our job as leaders to get those people on board as part of the team... identifying a problem is not leadership. Leadership is discerning what is important to each person on the team and finding a way they can get what they want as well. The function of a team is to make sure everyone is heard; dismissing someone out of hand that disagrees or has different motives as a "troll" (rather than accepting that EVERY point of view on a team is valid and addressing it) is really counterproductive. If you can't find a way to understand and validate someone's opinion, then it's naive to expect them to see your/the rest of the team's point of view.

[@rodbotic]

I have been in on meetings that a person whom wants nothing to change and is willing to filibuster a meeting to prevent any progress or meaningful opinion from even being heard. I only mention trolling due to the nature of intention of other moments, when after a meeting the said person said it was their 'strategy' purely because they personally didn't like the people involved.

[@hectord.s.3057]

Answer is in the question derp

[@ohfreud3981]

wouldn't all the actors be extroverted and love the extra attention lol.

[@1neige2]

That's interesting :3!

[@g.d.2059]

Every group needs a therapist. XD

[@okremSful]

Well, I guess the guy behind SNL do that also personally, in real life, outside of the meetings. But the sad thing is, that all these managers, start-upers, businessmen, whoever, are watching videos like this, reading all these books on how to run a company, how to be super creative, etc. and they are just following these rules, because it is written and it works for other companies. Problem is, you need to be a better human being, not a better businessman (that will come later)... I can sense if a person is genuinely interested in my moods, or if it is just because he wants to run a better meeting...

[@JuneusKendall]

I have never been a fan of SNL and this presentation impresses me to wonder if Lorne Michaels gets the difference between a team and a committee. A committee may involve each participant and gain only confusion but a team requires that everyone contribute to the purpose. From this presentation it seems that participation may be valued over contribution and politics should have taught us a long time ago how well that works. Ted

[@jtman5806]

mad vid

[@b1elal]

Yes true that how a meeting is conducted heavily effects creativity, however, SNL is not a perfect example for a successful creative team, SNL lost its touch for so many years with so many teams, talented individuals (Will Farrell) matter same as team meeting environment.

[@Trev81]

Valid point. I think he was specifically citing the early years of SNL, which is (arguably) when it worked the best. But yeah, it has definitely had its ups and downs. I can't imagine a show with that format and production structure could be optimally managed for its entire run.

[@Grimtheorist]

+Bilal B Yeah, it's definitely important to surround yourself with talented, hard-working people, but once you do, how do you proceed? By doing what Lorne Michaels does, I guess.

[@correoismamon]

+Grim Theorist I agree completely. Look at agile / scrum productivity for software development. Or kanban for massive production of goods.

[@t-rich]

Calling specific people out to speak up/point out their body language can have the negative effect of generating a bullshit response.

[@truebluekit]

+t fletch Isn't it the whole point? The way I see it, if you invite someone to talk about a subject they're not an expert of, then you're going to get some bullshit anyway. One of the points of the meeting, I guess, is to weed out what would work and what wouldn't. Even that, I imagine, might have taken another trip around the table, as they tried to figure out "would this work, and why?"

[@t-rich]

+truebluekit I don't think someone necessarily has to be an expert in a subject for them to have a valid point, but if you're expecting bullshit, you'll probably get it. If someone is called out and expected to share something they aren't ready to say, how likely will they contribute something useful? Sometimes we can gain more by giving room for people to talk instead of shining a spotlight on them.

[@truebluekit]

t fletch I wouldn't expect 100% bullshit... if a person is smart enough and willing to think before speaking, then it's not unreasonable to think that some valid points would surface, together with misses, and only occasionally, crap. If you suddenly and without warning shone a spotlight on someone, yes, most likely they would freeze. But knowing that, why not manage expectations? Either (i) have everyone walking into that meeting know what needs to be discussed, so that they come prepared, or (ii) have everyone treat the meeting as a thinking-out-loud process where there's not so much right or wrong, but rather an occasion where the group as a whole is trying to get its thoughts in order.

[@jesperandersen6395]

How can this be sensational - people need to be safe in the group. I guess our ancestors realized this thousand years ago, the modern society has just forgotten it.... now people make videos about forgotten knowledge - I think this says more about the modern society than group dynamics.

[@ChinaPrincessDoll]

I don't like Tina fey cause I use to watch snl and she was so happy like nothing happened. Snl was on channel 7.

[@JesseAdrianold]

Excellent explanation of a dying comedy show that creates psychological safety in not just their meetings, but in their content, which of course ruins the entire point of comedy. So this is therefore, not an explanation into how to effectively run an organization or company or good network show at all, just how to make people feel cozy and heard in a meeting room.

[@seanwebb605]

No. You got this one wrong.

[@dennisrossonero]

+Sean Webb why?

[@seanwebb605]

dennisrossonero The gentleman appears unfamiliar with SNL. The culture of the program comes from Second City Chicago (and to a lesser degree Second City Toronto). Second City teaches a form of improv comedy that challenges the participants to work together to develop and move the story along. You take an idea and try to progress it without creating dead ends. I.E. you don't draw a conclusion or try to hit a punch line. It has little to do with the executive producer holding long meetings and inviting dialogue. It is about the writers and performers (often the same people) following a series of exercises. Many really good standup comedians did poorly on the show. And it's not because the producer didn't draw them out in meetings.

[@dennisrossonero]

1. The fact that some good stand ups didn't do well on SNL isn't necessary linked to the way it works. 2. I've heard a lot of comics talk about their experience on working on SNL and isn't as improv as Second City. Basically, comedians would have a central idea for a skit, that everybody would then work on together. It's much more prepared than the occational "breaks" we like to watch.

[@seanwebb605]

dennisrossonero The end product that makes it to air is certainly more refined and developed than a strictly improvisational exercise. However, the show really was conceived as Second City TV and sketch comedy rather than episodic sitcom with a three story narrative. It is the improv process that defines the culture of the program. And the producer's method of organizing meetings is irrelevant. The standup comedians who have been successful on the program tended to have had experience writing for other comedians. They have learned to write characters without the intention of playing themselves in all cases. What is also interesting about SNL is that when a cast member leaves they are able to take their characters with them into other film and TV projects. It is certainly easier to get full buy in from a writer/performer if they can retain ownership. Remember when David Letterman left NBC and they said many of the portions of his program were the intellectual property of the network? Strange enough you can do Wayne's World or a Bush impersonation and take it with you to your next gig. To be fair the SNL producer frequently produces these films.

[@hectord.s.3057]

I'm 16 even I knew this lol google wasted money when they could've asked a bunch of emotional teens how to be creative lolololo

[@caswir]

+Hector D.S. Having never been to meetings in a corporate environment, you didn't know this either. You don't know that these concepts work unilaterally. Knowledge is highly contextual. Once you experience more of life, you'll understand that everything you know now is contingent on certain assumptions. To believe that every business meeting is analogous to group projects you've had in high school is myopic. Take this as a validation of something you imagined, but don't discount the value of those who have experienced what you have only imagined. It would have been unintelligent to assume that his teenage experiences translate to business realities. He has delved into it and confirmed what may have been your gut instinct. He, however, knows this. You had only merely suspected until now. I admire your gut/imagination/instinct, but be aware that (when you do go into business) treating your coworkers as high school buddies will be on the whole detrimental to your career.

[@frarruzwashington4708]

Is this not obvious? I'm sorry, it seems like it.