Episode: How to Keep Meetings from Ruining Your Productivity
Lead to Win is brought to you by LeaderBox, a monthly reading experience curated by leaders for leaders. Learn more at leaderbox.com.
Megan Hyatt Miller: So, Dad, what is the worst meeting you’ve ever been in?
Michael Hyatt: It’s hard to narrow it down because I’ve been in a lot of bad meetings.
Megan: Haven’t we all?
Michael: I can think of one where the person who was leading the meeting, in this case the department head, was so upset with one person’s performance he reamed him out in front of the entire group. It was so bad the person left the room crying, and the rest of us were left stunned. We felt like a bomb had just gone off. I mean, where do you go from there? There was nowhere to go. It was terrible.
Megan: Well, that’s pretty bad, but here’s one that beats it. It’s from Todd Horton who worked for a company that did business in Korea. When he was appointed marketing director and moved to Seoul, he started off his first meeting using his limited Korean language skills. (You know where this is going, right?) He introduced himself and said he wanted to be approachable and work closely with everybody, but apparently, his Korean was not as good as he thought.
What he actually said was, “Hi, I’m Todd, and now that I’m here a lot will change. I’m a communist and encourage you to bring your communist ideals to everything we do. By working together we will conquer.” I almost can’t get through that because it’s so bad. Can you imagine the look on the people’s faces? This is their new boss telling them he’s a communist.
Michael: And we’re going to conquer.
Megan: Right. Pretty bad.
Michael: I have one that’s even worse. A tech employee named Lauren was invited to an online product demo. What she thought would be a 10-minute meeting with a vendor turned into an hour-long nightmare. The online presentation had a 10-digit passcode. Fifteen minutes into the call, they were stuck in the Bermuda Triangle of dropped calls. Every time someone successfully logged in, somebody else would get kicked out. It took 20 minutes of back-and-forth emails to convince the vendor to use her company’s conferencing app instead.
Megan: That’s where you just want to quit and start over.
Megan: Okay. So you want to talk about being stuck in limbo? Listen to what Josh said about weekly project planning meetings at his company. They would go on for hours beyond the scheduled time. Sometimes they even bled into the next day.
Megan: I know. All other work was stopped, and everybody skipped lunch. You know that’s not going to end well. Even bathroom breaks were discouraged. He said, “Every month I felt shipwrecked with no food, no water, and no escape.”
Michael: That’s not a meeting; that’s a sentence.
Michael: Oh my gosh. Okay, that’s nothing. Listen to this one from a former city communications director. He witnessed a city council meeting that lasted until 3:15 a.m. At around midnight, the mayor led the council in stretching and calisthenics.
Megan: Oh my gosh. That’s not a good sign. That’s bad, but it’s not a record. In July 2011, the mayor of Toronto convened a city council meeting to discuss budget cuts. It lasted 22 hours and 25 minutes. It didn’t end until 6:30 the next morning. The best part? There was no action. They postponed making a decision until the next city council meeting two months away.
Michael: Wow. That was Toronto? That sounds like Washington DC.
Megan: I know. Exactly.
Michael: Speaking of meetings, when are you going to get this one started?
Megan: Me? I thought you were in charge.
Michael: Hi, I’m Michael Hyatt.
Megan: And I’m Megan Hyatt Miller.
Michael: And this is Lead to Win, our weekly podcast to help you win at work, succeed at life, and lead with confidence. In this episode, we’re talking about everybody’s least favorite activity: meetings. I’m going to show you why they matter and how to make them more productive.
Megan: The truth is that meetings are a necessary part of organizational life, and every leader needs to convene them. Unfortunately, we often allow them to run on autopilot, trapping our team in a never-ending cycle of pointless meetings. Today we’ll show you the real purpose of meetings, and we’ll share three questions that will make your team more productive than ever before.
Hey, but before we dive into our subject today, if you’re enjoying Lead to Win, I want to ask you to leave a review. It’ll only take a couple of minutes, and we’ve made it super easy for you. All you need to do is go to mh.fullfocus.co/reviewit. That’s really going to help other high achievers find and enjoy the great content you’re enjoying. Thanks so much.
Dad, everybody seems to hate meetings, yet we all hold them. I was reading the result of a survey of 1,600 employees that showed the top 10 annoyances people have with meetings. Are you ready for these?
Michael: Yeah, let’s do it.
Megan: Okay. Allowing attendees to ramble and repeat the same comments and thoughts. This is just a groan fest. Secondly, doesn’t start on time, stay on track, or finish on time.
Michael: One of my pet peeves.
Megan: No specific action items or walk-away points. No clear purpose or objectives. Not inspiring or motivating. Not organized. No agenda. Too long. This feels like almost every meeting. Repeating information for late arrivals.
Michael: I hate that.
Megan: A weak presenter who’s unprepared, monotone, or overly redundant. Boring or nothing new or interesting. But you have an interesting take here, Dad. You actually think meetings are a vital part of a healthy organization and that they don’t have to be like this, so I want to hear more about that.
Michael: I know this may be heresy, but I actually like meetings as long as they’re framed up the right way and conducted in the right way. Great meetings foster great collaboration, and you’re not going to accomplish much if you try to do it on your own. You have to do it with a team, and doing it with a team requires meetings.
Many people think meetings are about sharing information or brainstorming. Not so. The real purpose is to help the team collaborate. It’s about decision making or goal tracking or priority reviews or troubleshooting or project coordination, something specific. As soon as you’re doing more than you could do on your own, you need meetings, because you have to collaborate with other people. The problem is most meetings are not well executed.
Comedian Dave Barry said, “If you had to identify in one word the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be meetings.” As it turns out, the problem is really expensive. When Mattel’s CEO Bryan Stockton was fired over the company’s poor performance, he acknowledged the company lacked an innovative culture, and he blamed it in part on bad meetings.
Pointless, boring meetings are costing your organization thousands of dollars, but the problem is not meetings; it’s execution. We have to be careful here that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sixty percent of workers say that preparing for a simple status meeting takes longer than the meeting.
Megan: Good grief.
Michael: Employees attend an average of 62 meetings per month. Crazy.
Megan: Maybe now you know why you’re not getting anything done.
Michael: Exactly. Executives spend 40 to 50 percent of their work time, an average of 23 hours per week, sitting in meetings. I can tell you when I was in the corporate world it was more like 40 hours a week. Literally nonstop. My work had to be done in evenings or on the weekends. I couldn’t do it during regular work hours. Bottom line, our meeting culture is broken. The traditional meeting is dead, or it should be, and we need a completely new approach.
Megan: Clearly, traditional meetings aren’t working, but you believe that can change. Today we’re going to look at three questions that will keep your meetings from ruining your productivity. What’s the first one?
Michael: The first one, and it may be the obvious one is…Do we need to meet?
Megan: This is something people need to ask more often, like they ever do in the first place.
Michael: Absolutely. Many meetings, perhaps most meetings, simply aren’t necessary. According to one study, 34 percent of an executive’s total meeting time is spent in meetings that are unnecessary. Some examples of unnecessary meetings: most standing or recurring meetings, those whose purpose is passing along information, some decision making, especially when the decision could be made by one person.
I’ve seen this happen over and over again, where somebody calls a meeting because they don’t want to take responsibility or be held accountable for the decision, so they sort of pass it out to the committee to make, and then they don’t have to be accountable for the results. Meetings have become so often, in many cultures, a default solution. When there’s a problem, what do you do? Call a meeting.
Many standing meetings are never reevaluated. I mean, they may start with a good purpose and may have a good purpose for a while or a good reason for existence, but then they outlive their usefulness and really need to be killed. In the movie The Young Victoria, Prince Albert enters a dining room where a guard was setting the table. Albert asked who the dinner was for. The man said, “For the officers guarding the king.” Albert said, “Which king?” and he was told, “King George.” King George had been dead for 20 years. They just kept doing it.
Michael: How often do we do that with our own meetings? They’ve outlived their usefulness, and we just keep them going in perpetuity. According to one study, a Fortune 500 company loses up to $75 million per year due to poor meetings. Wow.
There are other solutions for many types of meetings. Standing updates can be made by email. They don’t need to be made in person. Information could be distributed in a memo. Slack or other communication tools can save the time spent attending the meeting, and some decisions are in the hands of the leader, not the team. A quick phone call can also be done in lieu of a 30-minute meeting that eats up a lot of people’s time.
Megan: I have a little story that happened to me recently, where I realized I was having some unnecessary meetings. One of the most important parts of my job is to make decisions, kind of high-level decisions nobody else in the company can make. Very often those are needed by our executive or leadership team. What I realized was happening, and it was my own fault, is that rather than making just the decision I was involved in the process of decision making.
So I would be asked to set up a meeting or someone else would set up a meeting and invite me, where we would talk about the decision that needed to be made and all of the pros and cons and the research and all that kind of stuff, and then in that meeting I would try to make a decision where several other executives had their time tied up.
What I realized was, instead, my contribution needed to be just the decision, which I could make totally on my own if I asked for a recommendation, which would eliminate a meeting for me and for my team and free us both up to do our best work and make our greatest contribution. So this sneaks up on all of us, which is why we need to be aware of it.
Michael: I think the important thing when it comes to asking this question, “Do we need a meeting?” is there’s not a right answer to this, like the answer should always be no or always be yes. It depends on the circumstances. The important thing is to ask the question, because that’s what so often doesn’t happen. We slip into default mode and just call a meeting.
Megan: If we all hate meetings so much, why do we resort to them so quickly?
Michael: Well, one of them I mentioned a moment ago. It spreads the liability for the outcome. If we call a meeting, then I don’t have to be held accountable as a leader because it’s a group decision. We all came to it, and everybody is responsible; therefore no one is responsible. Sometimes it’s just easier than making a decision.
It’s like an easy next step, whereas making a decision sounds like, “Oh, I have to gather the information. I have to make this weighty decision on my own.” So instead, we just call a meeting to kind of postpone that. And it enlists others in doing our work, so instead of doing the hard work and the hard thinking necessary to make a decision, we get everybody else involved. It’s a very inefficient way to come to decisions.
Megan: That’s what I’ve seen a lot with our clients. Especially for really busy leaders, sometimes it’s easier than thinking through what your next action is or your next decision or whatever the next step is if you just have a meeting. It’s sort of like, “I’ll figure out when I get there because I don’t have time to think about it now.” In reality, it takes far more time to have the meeting than it would to think about it, but when you get busy you just feel like you don’t even have time to think about it, so you just sort of postpone the whole thing, which is something to be aware of if you find yourself feeling really busy.
Michael: Again, we’re not saying the answer should always be no when you ask this question. We’re just saying that’s one tool in your toolbox that no is a good answer. There may be another way to do it that’s much more efficient and more productive than calling a meeting.
Megan: Then the meetings you do have left on your calendar will be highly productive, and people will look forward to them instead of dread them.
Michael: Before we go on, can we be honest? People don’t like meetings. Right? Meetings have a bad rap for being counterproductive and unhelpful. This is sad, because the only reason meetings have this reputation is because they’re poorly run. They’re not planned, and no one knows why they’re even there. Well, it’s a different story at Michael Hyatt & Company. We’ve engineered a new way to do meetings. We’re convinced our meetings are a major contributor to our fast growth.
We love meetings, the right meetings. Why? Because we know they’re going to add to the bottom line and make our team more productive. Can you say the same thing? We want everyone to have productive meetings, and that’s why we wrote this new book No Fail Meetings. This is a new physical product to help you and your team make the most out of every meeting and get out of those meetings that are worthless that don’t add any value.
It includes our five steps for effective meetings, pointers for guiding discussions, tools to help you decide who needs to be in the meeting and who doesn’t, what needs to be done, and even includes scripts to get out of meetings you don’t need to be attending. We’re positive this physical handbook could increase your bottom line with more efficient meetings. And who knows? You might even learn to love meetings. You can grab your copy at nofailmeetings.com.
Megan: So the first question is…Do we even need to meet? What is the second question?
Michael: This is a really important one, because you can waste thousands of man hours if you don’t get this right. Who should be there? Not everyone needs to be in every meeting. If 10 people attend a weekly meeting but 5 don’t need to, you’re losing 260 hours every year. You can do the math on your own. In addition to the time spent in the meeting, those same people are losing time doing needless prep for a meeting they shouldn’t be in to begin with. One study found that 73 percent of employees do other work during meetings. Have you ever sat in a meeting like that?
Megan: Oh yeah.
Michael: Where people are working away on their computers or working away on their smartphones. They’re doing other work, and they’re not fully present. As a result, the meeting takes three times as long as it needs to. Some people get invited based on their position, not their contribution. It’s like a political environment. We feel like, “Well, if we don’t invite them, then they’re going to be offended or they’re going to get the wrong message.”
Others may continue to attend a meeting after their role changes. Some people fear being left out of a decision or somehow cut out of power. I got over that a long time ago. I’m happy for decisions to be made in my absence if somebody wants to make them. And we like safety in numbers, but fewer attendees is always better. It’s more efficient.
Years ago, I used to sit on a board that had 20-plus members. You talk about herding cats. It’s very difficult to get 20-plus people in alignment about anything. Most of those people didn’t contribute anything. They were taking up a seat, keeping a seat warm, but they didn’t have anything to contribute. It wasn’t like a meeting where them getting the information was necessary. They certainly didn’t have to attend (in this case it was a meeting that would last two days) a two-day meeting in order to get that information, and it was a complete waste of probably 75 percent of the people’s time who were in that meeting.
Megan: It kind of goes back to what you said at the beginning of that conversation. You need to think about it like how many man hours it costs you. Don’t think of it like it’s a one-hour meeting. Think of it like it’s a one-hour meeting times however many people you have, and can you really afford to sideline those people unless they’re absolutely essential there? The way I think about it is “What’s the minimum effective dose? Who do we have to have there, and then how can those people take the information from that meeting and get it to their teams, and so forth?” That will really help your efficiency in meetings if you think like that.
Michael: Yeah, I think of it like this too. A rule of thumb is invite the fewest possible contributors. You don’t want less than is necessary, but you don’t need more. A smaller group is just more nimble. It’s so much easier to make a decision. It’s so much easier to create alignment. Dale Dauten said, “A meeting moves at the speed of the slowest mind in the room.” Think about that. Not everybody needs to be there. So issue invitations based on contribution to the goal. If people just need the information, then you can circulate that information after the meeting. They don’t need to be in the meeting, because they’re going to slow down the meeting. They’re going to be dead wood.
Megan: So how do you handle not inviting people? How do you set up your team for success if you’re going to not invite so many people to meetings?
Michael: Well, again, and we’ve talked about this so many times on this show, it comes back to having a grown-up conversation with the entire team and sort of address the elephant in the room and just say, “Look, we’ve all been in these kinds of meetings where people get invited just as a courtesy invitation and they don’t make any real contribution and it’s a total waste of their time. They can be off doing productive work, but meanwhile they’re sitting in a meeting wondering why in the world they’re there. We’re not going to do that in our organization.” This is the conversation you’d be having with the team.
“We’re not going to do that in this organization. You’re going to be invited only if we feel like you have a contribution to make and you’re a necessary part of making the decision. If it’s just information dissemination, we’ll get that out after the meeting, and we’ll make sure everybody who needs to be included is included, but we’re not just going to waste people’s time, because that’s the most precious resource we have as an organization.”
If we tie up everybody’s discretionary time in non-discretionary meetings they can’t get out of, then when are they going to do their work? It’s going to eat into their margin. It’s going to eat into their weekends, into their evenings, into their family time, and then they’re going to have to figure out when they’re going to do their work. I don’t want that.
Megan: I totally agree. So what if you find your calendar is packed with meetings and you want to figure out a way to politely excuse yourself from some of them that you’ve deemed to be unnecessary? What’s the best way to navigate that?
Michael: Well, if you feel like you’re in a meeting, especially a standing meeting, where you’re no longer making a contribution (I’ve done this innumerable times), just bow out. Don’t denigrate the meeting, especially if you’re not the organizer. First of all, if it’s a meeting that’s wasting a lot of your time and a lot of your colleagues’ time, you might be the brave person who goes and says, “Hey, I just got to thinking about this. I think this meeting may have outlived its usefulness or there may be another way for us to do this in a more efficient way so we can all be doing the work we’re called upon to do here.”
Again, have that grown-up conversation about it with your supervisor or with your colleagues. If you’re leading meetings of this kind, periodically it’s important to ask the group, “Are we still getting value out of this meeting? Is this something we need to continue or something we need to revise, something we can change?” We did this in one of our meetings recently. You and I had this conversation about our weekly team huddle. We felt like we had fallen into a little bit of a pattern there that needed to be addressed, so we had a very quick conversation about it. You sent out an email to our departments heads about it, and we tweaked it. That’s a good thing to do.
Megan: The other thing for leaders is to realize you may be in meetings because you’re not delegating. You’re the decision-making bottleneck in your company or on your team, and as a result, you have to be in every meeting for projects to move forward. If you’re willing to let go of some control, then you can get some freedom back. That’s a huge breakthrough for many people.
Michael: Yeah, I had a boss years ago who required… Basically, he wanted to make every decision in the organization, any decision of any consequence. So instead of having very specific levels of authority, like maybe if I could spend up to X amount of money I could do that on my own without a meeting or if I was going to spend more than that I had to meet with maybe two other people, not him. There was no rationale like that. It was just everything had to come to him.
It was like trying to get a landing spot at a very busy air field. Trying to find time on his calendar, because he managed this way, was very difficult. Oftentimes, I found myself in a meeting that no longer was necessary because we’d missed the opportunity. You know what I’m saying? I couldn’t get to him for his approval, so we lost the opportunity.
Megan: You can really slow your organization down if you’re going to be a bottleneck like this. The way around that is to empower your team to make decisions so you only make the decisions you have to make. Like I said at the beginning of the show, if you can ask your team for recommendations rather than just information, that will expedite the decision-making process, and there may not be a need for a meeting at all that you’re having on a regular basis.
Michael: Again, I just want to go back to saying something about approval levels. Make it very clear what people’s level of approval is. Here’s a good example. Maybe something happens with a customer who requests a refund, and maybe the cost of issuing that refund would be $150. So the person in charge of customer experience (this has never happened at our company, but I’ve been in a company where this did happen) ends up calling a meeting to discuss whether we should refund $150.
They spend $2,000 worth of staff time to solve a $150 problem instead of saying to the customer service people, “Look, up to $200, if you think it’s worth a refund (we’re playing the long game here; we want to keep the customer happy), then just go ahead and do it. We don’t have to call a meeting to make that decision.”
Megan: The first question in sharpening your meeting culture is…Do we need to meet? The second question is…Who should be there? What’s the third question?
Michael: What will we produce? This is really a question about the outcome. Every meeting should have a clear outcome you’re after. Bill Gates said, “You have a meeting to make a decision, not to decide on the question.” Here are some legitimate types of outcomes for a meeting: to make a decision or create a project plan or a timetable, a product or performance evaluation, or to design or assemble something.
At the top of each agenda, literally answer the question, “What’s the deliverable? Why are we meeting?” No one should be confused about that. No one should have to wait until the end of the meeting to see if it was worthwhile. If you have a clear question, a clear deliverable, then you can evaluate whether you were effective, and you know when to stop. If you call a one-hour meeting and the deliverable is X and you can get it done in 30 minutes, the meeting is over.
Megan: Right. We had this actually happen yesterday in our executive team meeting. We were able to end about half an hour early because we checked off all of the outcomes, and who wants to stay longer than you need to?
Michael: Absolutely. When it comes to these outcomes, they don’t just happen. They really have to be engineered, and there are a couple of different ways you can do that. First of all, you have to prepare the information and the tools you’ll need ahead of time. Make sure people know exactly what resources, what preparation needs to be done before they show up so you don’t get there and people are fumbling around going, “Oh. Well, we should have done this” or “I wish we had this financial data,” or whatever. Make sure you determine that ahead of time.
Next, instruct each participant what will be expected of them. They need to know what they’re expected to contribute. I don’t like having anyone in a meeting who’s not talking. In other words, if you have people in a meeting who sit all the way through the meeting and never say anything, they probably shouldn’t have been there to begin with. I don’t think informational meetings or status meetings are all that valuable. Occasionally there’s probably an exception, but that’s usually better handled with another tool.
Then create a written agenda. This is critical. You have to have a track to run on. If you don’t know where the meeting is going as the leader, there’s a good chance it’s going to be off track or arrive at a destination you didn’t intend.
Megan: Speaking of, there should be a clear leader of the meeting. Sometimes departments call meetings and there’s no leader, which means it’s nobody’s job to keep the meeting on track and deliver the outcome, and that’s a disaster waiting to happen.
Michael: Well, how many time have we sat in a meeting where the guy who’s leading doesn’t have a clear idea of where the meeting is going, or she doesn’t have an idea of where it’s going, and it’s just a rambling session because the meeting probably shouldn’t have been called to begin with. There’s not a clear outcome, and there’s not an agenda that’s going to take us to that outcome.
Then be persistent in keeping the meeting on track. When people stray away, there has to be somebody who’s the referee who calls the meeting back to order and makes sure it’s progressing to the next agenda item. If there’s a topic that needs to be discussed but not now or not in this meeting, that can be recorded and discussed at a later time, put on the back burner for discussion later.
Megan: It helps, by the way, with both of those issues, keeping things on track and back-burnering items, if you have that conversation with your team up front and just say, “Hey, we’re going to do meetings in a way we haven’t done them before. If we get kind of out of line here or we get off topic, I’m going to call us back to the agenda, and if there’s something important that comes up, and it probably will, then we’re going to capture those items…”
Hopefully you have somebody taking notes in the meeting, or at least one of the participants is taking notes. “We’ll capture that for a later discussion, but we’re going to stay on track. So I don’t want anybody to be surprised when I do that, because it is going to happen.”
Michael: I think that’s good. Another way to focus the meeting toward the outcome is limit the amount of time for the meeting, and make it less than you think you actually need.
Megan: Totally agree.
Michael: That’ll actually force some innovation and creativity, and people won’t be wasting a lot of time because they know they have to get a decision made or they have to get this outcome done by a certain time. I really believe in having a hard stop date. So respect that, especially in an organization where you have meetings (like we recommend batching) that are stacked up one after another. If you’re late, you’re going to have a domino effect on the other meetings, and that’s not respectful to the other people, and it’s not a very efficient way to do it either.
I would say also assign responsibilities and due dates for follow-up. Don’t leave the scene of a meeting without clarity about what’s required of each person. If there are specific assignments that need to be made, those need to be recorded. There needs to be a “by when” date, and if it’s a standing meeting, the next time you have that meeting those are the first things that need to be covered in the agenda. “Okay, last time we said Bob was going to do X by Y. Bob, give us a report.” That builds in accountability.
Megan: One of the things people often wonder is how to guide their team toward a result like a decision without dictating the outcome. As leaders, we’re a powerful presence in a meeting, and very often our teams look to us to make decisions, and we can over-dominate a meeting in a way that is not really leadership; it’s just sort of like you’re taking over. Like what’s the point of the meeting?
Michael: Yeah, what’s the point of the meeting? Why do we need to have a meeting if we’re going to just make the decision or tell everybody what the decision is going to be?
Megan: More often than our teams realize, they’re the experts in the room, not us. We may need to make the final call, but we really need to hear from them. But how do you do that if you’re the leader? I remember this story you told me about your previous boss, Sam Moore, and how he made a practice in meetings of always being the last person to speak when opinions were being shared and things like that. I’ve really taken that to heart and have heard some other advice about working almost in reverse rank order. So you let the least senior person…
As a leader, you don’t just let this happen, because it won’t happen. You actually have to ask it. So you would ask the least senior person in the room for their opinion first and sort of work backward until you get to yourself, and frankly, if you’ve done your job, there’s probably not much left to say except “Yes” or “No” at the end. That’s when you really get interesting information. If you let the most extroverted and the most senior people answer first, the more introverted, less senior people will never be heard, but that’s not because their contribution isn’t equally important.
Michael: I promise you if you do that you’ll be astonished at the wisdom and the insight those less senior people have. They’ve just never felt the freedom or been invited into the conversation in a way you’re talking about here. It can make a huge difference. It gives them a sense of confidence and esteem and contribution, and it just makes the whole thing get better.
Megan: So today we’ve learned great meetings can foster collaboration and help your team be more productive. We’ve talked specifically about three questions you can ask to accomplish that. First of all…Do we need to meet? Secondly…Who should be there? Thirdly…What outcome will we produce? As we come in for a landing, I just want to remind you that having great meetings is within your power. Meeting culture may be broken, but as a leader, you have the power to fix it. Dad, do you have any final thoughts for us?
Michael: Yeah, I do. In my own meeting evolution, I’ve gone from the place where I absolutely hated meetings, rolled my eyes at the thought of another meeting, to where now I honestly love meetings. Why? Because that’s where the collaboration is going to happen. That’s where innovation is going to happen, and I look forward to it. I love being with people and accomplishing something that’s more than what I can do on my own. Meetings don’t have to be something you dread. It’s hard to believe, but they can actually be something you look forward to.
Megan: As we close, I want to thank our sponsor LeaderBox. It provides automated personal development in a box. Check it out at leaderbox.com.
Michael: If you enjoyed today’s episode, you can get the show notes and a full transcript online at leadto.win. If you like the show, please tell your friends and colleagues about it. Also, please leave a review at mh.fullfocus.co/reviewit. It’ll only take a few minutes, and it will be super helpful for us if you do so.
Megan: Thanks again for joining us. This program is copyrighted by Michael Hyatt & Company. All rights reserved. Our producer is Nick Jaworski.
Michael: Our writers are Joel Miller and Lawrence Wilson.
Megan: Our recording engineer is Mike Burns.
Michael: Our production assistant is Aleshia Curry.
Megan: And our intern is Winston.
Michael: We invite you to join us next week when we’ll talk about the importance of self-care for leaders. Until then, lead to win.