If all companies applied this super-simple strategy, there would be so much more time to work on useful things than to spend on useless meetings. Great post btw!
That's the mission, Adam. In a perfect world, all meetings would disappear, and companies would be running workshops in their place but much more infrequently.
The 3-3-3 works because it forces the one thing most workshops avoid: admitting that attention is the scarce resource, not time. Ten minutes of focused input beats two hours of parallel phone-scrolling every time. The deeper reason workshops persist anyway is that managers use meeting length as a proxy for thoroughness. Short meetings feel lazy. Long ones feel like effort. The 3-3-3 requires someone willing to look lazy to get better results.
Most meetings drift the same way markets do when there’s no structure. Plenty of activity, very little resolution, and everyone leaves feeling like something happened without being able to point to what.
What’s interesting about this framework is the constraint. Time is limited, attention is directed, and decisions are forced through a narrow channel. That’s where clarity tends to show up. Not in open-ended discussion, but in environments where there isn’t enough room to hide behind noise.
You can feel the difference between motion and progress once you’ve seen it. One fills the room. The other leaves with a name, an action, and a clock attached to it.
I love this. I can’t tell you how many workshops I’ve attended where I’ve said afterward, “This could have been accomplished in an email.” Two hours in the car & bad lunch to get one meaningful idea. Ugh.
I like this idea. I wish I had this concept in a few prior assignments. One thing that worked well for me was an actual 'hourglass'. In my case it was a 30 minute 'hourglass'. I had just been promoted and took over for someone who had a reputation for meetings that would last hours. So, when I started my first meeting I placed the hourglass on the table and said "This meeting is over when this runs out. I don't care who is talking." Everyone laughed nervously.
I made a point in that first meeting to be talking when it ran out. A member of my team pointed out that it had run out and I said "Thanks. I didn't see that. That's it for today." And then I got up and walked out. After 2 weeks of running meetings like that, everyone became much more focused, got to the point quickly, and eventually finished meetings before the sand ran out.
If you introduce such a process, people need to experience a personal benefit quickly. Every answer you require from them that doesn't serve their own interests will erode acceptance. And without acceptance, the process will not survive.
Time framing for meetings is key - short meetings indicate task-orientation while longer meetings are relationship building. Knowing which type of meeting to have is key to effective meeting management.
If all companies applied this super-simple strategy, there would be so much more time to work on useful things than to spend on useless meetings. Great post btw!
That's the mission, Adam. In a perfect world, all meetings would disappear, and companies would be running workshops in their place but much more infrequently.
The 3-3-3 works because it forces the one thing most workshops avoid: admitting that attention is the scarce resource, not time. Ten minutes of focused input beats two hours of parallel phone-scrolling every time. The deeper reason workshops persist anyway is that managers use meeting length as a proxy for thoroughness. Short meetings feel lazy. Long ones feel like effort. The 3-3-3 requires someone willing to look lazy to get better results.
That's exactly right. Great analysis.
Oh I immediately appreciate anyone who suggests meetings are too long and largely unnecessary. I love this 3-3-3 strategy; adopting on my next call.
Great stuff. Please do let me know how it goes.
Also, have not more than one call a day..
Most meetings drift the same way markets do when there’s no structure. Plenty of activity, very little resolution, and everyone leaves feeling like something happened without being able to point to what.
What’s interesting about this framework is the constraint. Time is limited, attention is directed, and decisions are forced through a narrow channel. That’s where clarity tends to show up. Not in open-ended discussion, but in environments where there isn’t enough room to hide behind noise.
You can feel the difference between motion and progress once you’ve seen it. One fills the room. The other leaves with a name, an action, and a clock attached to it.
Absolutely agree.
Great read and great ideas Nick, thank you
My pleasure, Ash. Thanks for your comment.
wonderful meeting tips Nick! Here’s something I published that’s in an adjacent space.
https://dankorus.substack.com/p/37b-wasted-in-meetings-annually-how?r=2e9akt&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Cheers Dan. I'll take a look.
Brilliant stuff and can save lot may hours of team meetings.
That's the hope, Hitesh.
Used this in my weekly standup meetings. Great also for team cohesion
I love this. I can’t tell you how many workshops I’ve attended where I’ve said afterward, “This could have been accomplished in an email.” Two hours in the car & bad lunch to get one meaningful idea. Ugh.
It would work for a team of 10 members? What is the optimal size?
I like this idea. I wish I had this concept in a few prior assignments. One thing that worked well for me was an actual 'hourglass'. In my case it was a 30 minute 'hourglass'. I had just been promoted and took over for someone who had a reputation for meetings that would last hours. So, when I started my first meeting I placed the hourglass on the table and said "This meeting is over when this runs out. I don't care who is talking." Everyone laughed nervously.
I made a point in that first meeting to be talking when it ran out. A member of my team pointed out that it had run out and I said "Thanks. I didn't see that. That's it for today." And then I got up and walked out. After 2 weeks of running meetings like that, everyone became much more focused, got to the point quickly, and eventually finished meetings before the sand ran out.
If you introduce such a process, people need to experience a personal benefit quickly. Every answer you require from them that doesn't serve their own interests will erode acceptance. And without acceptance, the process will not survive.
Time framing for meetings is key - short meetings indicate task-orientation while longer meetings are relationship building. Knowing which type of meeting to have is key to effective meeting management.
Great model.
Meeting productivity went up for us when we changed the format from sitting to standing. They got shorter, focussed, and even action oriented.
Try it out.
This is a great approach. Without structure or an agenda things get easily derailed.
One company I worked in we had weekly stand-ups no more than half an hour long. Asking
-Where are we on this project?
Is there a blocker?
What can we do to move past it?
Similar approach, highly effective. You surface challenges early and get out ahead of them.
Definitely trying this!!