It doesn’t matter where you work—bad meetings are a universal pain point. But they don’t have to be. Rebecca Hinds is an organizational researcher who has spent the past 15 years helping teams fix their broken meetings—and broken collaboration in general. Hinds has applied her Stanford PhD to the future of work, founding think tanks at two technology companies, and is now the author of the forthcoming book, Your Best Meeting Ever: Seven Principles for Designing Meetings That Get Things Done, out February 2026. Hinds joins organizational culture experts Jenny Chatman and Sameer Srivastava to discuss how bad meetings can degrade your company’s culture, the purpose meetings should actually serve, and how to start treating meetings as your most valuable product—and not an inevitable headache. Learn more about The Culture Kit and find the full transcript: https://haas.berkeley.edu/culture/culture-kit-podcast/ *The Culture Kit with Jenny & Sameer is a production of Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM.*
It doesn’t matter where you work—bad meetings are a universal pain point. But they don’t have to be.
Rebecca Hinds is an organizational researcher who has spent the past 15 years helping teams fix their broken meetings—and broken collaboration in general. Hinds has applied her Stanford PhD to the future of work, founding think tanks at two technology companies, and is now the author of the forthcoming book, Your Best Meeting Ever: Seven Principles for Designing Meetings That Get Things Done, out February 2026.
Hinds joins organizational culture experts Jenny Chatman and Sameer Srivastava to discuss how bad meetings can degrade your company’s culture, the purpose meetings should actually serve, and how to start treating meetings as your most valuable product—and not an inevitable headache.
Learn more about The Culture Kit and find the full transcript: https://haas.berkeley.edu/culture/culture-kit-podcast/
*The Culture Kit with Jenny & Sameer is a production of Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM.*
(Transcripts may contain a few typographical errors due to audio quality during the podcast recording.)
[00:00:00] Jennifer Chatman: Hello, and welcome to the Culture Kit with Jenny and Sameer, where we help you create a work culture that actually works.
[00:00:08] Sameer Srivastava: Whether you're in the C-Suite or just starting out, an effective workplace culture is essential to achieving your organization's goals.
[00:00:16] Jennifer Chatman: I'm Jenny Chatman, a professor and dean at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business.
[00:00:22] Sameer Srivastava: And I'm Sameer Srivastava, also a professor at the Haas School. Together, we founded the Berkeley Center for Workplace Culture and Innovation.
[00:00:33] Jennifer Chatman: Today, we're going to tackle a ubiquitous feature of work life that's central to building an effective culture. And I can guarantee that every single one of our listeners has struggled with it at some point. Meetings, specifically bad meetings.
[00:00:50] Sameer Srivastava: As you know, Jenny, I spent the first half of my career working in industry and the second half working in academia, and I can say in both worlds, unfortunately, there are lots of bad meetings.
[00:01:00] Jennifer Chatman: Well, good news for you today, Sameer. We have a true expert joining us. Rebecca Hinds is an organizational researcher who has applied her Stanford Ph.D. to the future of work. She's founded Think Tanks at two technology companies, along with writing, speaking, and consulting widely. Welcome, Rebecca.
[00:01:20] Rebecca Hinds: Thank you so much, Jenny and Sameer. I'm really looking forward to the conversation and excited to be here.
[00:01:26] Sameer Srivastava: So, Rebecca, the last time we had a chance to engage with you was at the Berkeley Culture Connect Conference back in January, when you gave a really terrific presentation on collaboration in your capacity as founder of Asana's Work Innovation Lab. And since then, you not only founded the Work AI Institute at Glean, the startup, but you've also just written a new book, “Your Best Meeting Ever: Seven Principles for Designing Meetings That Get Things Done”. It's not out until February, but we are really looking forward to hearing about some of those principles today.
[00:01:58] Rebecca Hinds: Thanks, Sameer. I'm really looking forward to it as well. And when I think about my career, I've really spent the past 15 years helping teams fix their broken meetings and broken collaboration in general, first through my Ph.D. and then through my work in industry. And I think we all feel it: Every organization struggles with meetings, no matter the size of the company or the industry where they're based. It's a universal pain.
[00:02:22] Jennifer Chatman: Well, Rebecca, I got to see a preview of the book. I was immediately compelled, and had to read it twice, by the title of your introduction, How Meetings Turned into Weapons of Mass Dysfunction. I thought you were being metaphorical, but it turned out to be quite literal. Can you explain?
[00:02:40] Rebecca Hinds: Sure. That's exactly right. The opening section of the book tells the story of a real document called The Simple Sabotage Field Manual. It was written back in 1944 by the Office of Strategic Services, or the OSS, which essentially became the CIA, and this document was only declassified pretty recently, in 2008.
And essentially, The Simple Sabotage Field Manual, it was meant and written for citizens living in enemy territory during World War II. It was basically a guide on how to quietly sabotage the enemy from within, and not using traditional forms of warfare, but subtle acts of sabotage that ordinary citizens could deploy.
And one of these strategies that was recommended in the field manual was meetings. The manual advised people to bring up irrelevant issues, insist on doing everything through channels when communicating with the enemy, and it was really advising citizens to weaponize meetings as dysfunction.
And so, we can fast forward to today, and we've adopted many of those same tactics, except now we very much call them ″business as usual."
[00:04:05] Jennifer Chatman: Oh, it sounds like true torture.
[00:04:07] Sameer Srivastava: So, before we talk more about some of the dysfunction, maybe, Rebecca, you could tell us a little bit about your past work experiences across the range of organizations and sectors you've experienced. What are some of the different meeting cultures that you've encountered, and how have those meeting cultures either reinforced in a positive way or a negative way the overall organization's desired norms?
[00:04:30] Rebecca Hinds: It's a great question. When we think about meeting cultures, they definitely range from deeply dysfunctional to very intentional, and there are specific meeting cultures that I see time and time again in organizations. I think one of the most common is what I often call the ″performative meeting culture,″ where meetings are essentially theater, right? These are symbols of busyness, symbols of importance. People schedule them to be seen, to signal that they're relevant, to prove their importance. And we see it manifest in more time spent on slide decks than the actual content of the meeting. There's a perception that the more meetings you're in, the more valuable or important you are. And often, just having the meeting, regardless of whether anything was achieved, is considered to be a marker of progress and productivity. And so, that's definitely a common one I see across the board.
Another one is bureaucratic meeting cultures, right? We often see that bureaucratic cultures in general, they worship process, and so in these organizations, often nothing important moves forward without a meeting. You spend more time talking about the work than doing it. You see decisions die in these alignment meetings, and your calendar starts to become this real gatekeeper of progress within the organization.
The third culture I often see is a collectivist meeting culture, where everyone's invited to the meetings. And often this comes from good intentions, you have a genuine desire to be transparent, inclusive. Leaders want everyone to feel heard within the meeting. But very quickly, those good intentions turn into meeting bloat. You have too many cooks in the kitchen, too few decisions being made in the meeting.
And then the fourth one, and this is on a different axis. In all these cases, you can have very much a mix of different cultures. But I've had the privilege of working at several organizations that do have very intentional meeting cultures. There's a real recognition that, while no one has meetings entirely figured out, there's a bias towards trying to figure it out and a bias towards questioning the status quo, not treating meetings as an inevitable cost of doing business, but something that we can actively and intentionally design. And that's very much at the core of the book, Your Best Meeting Ever, this idea that we need to treat meetings as intentional products that we design. Meetings are the most important product in our entire organization, and yet so often they're the least optimized.
[00:07:20] Jennifer Chatman: So, we often hear about toxic meeting culture, and some of the examples you just listed fall in this category—death by a thousand meetings, meetings that could have been emails, all of that. It seems like many companies have lost the narrative, and meetings sometimes become, as you said, a substitute for the real work. So, let me ask, sort of the most basic question, in an ideal world, what is the purpose of a meeting?
[00:07:48] Rebecca Hinds: It's an essential question, and one that so many organizations don't take the time to answer. It's critical that every employee have an understanding of what actually deserves to be a meeting and when to schedule meetings. What is the purpose of the meeting? And so, in the book, I walk through a framework that I call the Four D-CEO Test. It's essentially a two-part test to decide if you really do need a meeting.
So, the first test is the Four Ds. Essentially, a meeting should only happen if the purpose is to decide, discuss, debate, or develop yourself or your team. If not, the meeting shouldn't happen. But even if it does pass this Four D Test, there's a second test called the CEO Test. Essentially, a meeting should only be scheduled if it meets one of three additional conditions.
First, C: Is it complex? Does the meeting have a lot of unknown unknowns? Probably, if so, a meeting is the most efficient way to make sense of the complexity together.
E: Is it emotionally intense? If the meeting content involves a lot of emotion, empathy, trust, conflict, repairing relationships. It's so much more than facts, it's about feelings. Probably, a meeting is most effective and justified.
And then O: Is it a “one-way door decision”? So, at Amazon, Jeff Bezos described one-way door decisions as decisions where, once you walk through the door, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse course and go back the other way. So, in those cases, if the stakes are high, if it's extremely risky, then probably the stakes are too high to not ensure that you have full alignment through a synchronous meeting.
And so, you'll notice what's not on that list, right? Status updates, not on the list. Brainstorm meetings, we often think that brainstorming belongs in a live synchronous meeting, but there's so much evidence that it's much more effective to brainstorm independently and then come together as a group. When you're deciding on the idea, when you're discussing the ideas, then you've crossed over into the Four D territory, and it deserves to be a meeting.
And so, we need to be much more intentional about when we call a meeting, what deserves to be a meeting, and employees need that clarity as well.
[00:10:23] Sameer Srivastava: I love the Four Ds and CEO framework, very simple, easy to remember. I wanted to, though, push a little bit on the role of digital tools. As we've seen a proliferation of such tools, you even worked in some organizations that develop and deploy these tools that are supposed to help with collaboration, and yet, you argue that meetings have gotten even worse despite the proliferation of these tools. Why is that?
[00:10:46] Rebecca Hinds: I think this became particularly acute, as you mentioned, Sameer, during the pandemic. And what we saw is every company started to layer on these digital tools, Slack, Zoom, Asana, more email. And in theory, we were accumulating these tools that could allow us to spend less time in meetings, but we saw that the opposite happened.
And what we saw is because we had more ways to communicate, we didn't have, in many cases, a shared understanding of where communication should take place. And so, when communication lives in five different tools, when no one's sure where the real work is happening, meetings start to feel like the only reliable way to communicate and get information.
And so, because so much of these communication tools are siloed within organizations, meetings start to become this duct tape solution that is highly inefficient. It drains morale, it makes us exhausted, and it does a disservice to the overall organization.
[00:11:56] Jennifer Chatman: You have some really provocative labels for things. So, you refer to a meeting hangover. What is that?
[00:12:04] Rebecca Hinds: We've all felt them. They're these foggy, unproductive sentiments that we often feel after a meeting. It's not just physical fatigue, it's this cognitive residue that sticks with us after meetings because your brain is still processing everything that's happened in the meeting, or hasn't happened, right? The half-made decisions, the awkward tensions, someone steamrolling your ideas in the meeting.
And we've done great research, we've done with Steven Rogelberg at UNC, and essentially, we found that these hangovers occur after more than a quarter of meetings. And I think a common misconception is that meeting hangovers only happen after bad meetings, but we don't find that. They also happen after good meetings, because if you're really scheduling a meeting intentionally, it should be hard work, right? It should involve you taxing your cognitive muscles, others taxing theirs.
And so, this is why it's so important to be strategic about scheduling breaks after meetings. It's really important to recognize when you are suffering from a meeting hangover.
One of the impacts of these hangovers is they don't just impact the person suffering from them. They also have this contagion effect. Because one of the most common ways to deal with hangovers is to vent, to vent to your colleagues. And in our research, we've essentially identified two different types of venting: what I call “feel-it venting,” which is essentially you're venting with the core objective of getting things off your chest, versus “fix-it venting,” which is venting with the aim of understanding what went wrong or what went right and taxing you, and then trying to understand how to come up with a solution.
What we find, perhaps not surprisingly, is that fix-it venting is much more productive in helping people overcome those hangover symptoms and not negatively impact other people as well.
[00:14:21] Jennifer Chatman: Well, either way, I feel like I need some probiotics for that.
[00:14:25] Sameer Srivastava: So, I think one takeaway, Rebecca, from your comments already is that meetings are often the symptom of an underlying problem rather than the cure. But I want to switch gears now to think a little bit about how to change the meeting culture in an organization so that meetings aren't just automatically the cultural default. Could you talk a little bit about that? And in the course of doing so, maybe discuss a little bit this notion of a collaboration cleanse, something that you were involved in at Asana and Amazon.
[00:14:53] Rebecca Hinds: Yes. So, we often think that meetings are the problem, but in so many cases, they're a symptom of a broken communication system. And we've talked about the importance of the Four D–CEO rule and really clearly delineating what deserves to be a meeting. Often, employees don't have that clarity. And so, when they don't know when Slack is used, when email is used, when Dropbox versus Google Drive is being used, they start to schedule more and more meetings because it does feels like the most reliable way to transmit information.
And so, one study we did at the Work Innovation Lab was we essentially took a group of Amazon employees and a group of Asana employees and asked them, for a period of two weeks, to stop using half of the collaboration tools that they typically used at work. So, you can imagine Google Drive, Dropbox, Asana, they selected half of them that they were no longer permitted to use for that two-week period, and we had them complete daily diary entries and log anytime they deviated from that approved tech stack.
And the results were fascinating, and we published this in Harvard Business Review. And we essentially framed that article in terms of, there was good news and there was bad news. The good news was, just after that two-week period, more than half of participants said that, ″Okay, at least one of their tools they had been using before, I no longer need to use." So, they had a leaner tech stack moving forward. That was the good news.
The bad news was we measured something that one of my good colleagues and research partners for a long time, Paul Leonardi at UCSB, he called digital exhaustion, essentially, how exhausted do the tools and technologies you use at work make you feel. And throughout the study, digital exhaustion actually increased.
And as we were diving deeper to understand why, we started to realize why we were seeing rising levels of digital exhaustion. And it was primarily because people wanted to do more to cull their tech stack. They realized after going through this cleanse that they wanted to eliminate not just one tool, but two, or four, or eight. They also realized that they alone could not make that determination, because so much of our technology is dependent on other people, on what our customers use, what our boss uses, what our teams use.
And so, this recognition, that there was now a solution to the overwhelm of tools, but they alone couldn't pave the way to that solution, was contributing to this added exhaustion.
One of the key takeaways from that body of work is just how important leaders are in helping to determine what is that standard tech stack we're going to use across the organization. And what we've seen in survey after survey is, often leaders think that employees don't want standardization, that they think it's limiting independence and autonomy. Workers want standardization.
[00:18:19] Sameer Srivastava: One of the things I've observed when I walk into a new organization for the first time is large meetings often taking place in a glass conference room, where you can not only see lots of people, but you can also, in very subtle ways, see the power dynamic in the room. And you see a couple of people who seem to be super powerful, and everybody else is deferring to them in different ways. And you get a sense that it's not a very inclusive meeting. Can you say a little bit more about how you see meetings becoming more inclusive? What are some of the strategies for accomplishing that?
[00:18:50] Rebecca Hinds: We see power dynamics show up all the time in meetings, and it's not so much a question of whether power dynamics can exist in meetings, we know that they do exist. It's really how you design the meeting to minimize power dynamics. And what we know is one of the biggest predictors of team performance is equal airtime, so how equally people are contributing in the meeting. And so, I've seen several examples of organizations start to become more data-driven about measuring that airtime as a means of improving inclusivity in the meeting.
And so, historically, this has often looked like formal or informal roles in the meeting. I studied, as part of the book, a large bank in Singapore, and they essentially dedicated a role within meetings. They called it the Joyful Observer, whose purpose within the meeting was to watch group dynamics and flag when there were inequities in airtime or influence.
And so, those types of roles, dedicated roles, can really help to drive greater inclusivity in the meeting. What's really exciting is now AI can start to play that role as well. And so, in multiple companies I've advised more recently, we've started to use AI as a meeting moderator to track who's dominating the airtime and who gets interrupted in the meeting. And that's a simple way to make those often-invisible power dynamics—sometimes they are very visible, sometimes they're more invisible. Make them more visible and fixable.
[00:20:40] Jennifer Chatman: So, companies are still relying on hybrid meetings these days, is there a tendency to treat remote participants like second-class citizens, and how does that affect meeting productivity and even culture long term?
[00:20:56] Rebecca Hinds: There's definitely a tendency, and as part of my Ph.D., with my co-authors, we really delved deep into this concept of two-tiered status systems within organizations. And in particular, we did a large study on employees who were working remotely in organizations that were predominantly in the office before the pandemic.
And what we heard time and time again from these remote participants in predominantly in-office environments was they felt overlooked. They felt lesser than the in-office workers, and it was very much a two-class system where they did feel like second-class citizens. And we see this all the time manifest in meetings. And in many ways, it's a natural human tendency to associate presence with proximity. We know that proximity is real in terms of biases within our organization. We tend to equate visibility with commitment within the organization.
This often manifests in remote employees overscheduling meetings because, as we've talked about, meetings are this very visible manifestation of work. And so, we see remote employees often overschedule meetings just to prove that they're engaged and committed within the organization.
And we also know from the research that distance doesn't just separate people physically. There's a lot of evidence that it breeds this psychological distance, too, where out of sight becomes out of mind. If you're not in the office, if you're not in the meeting room physically, you can't read body language, you're not trading side comments, you're not bonding before and after the meeting, which is really important.
And so, remote employees tend to be left out of the conversations, even if they're virtually dialing into the meetings. Leaders need to be really intentional about overcorrecting for those biases and designing meetings so that the remote participants, they speak first in the meeting, you have some sort of visual manifestation of the remote employees in the physical room.
One of my favorite examples comes from a university in China. And essentially, there was a team of researchers that built what they called a “snot box.” It was a robot with a balloon that inflated like a snot bubble, and the bubble would grow larger and larger the more time that had elapsed for remote participants to speak.
And so, if you had a long window where remote participants had not spoken within the meeting, the bubble would become larger and larger. And so, that's an example of a physical manifestation in the room where it's giving an indication of remote workers' presence and nudging participants to more consciously involve them in the meeting.
[00:24:13] Sameer Srivastava: And what a clever way to harness disgust in the service of inclusion.
[00:24:18] Jennifer Chatman: So, when can I start sending my digital twin to a meeting? Like, is that a reality? Is that something we actually could think about? When would that backfire? I mean, really, in other words, what do you see as the role AI plays in meetings, and where should humans maintain control?
[00:24:36] Rebecca Hinds: It's a great question, and Jenny, I'm not sure if you're seeing this already. I'm starting to see it a little bit, where you have these leaders and CEOs, in particular, start to boast about sending bots to meetings on their behalf. And so, there's a real danger with AI in general that AI actually makes our meetings worse. The first step is being really thoughtful and clear about what is the role of AI in meetings. In the book, I essentially outline three core roles that AI can play in meetings.
The first is to automate, right? We know that there are so many components of meetings that involve this administrative sludge or administrative drudgery, scheduling meetings, transcribing meetings, sending follow-up, sending action items. All of these things should be automated with AI.
The second is to advise, and this is, again, an extremely exciting area of AI application. Where, if AI does understand your organization, if it does understand what a good meeting looks like within your context, it can start to advise you when meetings are becoming dysfunctional. It can advise when leaders are hogging the airtime. It can advise when the sentiment drops within meetings. It can advise if you haven't discussed all the agenda items throughout the meeting. And that becomes a really effective and exciting application of AI.
And then the third, which is where the digital twins come in, is as an active participant in meetings. There are definitely applications where digital twins make sense. You can imagine a CEO that is very time-scarce and is in a whole bunch of different meetings, sending their digital twin to a meeting to provide their expertise in a way that they wouldn't otherwise be able to just because of bandwidth constraints.
Or you can imagine an employee who's on a sabbatical or taking maternity leave, where they could send their digital twin to a meeting and still represent their expertise and perhaps even judgment within the meeting if they're away from the office. So here again, I think the “CEO Test” is another good one to decide whether you should show up as a human or you should show up with your digital twin.
So, C: is the meeting content complex? We know that LLMs, which are trained to learn on past behavior, can't reliably reason about something without any precedent. So, in those cases, it's probably better to show up as a human.
E: Emotionally intense. We know that if there's a lot of emotion in the meeting, if you're repairing broken relationships, then you're probably better off showing up with your full empathy, with your human judgment, as a human in the meeting.
And then finally, O: is it a one-way door decision? We know that LLMs are also probabilistic; they're not deterministic, which means they'll always give you a likely answer and not a guaranteed one. And so, in those cases, it's also probably in your best interest to show up as a human, because the cost, again, of misalignment, the cost of not bringing your human judgment is just too high.
[00:28:17] Jennifer Chatman: It sounds like you would never send your digital twin, because you wouldn't have a meeting if you had the criteria to send your digital twin, right? It's the same criteria.
[00:28:29] Rebecca Hinds: And that's exactly right, in the sense of if we are designing meetings intentionally, if they're truly passing the “Four D-CEO” tests, we should be, in my opinion, having very few meetings where people are sending their digital twins. I still think there are cases, and there are really exciting cases, but it should be few and far between.
[00:28:51] Sameer Srivastava: So, independent of the digital twin question, just as AI takes on the three core roles that you've talked about, what do you see as the future of meetings going forward? And what I'm really asking is, and hoping you'll say, that we'll have fewer meetings and shorter ones. Is that right?
[00:29:06] Rebecca Hinds: I think time will tell. We definitely should have fewer meetings. We definitely should have shorter meetings. I think the real opportunity that AI gives us in meetings, and outside of meetings, is to make meetings and work more efficient so that we can then spend time on the parts of work and parts of meetings that should not be efficient.
And so, relationship-generating, for example, relationship building, creativity, all of these things are aspects of work and aspects of meetings that shouldn't be highly efficient. And so, I see, if we're intentional about bringing AI into our meetings, we should be shifting from meetings as a communication tool to meetings as a form of connection and collaboration.
[00:29:57] Jennifer Chatman: So, Rebecca, we always like to end with takeaways for our listeners that they can put to work immediately. I wonder, of all of these wonderful recommendations you've given us, what are your top three meeting fixes that would most improve an organization's culture and effectiveness?
[00:30:15] Rebecca Hinds: So, I'll give one meta recommendation and then three more specific ones. The premise of “Your Best Meeting Ever” is, treat meetings as a product. And I think that's a mindset that every organization should adopt. Meetings aren't just something that happened to us. They're not an inevitable cost of doing business. They're intentional products, and expensive ones, that we need to be intentionally designing within our organization.
We didn't talk today about meeting doomsday, but I've had the privilege of, in my career, running several meeting doomsdays within organizations. Essentially, a meeting doomsday involves canceling recurring meetings from employees' calendars for a period of 48 hours, and then adding meetings back in a way that's going to be most effective for the current state of business. And this, I continue to see, as one of the most effective ways to reset your meeting culture.
We've actually done several studies where we compare meeting audits to meeting doomsdays. Meeting audits tend not to be nearly as effective because they don't fundamentally jolt people out of the status quo. And so, I recommend that all organizations conduct a meeting doomsday at least once a year, not just to reset your calendar, but to reset some of your core assumptions around what actually deserves to be a meeting.
Second, we talked about systems thinking, the importance of getting your communication system in order. That's absolutely essential, especially as we start to bring in AI tools to our organization. I mentioned digital exhaustion and what we actually see right now is digital exhaustion has increased as AI tools have become more mainstream.
And so, it's important that every organization take a step back and think about, ″Okay, what is our communication stack right now? What's the purpose of each tool, and what is our rule, like the Four D-CEO rule, that can give employees clarity in terms of what justifies a meeting and when to deploy meetings."
And then third, use AI. I think AI offers incredible potential. Right now, it'll only get better in terms of helping us diagnose dysfunctional meetings and improve them. But use AI thoughtfully within meetings and start to experiment with how it can help you create better balance in terms of contributions, how it can help you inform the design of better meetings. But don't use it without being intentional, because I think you'll see your meetings become even worse.
[00:33:01] Sameer Srivastava: Terrific. Rebecca, thank you so much for taking the time with us. That was really insightful. We really appreciated it.
[00:33:06] Rebecca Hinds: Thank you so much. I really enjoyed the conversation.
[00:33:09] Jennifer Chatman: Rebecca, that was really fantastic. I learned so much and after coming from a day of meetings I got, I'm just like, wow. I definitely need some probiotics.
Thanks for listening to The Culture Kit with Jenny and Sameer!
[00:33:29] Sameer Srivastava: The Culture Kit podcast is a production of the Berkeley Center for Workplace Culture and Innovation at the Haas School of Business and is produced by University FM. If you enjoyed the show, be sure to hit that Subscribe button, leave us a review, and share this episode online so others who have workplace culture questions can find us too!
[00:33:49] Jennifer Chatman: I'm Jenny.
[00:33:51] Sameer Srivastava: And I'm Sameer.
[00:33:52] Jennifer Chatman: We'll be back soon with more tools to help fix your work culture challenges.