Meetings Matter Effects of Team Meetings on Team and Organizational Success

Abstract

This study follows the idea that the key to understanding team meeting effectiveness lies in uncovering the microlevel interaction processes throughout the meeting. Ninety-two regular team meetings were videotaped. Interaction data were coded and evaluated with the act4teams coding scheme and INTERACT software. Team and organizational success variables were gathered via questionnaires and telephone interviews. The results support the central function of interaction processes as posited in the traditional input-process-output model. Teams that showed more functional interaction, such as problem-solving interaction and action planning, were significantly more satisfied with their meetings. Better meetings were associated with higher team productivity. Moreover, constructive meeting interaction processes were related to organizational success 2.5 years after the meeting. Dysfunctional communication, such as criticizing others or complaining, showed significant negative relationships with these outcomes. These negative effects were even more pronounced than the positive effects of functional team meeting interaction. The results suggest that team meeting processes shape both team and organizational outcomes. The critical meeting behaviors identified here provide hints for group researchers and practitioners alike who aim to improve meeting success.

Full text

http://sgr.sagepub.com/
Small Group Research
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/43/2/130
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1046496411429599
2011
2012 43: 130 originally published online 25 DecemberSmall Group Research
Simone Kauffeld and Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock
Organizational Success
Meetings Matter: Effects of Team Meetings on Team and
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Small Group ResearchAdditional services and information for
http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/43/2/130.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Dec 25, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Mar 5, 2012Version of Record >>
by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from by guest on October 11, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Small Group Research
43(2) 130 –158
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1046496411429599
http://sgr.sagepub.com
429599SGR43210.1177/1046496411429599Kauffe
ld and Lehmann-WillenbrockSmall Group Research
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany
This article is part of a special issue on Organizational Meetings, SGR, 43(2), April 2012
Corresponding Author:
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, Technische Universität Braunschweig,
Spielmannstraße 19, Braunschweig 38106, Germany
Email: n.lehmann-willenbrock@tu-bs.de
Meetings Matter: Effects
of Team Meetings on
Team and Organizational
Success
Simone Kauffeld1 and
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock1
Abstract
This study follows the idea that the key to understanding team meeting
effectiveness lies in uncovering the microlevel interaction processes through-
out the meeting. Ninety-two regular team meetings were videotaped. Inter-
action data were coded and evaluated with the act4teams coding scheme
and INTERACT software. Team and organizational success variables were
gathered via questionnaires and telephone interviews. The results support
the central function of interaction processes as posited in the traditional
input-process-output model. Teams that showed more functional interac-
tion, such as problem-solving interaction and action planning, were signifi-
cantly more satisfied with their meetings. Better meetings were associated
with higher team productivity. Moreover, constructive meeting interaction
processes were related to organizational success 2.5 years after the meeting.
Dysfunctional communication, such as criticizing others or complaining,
showed significant negative relationships with these outcomes. These negative
effects were even more pronounced than the positive effects of functional
team meeting interaction. The results suggest that team meeting processes
shape both team and organizational outcomes. The critical meeting behaviors
identified here provide hints for group researchers and practitioners alike
who aim to improve meeting success.

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 131
Keywords
work groups, meetings, interaction analysis, group processes, team success
Team meetings constitute a vital situation: Team members’ expertise is com-
bined for discussing ideas, making decisions, and initiating change processes
(cf. Kauffeld, 2006a). To tap this potential, many contemporary organizations
have implemented regular team meetings. For example, team meetings and
group discussions are part of the Continuous Improvement Process
(CIP; e.g., Liker, 2006). Ravn (2007) argues that meetings became popular as
a result of the 1960s movement: “Sitting in a circle, waiting for your turn to
speak, and listening respectfully . . . were norms that traveled from the kin-
dergarten to the boardroom” (p. 4). Arguably, this development reduced
(perceived) restraints to speak up at meetings, which in turn led to more time-
consuming meetings (cf. Ravn, 2007). Employees and managers attend
approximately 3.2 meetings per week. However, the quality of these meetings
is evaluated as poor in 41.9% of the cases (Schell, 2010). Considering the
amount of time that employees spend in meetings, this result is disturbing.
Moreover, dissatisfaction with the meeting procedure and results affects
employees’ attitudes and leads to a negative and pessimistic perspective on
meetings (cf. Hackman, 2002). High meeting time demands have been linked
to decreased well-being (Rogelberg, Leach, Warr, & Burnfield, 2006) and
increased fatigue and subjective work load (Luong & Rogelberg, 2005). How-
ever, abolishing meetings altogether is not a likely option. Teams often face
difficult tasks, often without routine answers. This calls for combining sev-
eral team members’ expertise, which in turn requires interaction (e.g., via team
meetings). Group interaction means coordinating team members, tasks, and
tools (Ericksen & Dyer, 2004). Thus, meetings are a necessity for building
successful teamwork. In light of the above mentioned findings, the following
questions arise: What makes a team meeting successful? How can the
potential inherent in teams (e.g., Strozniak, 2000) be triggered and used in
team meetings?
One approach to this question lies in the analysis of the processes that
determine more or less functional interaction during team meetings. This
approach follows the traditional input-process-output model of team perfor-
mance (Hackman & Morris, 1975; see also Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, &
Gilson, 2008). Processes in this model are those activities that mediate the
relationship between input factors (e.g., team members’ personalities, group
size, or financial incentives) and team outputs or outcomes (e.g., productivity,
team member satisfaction, or meeting effectiveness). Process factors include

132 Small Group Research 43(2)
planning and monitoring behaviors, as well as interpersonal team processes
such as managing conflict management or increasing team members’ com-
mitment (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Thus, the group interaction
process is viewed as a central component for predicting team outcomes. To
understand what makes a team meeting successful, it is necessary to examine
the interaction process during the meeting: Which communication behaviors
promote successful meetings? Which are detrimental?
To date, research on real team meeting interaction in the workplace is
sparse, with a few exceptions (e.g., Kauffeld, 2006a, 2006b). This study
builds on previous research concerning meeting success by examining the
team interaction processes that separate successful from less successful meet-
ings. Functional and dysfunctional meeting behaviors are identified via inter-
action analysis of 92 real team meetings in the field. Moreover, these
observational data are linked to satisfaction measures as well as objective
team productivity data and organizational success. Our results offer impor-
tant theoretical implications for studying team meetings and provide useful
hints for practitioners who want to help teams make the most of their meeting
time; for example, practitioners may use interaction analysis as a reflexivity
tool for pointing out a team’s strengths and weaknesses.
Observing Team Meeting Interaction
Despite a growing body of research on team meetings (e.g., Leach, Rogelberg,
Warr, & Burnfield, 2009; Luong & Rogelberg, 2005), the process compo-
nents that can increase or decrease meeting effectiveness remain somewhat
vague. To gain insight on the actual behaviors that can promote or inhibit
meeting success, participants’ actual behavior during team meetings needs
to be examined.
On the basis of the functional perspective of problem-solving groups
(e.g., Wittenbaum et al., 2004), previous research with real work groups has
identified both functional and dysfunctional interaction behaviors. Kauffeld
(2006b) compared self-directed and traditional work groups and found that
the former were better able to structure their discussions and create conditions
for implementing their ideas in practice. Kauffeld and Meyers (2009) identi-
fied complaining cycles, that is, negative complaining loops that keep teams
from making the most of their meeting time. These findings have been rep-
licated and extended to complaining and action cycles in team meetings
(Lehmann-Willenbrock, Meyers, Kauffeld, Neininger, & Henschel, 2011).
The research reported here is based on a recently developed and validated
instrument for group interaction analysis, act4teams (see Kauffeld, 2006a,

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 133
2006b). The act4teams coding scheme derives from an extensive review of
past research on interaction, expertise, teams, and problem-solving processes.
Existing classification systems for intragroup interaction such as the interac-
tion process analysis (IPA, Bales, 1950), the system of multiple-level observa-
tion of groups (SYMLOG; Bales, 1980), and time-by-event-by-member
pattern observation (TEMPO; Futoran, Kelly, & McGrath, 1989) were consid-
ered as well as time-based process dimensions (Marks et al., 2001). For a
detailed explanation of the theoretical underpinnings of the act4teams coding
scheme, see Kauffeld (2006a). act4teams distinguishes four types of team
interaction: problem-focused, procedural, socioemotional, and action-oriented
communication. Table 1 shows these four types of interaction.
In accordance with input-process-output models of team interaction pro-
cesses and performance outcomes (e.g., Hackman & Morris, 1975), we expect
functional team meeting communication to promote team meeting success
and dysfunctional communication to diminish team meeting success. The act-
4teams coding scheme serves as a basis for distinguishing between functional
and dysfunctional team meeting communication (cf. Kauffeld, 2006a;
Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010; see Table 1). Problem-focused com-
munication is presumed to be inherently functional. However, procedural,
socioemotional, and action-oriented communication can be either functional
(positive) or dysfunctional (negative). We now explain these team meeting
interaction aspects and their presumed link to meeting success in more detail.
Problem-Focused Communication
Meetings are usually meant to serve several purposes such as exchanging
information, solving problems, and finding consensus or making decisions
(cf. Leach et al., 2009). Problem-focused communication is directly related to
understanding the issue, finding appropriate solutions, and evaluating those
solutions. A successful problem-solving process is characterized by a thor-
ough definition and analysis of the problem (e.g., Wittenbaum et al., 2004). If
teams do not accomplish these steps, they are more likely to fail (Mitroff &
Featheringham, 1974). Moreover, problem-focused communication involves
idea generation and finding solutions. A complex problem (cf. Funke, 2010)
can lead to several possible solutions (Dörner, 1997). Finally, problem-focused
communication can relate to knowledge sharing, when team members
develop a common representation of a problem and possible solutions to it
(cf. Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). As all of these communicative
activities have been linked to positive team outcomes, we hypothesize,

134
Table 1. Advanced Interaction Analysis (act4teams) Coding Scheme.
Problem-focused
statements Procedural statements Socioemotional statements Action-oriented statements
Differentiating a problem Positive procedural statements Positive socioemotional
statements
Positive, proactive statements
Problem
identifying a (partial)
problem
Describing a problem
illustrating a problem
Goal orientation
pointing out or leading back to
the topic
Clarifying
ensuring that contributions are to
the point
Procedural suggestion
suggestions for further procedure
Procedural question
questions about further procedure
Prioritizing
stressing main topics
Time management
reference to (remaining) time
Task distribution
delegating tasks during the
discussion
Visualizing
using flip chart and similar tools
Weighing costs/benefits
economical thinking
Summarizing
summarizing results
Encouraging participation
e.g., addressing quiet
participants
Providing support
agreeing to suggestions, ideas,
and so no.
Active listening
signalizing interest (“hmm,”
“yes”)
Reasoned disagreement
contradiction based on facts
Giving feedback
e.g., whether something is new
or already known
Lightening the atmosphere
e.g., jokes
Separating opinions from facts
marking one’s own opinion as
such
Expressing feelings
mentioning feelings
Offering praise
e.g., positive remarks about
other people
Interest in change
signalizing interest in ideas, options, etc.
Personal responsibility
taking on responsibility
Action planning
agreeing upon tasks to be carried out
Cross-linking a problem Negative, counteractive statements
Connections with a
problem
e.g., naming causes and
effects
No interest in change
e.g., denial of optimization
opportunities
Complaining
emphasizing the negative status quo,
pessimism
Empty talk
e.g., irrelevant proverbs, truism
Seeking someone to blame
personalizing problems
Denying responsibility
pointing out hierarchies, pushing the task
onto someone else
Terminating the discussion
ending or trying to end the discussion
early
Differentiating a solution
Defining the objective
vision, description of
requirements
Solution
identifying a (partial)
solution
Describing a solution
illustrating a solution
(continued)

135
Problem-focused
statements Procedural statements Socioemotional statements Action-oriented statements
Cross-linking a solution
Problem with a solution
objection to a solution
Connections with a
solution
e.g., naming advantages
of solutions
Statements about the
organization
Organizational knowledge
knowledge about
organization and
processes
Negative socioemotional
statements
Statements about
knowledge
management
Negative procedural statements Criticizing/running someone down
disparaging comments about
others
Interrupting
cutting someone off while
speaking
Side conversations
simultaneous talk on the side
Self-promotion
pointing out work experience,
tenure, etc.
Knowing who
reference to specialists
Question
question about opinions,
content, experience
Losing the train of thought in details
and examples
examples irrelevant to the goal,
monologues
Note: The four facets of interaction are found in the four columns. Interaction aspects within the facets are highlighted in gray; coding category names
are printed in italics.
Table 1. (continued)

136 Small Group Research 43(2)
Hypothesis 1: Problem-focused communication will be positively
linked to team meeting success.
Procedural Communication
Positive procedural communication concerns statements that are aimed at
structuring and organizing the discussion. Previous research suggests that
task-contingent structuring of the group process increases team performance
(e.g., Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009). Furthermore, results from
sequential analysis show that positive procedural statements help promote
more functional discussion processes by inhibiting dysfunctional behaviors
such as complaining (Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009). However, negative proce-
dural communication leads to a loss of thought, for example, as a result of
lengthy monologues and redundant explanations by individual participants.
Okhuysen and Eisenhardt (2002) found that team members felt constrained
by lengthy contributions by others. Whereas all problem-focused statements
should be helpful, we presume a distinct positive influence of positive pro-
cedural statements, but a negative influence of negative procedural state-
ments. We hypothesize,
Hypothesis 2a: Positive procedural statements will be positively linked
to team success.
Hypothesis 2b: Negative procedural statements will be negatively
linked to team success.
Socioemotional Communication
Socioemotional statements capture the relational interaction that occurs in
teams. This type of communication carries considerable social influence both
inside and outside the workplace (Huang, 2009). Positive socioemotional
communication has also been examined in previous taxonomies of team
interaction. IPA describes positive socioemotional communication in terms
of showing solidarity, releasing tension, or agreeing (Bales, 1950, 1980).
Positive socioemotional communication has been identified as a team require-
ment (Beck & Keyton, 2009). Moreover, positive socioemotional communi-
cation has been found to aid cognitive flexibility and creative problem solving
(Ashby & Isen, 1999). However, factors such as relationship conflict (e.g., De
Dreu & Weingart, 2003) have been associated with lower team performance.
In team meeting interaction, these factors become apparent in negative socio-
emotional communication. For example, offending statements are linked to
personal conflicts that negatively affect team performance (cf. De Dreu &

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 137
Weingart, 2003). Moreover, side conversations can be understood in terms of
negative socioemotional communication, because they demonstrate disinter-
est in the team interaction (cf. Swaab, Phillips, Diermeier, & Medvec, 2008).
Similar to procedural communication, we thus presume a distinct influence
of positive versus negative socioemotional communication on team success.
Hypothesis 3a: Positive socioemotional statements will be positively
linked to team success.
Hypothesis 3b: Negative socioemotional statements will be negatively
linked to team success.
Action-Oriented Communication
Action-oriented statements describe a teams’ willingness to take action to
improve their work. Positive action-oriented communication can be described
as proactive behavior (e.g., Frese, Garst, & Fay, 2007). Communicating
interest in change, taking responsibility for changes ahead, or planning con-
crete actions are understood as proactive statements. Action planning is
beneficial for individual as well as group-level success, particularly when
solving complex tasks (e.g., Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). Moreover, proac-
tive cycles, in which team members engage in sequential patterns of proactive
communication, are expressions of a positive group mood (Lehmann-
Willenbrock et al., 2011). However, counteractive communication has been
observed as well. Cooke and Szumal (1994) showed that teams who lacked
initiative or interest developed poor solutions. Communicative behaviors
such as complaining, seeking others to blame, or denying responsibility can
waste precious meeting time. Moreover, research has identified complaining
cycles, in which one complaining statement is chasing the next (Kauffeld &
Meyers, 2009). These counteractive patterns have been linked to a negative
group mood (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2011). In sum, we presume that
proactive communication promotes, and counteractive communication
inhibits team success.
Hypothesis 4a: Proactive statements will be positively linked to team success.
Hypothesis 4b: Counteractive statements will be negatively linked to
team success.
Functional interaction processes have been examined in previous research
following the functional perspective (e.g., Wittenbaum et al., 2004). However,
we aim to analyze functional and dysfunctional interaction processes in real
team meetings in the field. To do so, we aim to link the four facets of team

138 Small Group Research 43(2)
meeting interaction observable with act4teams (i.e., problem-focused, proce-
dural, socioemotional, and action-oriented communication) to three outcomes:
meeting satisfaction, team productivity, and organizational success.
Team Meeting Outcomes
Team meeting outcomes can be operationalized in terms of three types of
outcomes. First, team meeting outcomes can concern participants’ meeting
satisfaction. Rogelberg and colleagues found that meeting satisfaction was a
distinct facet of job satisfaction (Rogelberg, Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler,
2010). These findings suggest that meeting satisfaction is an important com-
ponent of meeting success. Second, team outcomes can refer to team perfor-
mance. A recent meta-analysis shows that the overall team process, comprising
transition processes, action processes, and interpersonal processes, is posi-
tively linked to team performance and team member satisfaction (LePine,
Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008). These results suggest that team
performance can be considered as another facet of meeting success. Third,
team meeting outcomes can also concern organizational success. Only recently
have team researchers started to include outcomes at the organizational level
(cf. Mathieu et al., 2008). One particular difficulty in linking teams to orga-
nizational performance concerns lower-level teams (e.g., production teams).
Mathieu et al. (2008) argue that, although the link between team performance
and organizational success is relatively easy to imagine in top management
teams or sales teams, the connection might be less clear in lower-level teams.
However, when looking at organizations as open systems (e.g., Cummings &
Worley, 2009), this connection appears quite plausible. From an open systems
perspective, an organization comprises various subsystems. For example, a
team-based organization contains teams as subsystems, which are in turn
made up of individual employees. Thus, organizational success in a team-
based organization will largely depend on the employees who work in teams
to accomplish organizational goals. Official team meetings in organizations
are aimed at trouble-shooting, team decision making, and idea generation,
among others. If team meetings live up to their potential, they can help reach
organizational goals as well (cf. Rogelberg et al., 2006).
Method
Sample
A total of 92 teams from 20 medium-sized organizations from the automotive
supply, metal, electrical, chemical and packaging industries were examined.

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 139
There were usually four to six teams from each organization. There were
more participating teams in 2 of the 20 organizations, where we were able to
recruit additional 11 and 16 groups who provided productivity key figures.
The majority of the participants were 31 to 40 years old (43.5%). 21.5% were
aged 21 to 30, 22.9% were aged 41 to 50, and 12.1% were 51years of age
and older. The sample was 90.6% male, which is representative of the indus-
tries examined. There were no hierarchies within the teams. Prior to the study,
all participating teams had stated that team meetings were carried out regu-
larly. As not all of the outcome variables were available for all teams, the
sample was reduced for some outcome variables, as indicated.
Meeting Interaction: Data Collection
Interaction data were collected during regular team meetings. These teams
meet regularly (every 2 to 4 weeks) for approximately 1 hr. All teams dis-
cussed a current topic relevant to their specific work activities (e.g., “How
can we improve the quality of our work?”), which was chosen by the teams
themselves. To ensure realistic team meeting data, the supervisor as well as
the team had to agree prior to the meeting that it was important to work on
that particular topic. The team meetings were videotaped. Participants were
advised to ignore the camera and to talk as they would under normal circum-
stances. When asked afterwards, all teams characterized the discussion as
typical for their meetings.
Meeting Interaction: Coding With act4teams
Meeting interaction was coded with the act4teams coding scheme (e.g.,
Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2011). Accordingly,
the act4teams coding scheme was designed for analyzing real team meetings
in organizations. It was developed in an iterative fashion, based on previous
group interaction research as well as empirical observations during team con-
sultations and feedback by practitioners. With act4teams, four types of team
interaction are coded: problem-focused statements, procedural statements,
socioemotional statements, and action-oriented statements, see Table 1. Each
of these facets is subdivided into several divisions which are highlighted in
gray. In turn, each division is subdivided into a set of categories (in italics)
culminating in a total of 44 observation categories. The four-factor structure
as well as the internal consistency of the subdivisions has been demon-
strated earlier (Kauffeld, 2006a). For examples of verbal statements coded
with act4teams, see Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. (2011). We now describe
the coding scheme and its comprising categories in more detail.

140 Small Group Research 43(2)
Problem-focused statements. Problem-focused statements address problem-
or solution-oriented aspects in a meeting. In the act4teams coding scheme,
they are divided into six aspects: (a) Differentiating a problem (uttering a
problem or describing a problem), (b) cross-linking a problem (connections
with a problem), (c) differentiating a solution (defining the objective),
(d) contributing a solution, or describing a solution, (e) cross-linking a solution
(stating a problem with a solution or connections with a solution), and
(f) statements about the organization or about knowledge management
(explaining organizational knowledge, knowing who, or asking a question).
The distinction between differentiating and cross-linking aspects is based on
the “cognitive mapping” method (Axelrod, 1976). Research shows that com-
plex task processing benefits from relating different aspects of the task to each
other and explicitly establishing links (e.g., Sonnentag, 1995). Moreover, the
distinction between problem orientation and solution orientation in teams’
problem solving processes is grounded in previous research (e.g., Pelz, 1985).
Domain-specific knowledge (coded as organizational knowledge) has repeat-
edly proven to be a requirement for creativity (cf. Amabile, 1996). Finally,
references to specialists (knowing who) or specific questions are viewed as
problem-focused communication because they reveal metaknowledge (cf.
Brauner & Becker, 2006).
Procedural statements. Procedural statements are subdivided into positive
procedural statements and negative procedural statements. Positive proce-
dural statements comprise ten categories: goal orientation, clarifying, proce-
dural suggestions, procedural questions, prioritizing, time management, task
distribution, visualizing, weighing costs/benefits, and summarizing. These
statements show that a team is able to structure its task. However, negative
procedural statements can occur as well. These are coded as “losing the train
of thought in details and examples,” for example, when a team member is
taking a long time explaining things already discussed or chatting about
unnecessary details (cf. Cooke & Szumal, 1994).
Socioemotional statements. Positive socioemotional statements comprise
nine categories: encouraging participation, providing support, active listen-
ing, reasoned disagreement (in contrast to offending someone; cf. Gambrill,
1977), giving feedback, lightening the atmosphere, separating opinions from
facts, expressing feelings (both positive and negative feelings; cf. Gambrill,
1977), and offering praise. However, socioemotional communication can
be negative as well. Negative socioemotional statements can be coded as
criticizing/running someone down (points made aggressively; cf. Cooke &
Szumal, 1994), interrupting, side conversations, which demonstrate disinter-
est in the interaction partners (cf. Swaab et al., 2008), or self-promotion, which
aims at glorifying oneself.

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 141
Action-oriented statements. Action-oriented statements are divided into pos-
itive, proactive and negative, counteractive statements. Proactive statements
are coded as one of the following three categories: interest in change
(e.g., signaling that an idea seems worthwhile and should be pursued further),
personal responsibility (e.g., acknowledging that the team rather than some-
one else in the organization is responsible for taking the next step), and action
planning (e.g., mapping out who will do what next). These statements ensure
that ideas and solutions developed in the team meeting will be carried out
beyond the meeting room. However, negative, counteractive statements sig-
nify a lack of initiative and interest (cf. Cooke & Szumal, 1994). On the basis
of these previous studies and, to a large extent, on observations from pilot
studies for developing act4teams (see Kauffeld, 2006a), the following five
categories are used for coding counteractive statements: (a) no interest in
change (e.g., trivializing a problem or denying that there is room for change),
(b) complaining, (c) empty talk (which only wastes time and does not lead
to progress in the meeting), (d) seeking someone to blame (instead of tack-
ling the underlying causes of a problem), and (e) terminating the discussion
(not using the time available by ending or trying to end the meeting early).
Interaction analysis using act4teams requires videotapes of team meet-
ings. To obtain videotaped data, individual participants’ anonymity must be
warranted and the teams’ trust must be gained. Importantly, the videos should
be coded and analyzed in a research institution rather than in the organiza-
tional context where they were taped. In terms of practical applications, act
4teams has successfully been used as a basis for team reflexivity work-
shops aimed at promoting more functional team meeting interaction
(Lehmann, Meyers, Kauffeld, & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2009) and as a basis
for team coaching processes (see Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010).
Research questions previously addressed with act4teams include the exami-
nation of communicative cycles in team meetings (e.g., Kauffeld & Meyers,
2009), the emergence of group mood via team meeting interaction (Lehmann-
Willenbrock et al., 2011), and the success of self-directed work teams
(Kauffeld, 2006).
Meeting Interaction: Analysis
The number of sense units (cf. Bales, 1950) was counted for each observation
category. Any particular statement will only fit exactly one act4teams cate-
gory. For example, the sentence “Well in my opinion that sounds really
promising” would be used as two separate sense units: “Well in my opinion”
(separating opinions from facts) and “that sounds really promising” (interest

142 Small Group Research 43(2)
in change). To assess interrater reliability, six randomly selected videos were
coded twice by two independent raters. Unitizing was done using INTERACT
software (Mangold, 2010).1 The first rater subdivided the verbal statements
into sense units and encoded each unit with one of the 44 act4teams observa-
tion categories (see Table 1). The second rater then coded the units again
based on the subdivision (without coding) provided by the first rater. Rater
1 did the first rating for three of these videos; Rater 2 for the other three
videos.1 Interrater reliability reached a value of Cohen’s κ = .90. All interac-
tion analyses refer to the group level. As discussion length differed some-
what across the groups, we related all coded interaction data to a 1-hr period
(dividing the frequencies of the act4teams codes by the discussion length and
multiplying by 60). For a simplified data analysis, we looked at the act4teams
aspects by adding up the comprising categories (see Table 1). Problem-
focused statements were added according to the problem-solving process.
For example, the interaction aspect differentiating a problem was calculated
by adding the frequencies of problem and describing a problem in each group
(per hour). Procedural, socioemotional, and action-oriented statements were
added according to their functional/dysfunctional qualities.
Team Meeting Outcomes
We measured meeting satisfaction as an indicator of immediate team meeting
success as well as two indicators of team success, namely team performance
and organizational success.
Meeting satisfaction. Meeting satisfaction was assessed via questionnaires
postmeeting in 59 of the 92 teams. In the remaining teams, we did not have
the opportunity to hand out these questionnaires due to time constraints or, in
some cases, because the management did not support this. Satisfaction with
the meeting was measured with four items (e.g., “I am completely satisfied
with the results of the discussion,” M = 2.77, SD = .88, α = .93; see Table 2),
using a 6-point response format (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree).
To ensure that this scale could be aggregated to the team level, ICC values
were calculated. ICC(1) for meeting satisfaction was .61, thus 61% of the
individual-level responses were explained by team membership. ICC(2) for
meeting satisfaction was .90, which was statistically significant and reached
the cut-off value of .60 as recommended by Glick (1985). Thus, it was
suitable to aggregate the meeting satisfaction measure to the team level of
analysis (cf. Bliese, 2000).
Team performance. Objective productivity data were available in a com-
parable manner in only 2 of the 20 organizations, yielding a sample size of

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 143
n = 30 teams. Team productivity (M = 105.07, SD = 10.17) was defined as
the planned productivity (previous year and increase specified by manage-
ment) minus the actual productivity in the year after the team meeting. For
example, in a manufacturing team, productivity would be calculated from the
number of expected and actual parts produced within a given time period. To
avoid negative values, parameters were related to 100%. Team productivity
data were provided by the management.
Organizational success. Two and a half years after the meetings, the CEOs
of 19 of the 20 organizations were asked to rate to what extent their organiza-
tion had developed during that interval compared with relevant competitors,
with a 9-point response format (9 = greatly increased [+30%] to 1 = greatly
decreased [–30%]). These organizational success interview items pertained
to turnover, the number of employees, the market share (e.g., “Please rate the
changes in the number of employees compared to relevant competitors over
the past 3 years”), the share of new products in the organizations’ overall
turnover, and the absolute number of product and process innovation (M =
5.52, SD = 1.33, α = .91; see Table 2). To ensure that the act4teams aspects
could be aggregated to the team level, ICC values were calculated. With
ICC(1) = .27 and ICC(2) = .62, analyses at the company level were permis-
sible (cf. Bliese, 2000).
Results
Table 2 shows all intercorrelations between the interaction aspects and the
three outcomes examined (meeting satisfaction, team productivity, and orga-
nizational success). Internal consistency values are depicted diagonally. For
correlations between specific act4teams observation categories and the out-
comes, see appendix.
Hypothesis 1 stated that problem-focused communication would be posi-
tively linked to team outcomes. The results largely support this assumption.
The interaction aspects of cross-linking a problem (r = .28, p < .05), differen-
tiating a solution (r = .29, p < .05), and cross-linking a solution (r = .37, p <
.01) were significantly linked to increased meeting satisfaction. Concerning
team productivity, five out of the six problem-focused interaction aspects
showed significant positive correlations: cross-linking a problem (r = .33,
p < .05), differentiating a solution (r = .34, p < .05), cross-linking a solution
(r = .51, p < .01), statements about the organization (r = .48, p < .01), and
statements about knowledge management (r = .49, p < .01) were all associ-
ated with higher team productivity. Finally, three of the problem-focused
interaction aspects were significantly linked to organizational success, namely

144
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson’s Correlations Between Interaction Aspects and Meeting Outcomes
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Differentiating a problem 78.30 48.41 (.63)
Cross-linking a problem 30.11 17.71 .19 (—)
Differentiating a solution 56.84 34.64 .45*** −.18 (.60)
Cross-linking a solution 29.02 20.17 .22*** .11 .62*** (.70)
Statements about the organization 81.94 36.13 .06 −.04 .18 .15 (—)
Statements about knowledge
management
44.90 29.07 .43*** −.01 .45*** .21** .31*** (.60)
Positive procedural statements 58.40 62.17 .06 .30*** .29*** .29*** −.02 .41*** (.86)
Negative procedural statements 39.44 38.22 −.04 −.39*** .06 −.30*** −.12 −.14 −.37*** (—)
Positive socioemotional statements 194.60 91.75 .45*** −.08 .57*** .14 .20 .56*** .19 .29*** (.62)
Negative socioemotional
statements
122.87 64.87 .38*** −.20 .25** −.04 .22** .35*** −.15 .28*** .43*** (.59)
Proactive statements 16.79 14.19 .24** −.11 .61*** .47*** .20 .45*** .14 .01 .44*** .17 (.60)
Counteractive statements 68.60 46.83 .11 −.42*** .03 −.34*** .06 .08 −.44*** .66*** .42*** .37*** .13 (.61)
Meeting satisfactiona2.77 0.88 .01 .28** .29** .37*** −.13 .01 .43*** −.54*** −.33*** −.25** .30** −.42*** (.93)
Team productivityb105.07 10.17 .28* .33** .34** .51*** .48*** .46*** .24 −.39** .06 .11 .40** −.23 —d(—)
Organizational successc5.52 1.33 .14 .54*** .41** .59*** .04 −.11 .51** −.46** −.25 −.31 .43** −.52** —d—d(.91)
Note: Statements per 60-minute period. Data sources: Interaction analysis (N = 92 team meetings). (—) indicates that internal consistency does not
apply because aspect contains only one observation category.
aParticipant ratings (N = 59 team meetings).
bKey figures (N = 30 teams).
cManager ratings of organizational development 2.5 years after the meeting (N = 19 organizations).
dData are based on separate samples, thus correlation coefficients could not be calculated. Significant correlations that were consistent with hypoth-
eses are printed in bold.
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01, one-tailed.

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 145
cross-linking a problem (r = .54, p < .01), differentiating a solution (r = .41,
p < .05), and cross-linking a solution (r = .59, p < .01).
Second, we hypothesized that positive procedural communication should
be linked to increased team meeting satisfaction, whereas negative proce-
dural communication should be linked to decreased team meeting satisfac-
tion. Indeed, we found a positive connection between positive procedural
statements and meeting satisfaction (r = .43, p < .01) and a negative connec-
tion between negative procedural statements and meeting satisfaction (r =
–.54, p < .01). Whereas positive procedural statements did not correlate with
team productivity, negative procedural statements showed a significant nega-
tive relationship (r = –.39, p < .05). Positive procedural statements were posi-
tively linked to organizational success (r = .51, p < .05) and negative
procedural statements showed a negative relationship with organizational
success (r = –.46, p < .05). Taken together, these findings largely support
Hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis 2b.
Third, we expected positive socioemotional interaction to be positively
connected to team success, whereas negative socioemotional interaction
should be negatively linked to team success. Lending support to Hypothesis
3b, negative socioemotional interaction was indeed associated with decreased
meeting satisfaction (r = –.25, p < .05) and lower organizational success (r =
–.31, p < .05). Strikingly, positive socioemotional statements showed a sig-
nificant negative association with meeting satisfaction as well (r = –.33, p <
.05) and no significant link to team productivity or organizational success. A
closer look at the comprising categories suggests that the negative relation-
ship between positive socioemotional statements and meeting satisfaction
can be attributed particularly to negative correlations of reasoned disagree-
ment (r = –.25, p < .05) and expressing feelings (r = –.25, p < .05; see appen-
dix). Possibly, expressing negative rather than positive feelings help the
individual but drag the group down. Thus, Hypothesis 3a was rejected.
Fourth, we expected a positive link between proactive communication and
team success and a negative link between counteractive communication and
team success. For proactive communication, this assumption was supported
for all three outcomes examined. Lending support to Hypothesis 4a, teams
with more proactive statements were more satisfied with their meetings (r =
.30, p < .05) and showed higher productivity (r = .40, p < .05). Moreover, the
amount of proactive communication in the team meetings was positively
associated with organizational success (r = .43, p < .05). However, the amount
of counteractive statements in a team meeting was negatively linked to meet-
ing satisfaction (r = –.42, p < .01) and organizational success (r = –.52, p <
.01). These findings largely support Hypothesis 4b.

146 Small Group Research 43(2)
Discussion
The current study provides empirical evidence for a linkage between team
meeting interaction processes and team success. Most of the problem-focused
statements, positive procedural statements, and proactive statements were
associated with increased meeting satisfaction, team productivity, and orga-
nizational success. However, dysfunctional communicative behaviors such
as criticizing or complaining showed numerous negative relationships
with these outcomes, although not all interaction aspects were linked to all
outcomes.
Problem-focused communication. The link between problem-focused state-
ments and meeting success primarily concerns cross-linkage and solution-
based aspects. Describing and cross-linking solutions refines and improves the
ideas and solutions developed in a meeting, thus making team success more
likely. Moreover, problem analysis—trying to find the reasons for a pr oble m—
is important for team and organizational success. Complex tasks require
linking the different aspects of a problem together (e.g., Sonnentag, 1995),
whereas insufficient problem analysis diminishes team success (e.g.,
Wittenbaum et al., 2004).
Interestingly, statements about the organization were significantly
related to productivity. Productivity results not only from team meetings,
but rather on managing daily work. Knowledge about particular machines,
organizational procedures, or who to talk to in specific situations, is
essential and keeps production going. Thus, knowledge-based interaction
aspects can pay off in actual daily work. Taken together, these results sug-
gest that problem-focused communication is an important basis for team
problem solving.
Procedural communication. Although the use of methods such as clarify-
ing or visualizing in team meetings was positively linked to meeting satis-
faction and organizational success, the present results suggest that negative
procedural statements (i.e., losing the train of thought in details and
examples) have a higher impact on all three success measures. However,
recent results from sequential analysis show that positive procedural state-
ments can help avoid dysfunctional communication (e.g., losing the train of
thought in details and examples, criticizing, or complaining; cf. Kauffeld &
Meyers, 2009).
Socioemotional communication. Though teams spent a considerable amount
of time exchanging socioemotional statements, the results show that this
type of communication does not contribute to team success. However, recent

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 147
research with real teams indicates that positive socioemotional statements are
not beneficial per se. Positive socioemotional statements are often supporting
statements. These can encourage the implementation of solutions, however
they can also sustain complaining cycles and straying from the subject, thus
supporting communicative behaviors that diminish team meeting success
(see results from sequential analysis by Kauffeld, 2006a, Kauffeld & Meyers,
2009). Importantly, dysfunctional cycles tend to be more frequent than func-
tional cycles (cf. Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2011), which could help
explain why socioemotional statements that have a supportive function
(active listening, providing support) show a negative relationship with team
meeting success in the present study. Moreover, this study examined real
teams who had been working together for sometime. As such, positive socio-
emotional communication might be less necessary than in ad hoc or new
teams who still need to get to know each other and establish mutual trust.
Although negative socioemotional statements did not particularly affect team
meeting outcomes overall, criticizing statements did show strong negative
relationships with both meeting satisfaction and organizational development.
This suggests that criticizing statements can be rather harmful in the short as
well as in the long run. Criticizing statements could be interpreted as team
members stating antipathy toward others or as representations of relationship
conflict. The negative impact of criticizing statements can thus be understood
in terms of the negative effect of relationship conflict, which has been dem-
onstrated repeatedly (see De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
Action-oriented communication. Our findings demonstrate the impact of
both proactive and counteractive statements in team meetings, and thus cor-
respond to individual-level findings from goal setting and action regulation
research (e.g., Vohs & Baumeister, 2004). Moreover, the positive relationship
between proactive communication and teams, as well as organizational suc-
cess, relates to research on personal initiative (e.g., Frese et al., 2007). Strik-
ingly, counteractive statements such as complaining clearly outnumbered
proactive statements. This finding is in line with qualitative observations of
demotivating actions in teams (Marks et al., 2001). Debilitating team pro-
cesses can spiral teams into a vicious cycle that decreases both team confi-
dence and performance over time (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995).
Moreover, processes such as social loafing (Latané, Williams, & Harkins,
1979) typically occur when low participation levels reduce the amount of
effort expended by teams on tasks. Many teams are not aware that active
involvement in designing their work and their workplace is possible and ben-
eficial. Meetings should be used as a means for active job crafting. Kauffeld

148 Small Group Research 43(2)
(2006b) showed that job characteristics such as the participation granted to
teams are important predictors for enhancing team meetings.
Implications
This study adds to previous work on meeting effectiveness (e.g., Leach et al.,
2009; Luong, & Rogelberg, 2005) by shedding light on what actually hap-
pens during team meetings: Which communicative behaviors are helpful and
which are harmful for team meeting success? Our results support the central
function of interaction processes as posited in the traditional input-process-
output model (Hackman & Morris, 1975). Teams that showed more func-
tional interaction in their meetings, in terms of problem-focused, positive,
procedural, and proactive communication, were significantly more satisfied
with their meetings. The relationships between the interaction aspects and
the different measures of meeting success point in the same direction, regard-
less of the data source (e.g., participant ratings, objective business ratios) and
their chronological positioning (immediately after the optimization discus-
sion, at the end of the workshops, 1 or 2.5 years later).
Interestingly, dysfunctional communication appeared to affect team meet-
ing success more than functional communication. For example, the negative
relationship between counteractive statements and team meeting success was
stronger than the positive relationship between proactive statements and team
meeting success. The conclusion that “bad is stronger than good” relates to
many psychological phenomena. For example, bad impressions are formed
more quickly than good impressions; bad feedback and bad emotions have a
stronger impact than those that are good; and bad interpersonal interactions
affect us more than good interactions (cf. Baumeister, Bratlavsky, Finkenauer,
& Vohs, 2001). Our process-analytical findings support this notion at the
microlevel of communicative behavior within team meetings.
Our results highlight the importance of proactive communication for
team meeting effectiveness and organizational success. Although this kind
of communication has rarely been recognized in process analytical studies
to date, it could be linked to recent research on personal initiative (e.g.,
Frese et al., 2007).
The relevance of socioemotional interaction is put into perspective.
Previous research suggests that positive socioemotional communication car-
ries an important team function (cf. Beck & Keyton, 2009). However, both
negative socioemotional statements and positive socioemotional statements
were negatively associated with team meeting success in our study. The

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 149
contextual relevance of socioemotional statements should be noted. Positive
socioemotional statements can support new ideas and solutions but
can also maintain complaining cycles (cf. Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009;
Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2011) or support statements that are beside the
point (losing the train of thought) and thereby cost valuable team meeting
time. Negative socioemotional statements, however, should be avoided in any
case, as the results show that criticizing statements are rather dysfunctional.
Our results further show that team meetings present an opportunity to dis-
cuss negative aspects of one’s job in much detail, without taking any steps to
change the situation. The amount of meeting time spent on analyzing and
describing problems, losing the train of thought in details and examples, and
the amount of statements categorized as no interest in change shows that the
teams tended to focus on the past and/or the negative present situation. Only
2 of 822 sense units per hour were coded as actual action planning state-
ments. This suggests that an active problem-solving approach that incorpo-
rates specific action planning communication in a meeting seems to be quite
difficult to pursue for many teams. To implement new ideas in their work
lives, team members need to be interested in action planning, getting their
peers involved, and talking to their supervisors, so that their ideas can become
reality.
For practitioners, an evaluation with act4teams can function as a direct
means for team development by enhancing teams’ general ability to reflect on
meeting processes (e.g., Konradt & Wiedow, 2011). The results obtained
from an analysis with act4teams can help teams grow aware of functional and
dysfunctional interaction in their meetings. Importantly, it should be estab-
lished that every team member is responsible for the meeting process and
outcome. For example, even if team member A is not the one who complains,
he will be responsible for tolerating someone else’s complaining and thereby
consuming valuable team meeting time. Process analytical results can be
used for pointing out such dysfunctional patterns, but they can also serve as
an illustration of a team’s resources that become apparent as functional inter-
action throughout a meeting (see Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010,
for more detail on using act4teams as a team intervention tool). Via team
reflexivity, teams can learn more about their role in the organization, their
opportunities for getting involved, and their resources for doing so.
These results obtained from real meetings in organizations point out the
potential of interaction research for understanding the processes that deter-
mine functional and dysfunctional communication in teams and thus the suc-
cess of team meetings. The microlevel of analysis adopted in this study

150 Small Group Research 43(2)
provides a number of important hints as to how meeting participants’ behav-
ior shapes the discussion process and affects short- and long-term team and
organizational success far beyond a specific meeting.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. First, when using recording
instruments, the question arises whether the social situation may be biased.
The reality that behavior is observed and recorded can influence partici-
pants’ mental processes in the discussion (e.g., Wicklund, 1975). However,
a demanding activity that is of importance to the participants such as a real
team meeting should let them forget the recording instruments. After the
team meeting, participants described the session as being typical through-
out for a meeting in this constellation in their organization. Low reactivity
to the recording was quite evident as some participants were openly criti-
cizing their (absent) supervisors, cell phones were answered, beverages
consumed, and conversations on the side carried on freely and sometimes
quite noisily.
Third, our sample consisted of production teams, primarily from manufac-
turing companies. Thus, the results do not generalize to other kinds of teams
such as project teams or teams from the service sector. Although some studies
in progress provide hints that functional and dysfunctional interaction behav-
ior can be observed rather independently of the working context and status of
the team members, future research is warranted. Our results are likely limited
to a German-speaking cultural background and may not be generalizable to
samples with a more even gender distribution. Moreover, we investigated
teams without their supervisors and, thus, without any status differences. It
remains to be seen how the presence of a supervisor affects team interaction
behavior and meeting success.
Fourth, the identification of beneficial and detrimental interaction behav-
iors in the team meetings that we examined is not independent of the analysis
approach and the coding instrument we used. Different coding schemes might
yield different results concerning functional and dysfunctional team interac-
tion during meetings. Moreover, we only analyzed verbal behaviors. Given
the multifunctional nature of messages, especially socioemotional communi-
cation might be shown in other ways not observed in this study (i.e., nonverbal
behaviors). However, we decided to focus on verbal behaviors because these
leave less room for interpretation and because mimic expressions in our sam-
ple were rather remote. Moreover, we examined sense units in the interaction

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 151
behavior flow and coded with 44 categories, yielding a rather high resolution
picture of the team interaction process.
Fifth, from a balance theory point of view (e.g., Cartwright & Harary,
1956), the question arises whether a maximum amount of functional commu-
nication (e.g., proactive statements) or a minimum amount of dysfunctional
communication (e.g., negative statements inhibiting action) is ideal. In a linear
model, a team meeting would be more successful when team members develop
more solutions during the meeting, plan more measures, do not lose the
train of thought in details and examples, and refrain from complaining.
However, one might also assume a curvilinear relationship between functional/
dysfunctional communication and team effectiveness. The potential of a
meeting could drop when a certain quantity of structured action or objections
is exceeded. Likewise, complaining might be uncritical up to a certain point.
Okhuysen and Eisenhardt (2002) showed for student teams that a regulatory
structure can be positive but should not be too rigid to prevent the team from
feeling restricted. A team which discusses nothing but meeting procedures
will be ineffective. However, these are extreme cases that are scarcely found
in reality. In their meta-analysis of the relationship between individual abili-
ties and performance, Coward and Sackett (1990) showed that linear models
prove to be robust and that nonlinear models do not explain more variance.
Although the results of this study do not provide any evidence for curvilinear
relationships, this should be considered in future research.
Sixth, variance across time was collapsed into a static indicator of team-
work processes as if it occurred at a single point in time. However, aggregat-
ing process data over time into a summary index that portrays direct process
outcome connections reduces complexity and is in line with other researchers
(e.g., Barry & Stewart, 1997). As processes occur over and over again during
team activities, it is crucial to choose a reasonable unit of team activities for
analysis.
Future Research
In a sample of real teams in organizations, this study shows which commu-
nicative behaviors are helpful and which are harmful for team and organiza-
tional success. The results point out the importance of team meeting processes.
Our findings call for future research on how team meetings can actively be
improved, for example, by team development. Finally, multilevel designs
and interaction analytic tools such as pattern analysis can help distinguish
between sense unit, individual, and group influences on the team meeting
process.

152 Small Group Research 43(2)
Appendix
Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson’s Correlations
Between act4teams Categories and Meeting Outcomes
MaSDa
Meeting
satisfactionb
Team
productivityc
Organizational
successd
Problem 29.45 13.68 .12 .22 .32
Describing a problem 48.70 39.04 −.05 .28* −.05
Connections with a
problem
30.52 17.47 .28** .33** .51**
Defining the objective 6.38 4.73 .08 −.06 .43*
Solution 21.80 12.76 .33*** .27* .49**
Describing a solution 27.90 23.31 .22** .33** .25
Problem with a
solution
11.45 7.96 .21* .49*** .34*
Connections with a
solution
17.38 14.14 .42*** .40** .59***
Organizational
knowledge
82.68 35.74 −.13 .48*** .03
Knowing who 1.29 2.04 −.07 .42*** .11
Question 51.24 29.12 −.13 .44*** −.27
Goal orientation 4.57 5.39 .18* .01 .40*
Clarifying 10.23 11.56 .37*** .26 .41*
Procedural suggestion 9.98 15.22 .33*** .10 .46**
Procedural question 4.59 7.33 .37*** .09 .33
Prioritizing 3.06 2.97 .31*** .06 .21
Time management 1.37 2.43 .29** −.11 .50**
Task distribution 3.61 8.34 .22* .24 .41*
Visualizing 10.57 16.68 .48*** .45*** .45*
Weighing costs/
benefits
3.20 3.85 .17* −.10 −.01
Summarizing 4.60 5.36 .26** .07 .48**
Losing the train of
thought
39.19 38.19 −.54*** −.39*** −.46**
Encouraging
participation
5.09 5.55 −.02 .10 .13
Providing support 84.44 51.40 −.16 −.12 −.31
Active listening 24.59 34.61 −.18* .19 −.42*
Reasoned
disagreement
20.97 14.24 −.25** .20 −.28
Giving feedback 11.69 8.02 .02 .26 .15
(continued)

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 153
MaSDa
Meeting
satisfactionb
Team
productivityc
Organizational
successd
Lightening the
atmosphere
16.71 14.40 −.17 −.09 .21
Separating opinions
from facts
17.28 12.08 −.17* .05 .03
Expressing feelings 1.11 1.33 −.25** .07 −.26
Offering praise 8.63 7.24 −.16 .00 −.14
Criticizing/running
someone down
30.66 20.87 −.46*** .04 −.62***
Interrupting 36.90 28.42 −.07 −.01 −.32
Side conversations 49.87 36.93 .03 .16 −.15
Self-promotion 8.07 7.50 −.30** .11 −.39*
Interest in change 9.17 8.82 .21* .28 .32
Personal responsibility 5.18 5.13 .15 .21 .35
Action planning 2.42 4.34 .32*** .50*** .28
No interest in change 8.64 8.88 −.54*** −.13 −.63***
Complaining 31.51 26.81 −.36*** −.20 −.47**
Empty talk 13.29 13.04 −.27** −.19 −.31
Seeking someone to
blame
3.77 4.55 −.20* .06 −.33
Denying responsibility 8.59 7.97 −.21* −.25 −.46**
Terminating the
discussion
1.98 2.26 −.11 −.01 .10
Note: Statements per 60-minute period.
aInteraction analysis (n = 92 team meetings).
bParticipant ratings (n = 59 team meetings).
cKey figures (n = 30 teams).
dManager ratings of organizational development 2.5 years after the meeting (n = 19 organizations).
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01, one-tailed.
Appendix (continued)
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Linda Shanock and their three anonymous reviewers for their
constructive feedback and helpful comments.
Authors’ Note
Subsets of these data have been examined before (Kauffeld, 2006a, 2006b; Kauffeld
& Meyers, 2009). However, the hypotheses and set of variables examined here have
not been published previously.

154 Small Group Research 43(2)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the European Social Fund
(ESF).
Note
1. We recognize that unitizing is typically undertaken by two unitizers and reliability
is computed using Guetzkow’s U. When using software and live video to unitize
data however, units are marked according to time rather than words. It is hard for
two unitizers to cut the videotape at the exact same nanosecond. Hence, we con-
structed very clear unitizing rules and used just one trained unitizer to identify the
units.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of
creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Ashby, F. G., & Isen, A. M. (1999). A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and
its influence on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529-550. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.106.3.529
Axelrod, R. (1976). The cognitive mapping approach to decision making. In R.
Axelrod (Ed.), Structure of Decision (pp. 221-250). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small
groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bales, R. F. (1980). SYMLOG case study kit. New York, NY: Free Press.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-
managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
62-78. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.62
Baumeister, R. R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is
stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. doi:10.1037/
1089-2680.5.4.323
Beck, S. J., & Keyton, J. (2009). Perceiving strategic meeting interaction. Small
Group Research, 40, 223-246. doi:10.1177/1046496408330084
Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In
K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods in
organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 155
Brauner, E., & Becker, A. (2006). Knowledge management in interaction: Transactive
knowledge systems and the management of knowledge. In B. Renzl, K. Matzler,
& H. H. Hinterhuber (Eds.), The future of knowledge management (pp. 62-81).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cartwright, D., & Harary, F. (1956). Structural balance: A generalization of Heider’s
theory. Psychological Review, 63, 277-292. doi:10.1037/h0046049
Cooke, R. A., & Szumal, J. L. (1994).The impact of group interaction styles on problem-
solving effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 415-137.
doi:10.1177/0021886394304005
Coward, W. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1990). Linearity of ability-performance rela-
tionships: A reconfirmation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 297-300.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.297
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization development & change
(9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 741-749. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Dörner, D. (1997). The logic of failure: Recognizing and avoiding error in complex
situations. New York, NY: Basic books.
Ericksen, J., & Dyer, L. (2004). Right from the start: Exploring the effects of early
team events on subsequent project team development and performance. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 49, 438-471.
Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships
between work characteristics and personal initiative (PI) in a four-wave longitu-
dinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084-1102.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1084
Funke, J. (2010). Complex problem solving: A case for complex cognition? Cognitive
Processing, 11, 133-142. doi:10.1007/s10339-009-0345-0
Futoran, G. C., Kelly, J. R., & McGrath, J. E. (1989). TEMPO: A time-based system
for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
10, 211-232. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1003_2
Gambrill, E. D. (1977). Behavior modification: Handbook of assessment, intervention,
and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychologi-
cal climate: Pitfalls in multi-level research. Academy of Management Review, 10,
601-616.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achieve-
ment: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 38, 69-119. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

156 Small Group Research 43(2)
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and
group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 45-99. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248-8
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Huang, M. (2009). A conceptual framework of the effects of positive affect and affec-
tive relationships on group knowledge networks. Small Group Research, 40, 323-346.
doi:10.1177/1046496409332441
Kauffeld, S. (2006a). Kompetenzen messen, bewerten, enwickeln [Measuring, evaluat-
ing, and developing competencies]. Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer-Poeschel.
Kauffeld, S. (2006b). Self-directed work groups and team competence. Journal of Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 1-21. doi:10.1348/096317905X53237
Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interac-
tion patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 18, 267-294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work:
The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 822-832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822
Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meet-
ing effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business Psychology,
24, 65-76. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9092-6
Lehmann, M., Meyers, R. A., Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2009,
November 12-15). Transforming negative communication in German decision-
making teams: An examination of reflexivity training. Paper presented at the NCA
95th Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2010). The downside of communication:
Complaining circles in group discussions. In S. Schuman (Ed.), The handbook for
working with difficult groups: How they are difficult, why they are difficult, what
you can do (pp. 33-54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meyers, R. A., Kauffeld, S., Neininger, A., & Henschel, A.
(2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of plan-
ning communication. Small Group Research. doi:10.1177/1046496411398397
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008).
A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and
relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61, 273-307.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
Liker, J. (2006). The Toyota way fieldbook. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A
multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 20, 645-678.

Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock 157
Luong, A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2005). Meetings and more meetings: The relationship
between meeting load and the daily well-being of employees. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 58-67. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.9.1.58
Mangold. (2010). INTERACT quick start manual V2.4 (Mangold International GmbH,
Ed.). Retrieved from www.mangold-international.com
Marks, M. E., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework
and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356-376.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team effectiveness
1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal
of Management, 34, 410-476. doi:10.1177/0149206308316061
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535-546.
doi:10.1037/a0013773
Mitroff, I. I., & Featheringham, T. R. (1974). On systematic problem solving and
the error of the third kind. Behavioral Science, 19, 383-393. doi:10.1002/
bs.3830190605
Okhuysen, G. A., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Integrating knowledge in groups:
How formal interventions enable flexibility. Organization Science, 13, 370-386.
doi:10.1287/orsc.13.4.370.2947
Pelz, D. C. (1985). Innovation complexity and the sequence of innovating stages.
Science Communication, 6, 261-291. doi:10.1177/107554708500600304
Ravn, I. (2007). Meetings in organizations: Do they contribute to stakeholder value
and personal meaning? Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual
Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L., Scott, C., & Shuffler, M. (2010). Employee
satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human
Resource Management, 49, 149-172. doi:10.1002/hrm.20339
Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2006). “Not another
meeting!” Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 83-96. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.83
Schell, A. (2010). Meeting-Kultur in europäischen Unternehmen: Ad-hoc-Umfrage
unter Mitarbeitern und Führungskräften, die regelmäßig an Business-Meetings
teilnehmen [European business meeting culture: An ad-hoc survey of employees
and managers who regularly participate in business meetings]. Munich, Germany:
Schell Marketing Consulting.
Strozniak, P. (2000). Teams at work. Industry Week, 249, 47-50.
Sonnentag, S. (1995). Excellent software professionals: Experience, work activities,
and perceptions by peers. Behaviour & Information Technology, 14, 189-299.
doi:10.1080/01449299508914648

158 Small Group Research 43(2)
Swaab, R. I., Phillips, K. W., Diermeier, D., & Medvec, V. H. (2008). The pros and
cons of dyadic side conversations in small groups: The impact of group norms and
task type. Small Group Research, 39, 372-390. doi:10.1177/1046496408317044
Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister
& K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applica-
tions (pp. 1-9). New York, NY: Guilford.
Wicklund, R. A. (1975). Objective self-awareness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 233-275). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Wiedow, A., & Konradt, U. (2011). Two-dimensional structure of team process
improvement: Team reflection and team adaptation. Small Group Research, 42,
32-54. doi:10.1177/1046496410377358
Wittenbaum, G. M., Hollingshead, A. B., Paulus, P. B., Hirokawa, R. Y., Ancona,
D. G., Peterson, R. S., . . . Yoon, K. (2004). The functional perspective as a lens
for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35, 17-43. doi:10.1177/
1046496403259459
Bios
Simone Kauffeld is a professor of work, organizational, and social psychology at the
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany. She conducts field study research
on team interaction processes, consultant-client interaction, training transfer, and
leadership.
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock is a research associate in the Department of Psychology,
Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany. Her research focuses on team inter-
action processes, meeting effectiveness, multifoci trust in organizations, and method-
ological advances in team interaction analysis.