Content uploaded by Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock on Apr 25, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Please cite as:
Allen, J. A., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G. (in press). Let’s get this meeting started:
Meeting lateness and actual meeting outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Let’s Get This Meeting Started:
Meeting Lateness and Actual Meeting Outcomes
Abstract
Meeting lateness is pervasive and potentially highly consequential for individuals, groups, and
organizations. In Study 1, we first examined base rates of lateness to meetings in an employee
sample and found that meeting lateness is negatively related to both meeting satisfaction and
effectiveness. We then conducted two lab studies to better understand the nature of this negative
relationship between meeting lateness and meeting outcomes. In Study 2, we manipulated
meeting lateness using a confederate and showed that participants' anticipated meeting
satisfaction and effectiveness was significantly lower when meetings started late. In Study 3,
participants holding actual group meetings were randomly and blindly assigned to either a ten
minutes late, five minutes late, or a control condition (n = 16 groups in each condition). We
found significant differences concerning participants' perceived meeting satisfaction and meeting
effectiveness, as well as objective group performance outcomes (number, quality, and feasibility
of ideas produced in the meeting). We also identified differences in negative socioemotional
group interaction behaviors depending on meeting lateness. In concert, our findings establish
meeting lateness as an important organizational phenomenon and provide important conceptual
and empirical implications for meeting research and practice.
Keywords: Meetings; lateness; meeting satisfaction; group processes; group performance
Meeting Lateness
2
In most organizational settings, wasting time is generally deemed counterproductive and
unacceptable. Widely used concepts such as just-in-time production, lean manufacturing,
continuous improvement processes, and Kaizen are aimed at streamlining workflow, increasing
efficiency and productivity, and saving time (e.g., Imai, 2012; Liker & Franz, 2011; Marks &
Mirvis, 2011). However, in the case of meetings, wasted time seems to be an accepted norm,
especially when it comes to meeting lateness (Rogelberg et al., 2014). Namely, lateness to
meetings appears common and rarely sanctioned in organizational settings. Yet, despite the
growing scientific literature on workplace meetings and their effects on employee attitudes,
behaviors, and organizational outcomes (e.g. Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012;
Lehmann-Willenbrock, Allen, & Belyeu, 2016; Rogelberg, Leach, Warr, & Burnfield, 2006),
meeting lateness has received little attention to date, though it may have a number of detrimental
effects on individual attendees as well as the social interaction dynamics in meetings.
A previous exploratory study showed that personal definitions of meeting lateness were
mostly, but not exclusively, temporally based, with the majority of the survey participants
considering someone late if that person arrived five to ten minutes after the scheduled beginning
of the meeting (Rogelberg et al., 2014). In a second study, the authors found that personal
meeting lateness behavior were negatively correlated with meeting satisfaction, suggesting some
attitudinal underpinnings of lateness to meetings. Furthermore, when others were late, individual
employees reported feeling frustrated, concerned, distracted, or in the very least felt uncertain as
to why the others did not show up on time (Rogelberg et al., 2014). Similarly, Mroz and Allen
(2017) found that individuals have strong reactions to others when they arrive late to a scheduled
meeting. Specifically, individuals indicated they were angrier and sought ways to punish late
meeting attendees when the reason for arriving late was within the late person’s control. These
Meeting Lateness
3
earlier findings suggest adverse individual outcomes of meeting lateness, which may include
both affective and cognitive components. Moreover, given the negative individual reactions to
others’ lateness as indicated by these two earlier studies, we might expect that social dynamics
within the meeting, in terms of actual behavioral interactions among meeting attendees, may also
shift as a result of meeting lateness.
In this paper, we build on recent findings on the prevalence of meeting lateness
(Rogelberg et al., 2014) and consider the manifold adverse effects of meeting lateness in terms of
attendees’ affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions to meeting lateness. The set of studies
presented here specifically focuses on within-meeting behavioral reactions to lateness as well as
key meeting outcomes. Importantly, we consider both the individual experiences resulting from
meeting lateness and the social effects of this phenomenon. First, in terms of individual attitudes
and experiences affected by meeting lateness, we argue that meetings that start late are
experienced as substantially less satisfying and less effective by individual attendees.
Second, we also consider social consequences of meeting lateness in terms of group
interaction processes. Specifically, we argue that a meeting starting late will not only affect
individual attendees’ perceptions, but may also alter their behavior. We particularly focus on
negative socioemotional communication here, which includes behaviors such as interrupting one
another, criticizing others, or engaging in side conversations (e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-
Willenbrock, 2012). As these meeting behaviors take place in a social context, they can in turn
affect other attendees’ behaviors, thus potentially resulting in negative downward spirals (e.g.,
Kauffeld & Meyers, 2009; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010). Such negative interaction
dynamics may start when attendees are kept waiting, and may spill over into the actual meeting
itself (cf. effects of pre-meeting talk; Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Landowski, 2014).
Meeting Lateness
4
Taken together, the three studies presented in this paper focus on the effects of lateness to
meetings as an everyday temporal phenomenon and contribute to the literature and to our
understanding of meetings and meeting lateness as follows. First, in developing a scientific
account of meeting lateness, we draw from and integrate previous theorizing and empirical work
on the social effects of counterproductive behavior in the workplace (for an overview, see
Robinson, Wang, & Kiewitz, 2014), as well as previous insights regarding group processes and
communication dynamics during group meetings (e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012;
Meinecke & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2015). Second, across three empirical studies that include
both field and laboratory data, we identify individual and social outcomes of meeting lateness.
Third, across these three studies, we employ both survey methods and in-depth qualitative and
quantitative analyses of the communication processes during periods of meeting lateness.
To examine how and why meeting lateness impairs meeting effectiveness, we present the
results of a correlational study of employees’ experiences with meetings and two laboratory
meeting experiments. Prior to conducting the two lab studies, we felt it useful to establish the
base rates of individual lateness to meetings in the field as well as the negative relationship
between meeting lateness and meeting outcomes in order to position meeting lateness as a
relevant phenomenon for organizational research. Following this correlational study of meeting
lateness in the field (Study 1), the first experiment investigates the extent to which a late start
creates anticipations of a bad meeting (Study 2). Next, we experimentally manipulate the extent
of meeting lateness in real time in order to examine how lateness potentially affects both
individual meeting satisfaction and team performance outcomes (Study 3). As such, we
investigate meeting lateness prospectively (Study 2 concerning an upcoming meeting) and in real
time (Study 3 concerning a meeting they actually hold that starts on time or late).
Meeting Lateness
5
Meeting Lateness and Perceived Meeting Outcomes
Lateness to work in more general terms has been discussed as a benign form of
withdrawal behavior (e.g., Koslowsky, Krausz, Aizer, & Singer, 1997). Not only can lateness be
costly to organizations (e.g., Imai, 2012), but lateness also carries a signaling quality to others.
Koslowsky (2000) discusses the negative psychological message inherent in being late, which
can signal disrespect for work and can potentially inspire others to be similarly neglectful. In a
recent study by Mroz and Allen (2017), they found that individuals make strong negative
attributions directed towards those who arrive late to a scheduled meeting. In line with this
argument, being late to work has been linked to decreases in employee morale and work
motivation (Cascio, 1991), and has even been discussed in terms of time theft (Liu & Berry,
2013). In the context of being late to meetings, time theft not only concerns the organization as a
whole, but particularly the other meeting attendants who are often kept waiting.
In addition to time theft, meeting lateness has the potential to create individual stress
experiences by creating ambiguity and raising concerns when the individual who is waiting
wonders why the other person may be late (e.g., because they do not care about the meeting;
because they do not appreciate the ones who are waiting; because something else happened that
the individual does not know about; etc.). Ruminating about these potential attributions of
lateness may inadvertently create interpersonal strain. As Rogelberg et al. (2014) point out,
punctual attendees may feel resentment towards those who are late, particularly in light of the
fundamental attribution error (i.e., a tendency to attribute others’ behavior to stable dispositions
rather than situational characteristics; Ross, 1977). Because in organizational practice there tends
to be no time for late attendees to explain why they are late, misattributions of late behavior are
likely and the resulting resentment can linger. Moreover, attributions of others’ lateness include
Meeting Lateness
6
rudeness and disappointment, which indicates deteriorating interpersonal relationships as a result
of meeting lateness (Rogelberg et al., 2014).
Taken together, lateness to meetings should negatively affect individual perceptions of
meeting satisfaction. Moreover, previous research shows that not only meeting satisfaction, but
also perceived meeting effectiveness and even employee wellbeing substantially suffers when a
meeting is characterized by dysfunctional or disruptive meeting behaviors such as running off
topic, criticizing others, or complaining (e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012;
Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2016). Being late to
meetings can be understood as one such disruptive meeting behavior. Furthermore, meeting
lateness can result in less available time for the meeting at hand which can negatively affect the
collective ability to achieve meeting results and negatively affect an attendee’s perception of
effectiveness.
We thus hypothesize:
H1: Meetings that start late are perceived as (a) less satisfying and (b) less effective than
meetings that start on-time.
Importantly, the foregoing arguments not only relate to actual experiences of the negative
effects of meeting lateness, but also to individuals’ anticipations of negative effects once meeting
lateness occurs. Such anticipations are important because they can affect the actual individual
performance that ensues. For example, related previous experimental research on rudeness has
shown that routine task performance, creative performance, and helpfulness decrease even when
participants only imagined others’ rude behavior (Porath & Erez, 2007). In considering the
effects of meeting lateness, we believe individuals will anticipate the meeting being less effective
and less satisfying once meeting lateness occurs, and we hypothesize:
Meeting Lateness
7
H2: Meeting lateness leads to lower anticipated (a) meeting satisfaction and (b) meeting
effectiveness.
Social Effects of Meeting Lateness: Group Processes and Outcomes
In addition to the individual outcomes of meeting lateness, we also consider social
consequences of lateness for group processes and group performance. Specifically, we expect
that the affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions to lateness result in lower group
performance (i.e., an additive effect as multiple attendees are impacted by lateness). Input-
process-output models of group performance speak to this by describing group inputs as key
determinants of group outcomes via group interaction processes (e.g., Hackman & Oldham,
1980; Kozlowski & Bell, 2013). Meeting lateness can be considered as one such input factor that
changes the way a group or team interacts (i.e., group processes), which in turn affects outcomes
of the interaction (i.e., group and meeting effectiveness). Hence, the input-process-output
perspective of team effectiveness suggests that lateness will not only have negative effects on
individual attendees’ attitudes and experiences, but also impair group processes and performance
outcomes.
Effects of lateness on group processes
In terms of social effects of meeting lateness, we first focus on group members’
communicative behaviors and emergent communication patterns in response to experiencing
meeting lateness (i.e., effects of lateness on the process component of team effectiveness; e.g.,
Kozlowski & Bell, 2013). To this end, we integrate arguments from the literature on co-worker
counterproductive behavior, group norms, and negative socioemotional communication
dynamics in groups.
Meeting Lateness
8
As a first explanation why meeting lateness can have social consequences in group
settings, previous research suggests that being exposed to coworkers’ deviant behavior (such as
being exposed to others’ lateness) affects individual employees. A comprehensive literature
review by Robinson and colleagues (2014) discusses how the counterproductive behaviors of co-
workers affect employees not only directly (i.e., when they are a target of the misbehavior, such
as in the case of incivility) but also indirectly, either through vicarious or ambient impact.
Importantly, the outcomes of such indirect consequences impact not only include affective and
attitudinal responses, but also the actions of those employees that hear about others’
counterproductive behavior such as meeting lateness (i.e., vicarious impact) or are placed in an
environment characterized by meeting lateness (i.e., ambient impact). For example, employees
who observe others’ rudeness are less likely to help others and tend to lower their performance
efforts (Porath & Erez, 2007). Employees working in teams where antisocial behavior is
common will more easily show such negative social behaviors themselves (Robinson & O-
Leary-Kelly, 1998; see also Robinson et al., 2014, for additional examples).
A related, second line of research that suggests negative social consequences of meeting
lateness concerns group norms—the informal, typically unspoken, yet powerful rules that
regulate group members’ behavior (e.g., Forsyth, 2010). Group norms are intricately linked to
social interaction in groups and teams, given that norms can be conceptualized as “group
identity-based codes of conduct that are understood and disseminated through social interaction”
(Rimal & Real, 2003, p. 185). Group norms are relevant to the study of meeting lateness on
because they can help explain the potential detrimental effects on group member behaviors and
interaction processes within the meeting. When employees are (repeatedly) exposed to meeting
lateness, this may establish a norm for counterproductive behavior in the group (cf. O’Boyle,
Meeting Lateness
9
Forsyth, & O’Boyle, 2011), which should be reflected in terms of negative group interaction
dynamics.
In terms of group interaction dynamics following meeting lateness, we focus on negative
socioemotional communication. From a communication perspective, negative socioemotional
behaviors are indicative of a bad team climate and entail specific communicative acts such as
interrupting one another, engaging in side conversations, criticizing others, or backbiting (e.g.,
Lehmann-Willenbrock, Beck, & Kauffeld, 2016; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010).
Interruptions occur when a conversational turn cannot be finished because a speech act is cut off
by another speaker (e.g., Goldberg, 1990). Criticizing or backbiting behaviors occur when points
about others are made aggressively (Cooke & Szumal, 1994). For example, these might include
statements such as “That guy is an idiot”, or “You don’t know what you’re talking about”.
Finally, side conversations occur when two or more group members whisper or talk quietly
among each other on the side, such that the conversational content is not shared with the entire
group (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Side conversations typically signal disinterest
in those interaction partners who are not included in the side conversation (Swaab, Philips,
Diermeier, & Medvec, 2008).
Negative socioemotional communication has been linked to deteriorating group dynamics
and group performance more broadly. For example, offending statements are linked to personal
conflicts that negatively impact team performance (e.g., De Dreu & Weingart, 2002). Moreover,
side conversations can demonstrate disinterest in the team interaction more generally (Swaab et
al., 2008). Given the experimental nature of this study, we have a unique opportunity to film and
observe groups while they wait for their late attendee, as well as during the actual meeting itself.
We can then code for the occurrence of negative socioemotional behaviors with the postulation
Meeting Lateness
10
that those behaviors will be substantially higher under conditions of meeting lateness. We
consider both the waiting period (prior to the meeting, due to lateness) and the actual meeting
itself in this regard.
For the pre-meeting phase, when groups are kept waiting due to meeting lateness, we
expect that the frequency of negative socioemotional behaviors will increase throughout the
waiting period. In line with earlier work on the effects of meeting lateness (Rogelberg et al.,
2014), as the lateness period extends and lateness increases, group members will likely feel more
annoyed, which they will express in terms of more negative socioemotional communication over
time.
H3: During extended periods of meeting lateness, meeting participants increasingly
engage in negative socioemotional communication, such that the frequency of observable
negative socioemotional behaviors is higher in later (i.e. second five minutes) compared
to earlier (first five minutes) moments of waiting for others.
Moreover, when comparing meetings that start late versus on time, the differences in how
the stage is set for the meeting should also result in different communication patterns within the
meeting. This idea of “setting the tone” has been discussed in the context of team interaction
patterns more broadly, and previous empirical work supports this notion (Zijlstra, Waller, &
Phillips, 2012). Previous research on pre-meeting experiences also suggests that what happens
prior to a meeting significantly affects the meeting experience itself (Allen et al., 2014). When
meetings start late, the negative tone set during the pre-meeting phase may spill over into the
meeting itself, such that we expect a higher degree of negative socioemotional interaction in
meetings that start late compared to meetings that begin on time. Moreover, we expect that these
differences in the overall frequency of negative socioemotional communication will be
Meeting Lateness
11
substantiated at the behavioral event level in terms of temporal interaction sequences of
socioemotional behavior in the lateness but not in the on-time condition. Put formally,
H4a: Negative socioemotional behaviors are more frequent when meetings start late than
when they begin on time.
H4b: The increase of negative socioemotional interaction under conditions of meeting
lateness is substantiated at the behavioral event level, such that negative socioemotional
behaviors will trigger negative socioemotional sequences when meetings start late (but
not when they begin on time).
Effects of lateness on objective group outcomes
Beyond the hypothesized effects of meeting lateness on behavioral processes within the
meeting, we also consider social effects of lateness in terms of group outputs, or objective
performance outcomes. Previous research has hinted at this possibility, suggesting that lateness
will impair objective outcomes of group meetings. Indeed, Rogelberg et al. (2014) have argued
that lateness can be particularly harmful in the context of team meetings that are aimed at
creating group products and decisions. Many team meetings are held in order to pool team
members' expertise, solve problems, and generate creative ideas (e.g., O'Neill & Allen, 2012).
Late employees tend to hold up progress (Dishon-Berkovits & Koslowsky, 2002). This can then
lead to compressed time windows and additional time pressure to address the agenda at hand.
Time pressure as a result of meeting participants being late may give rise to decision-making
biases that are known to be deleterious to group performance, such as group think, incomplete
dissemination/processing of information, or false consensus (e.g., Janis, 1972; Jones &
Roelofsma, 2000; Sunwolf & Frey, 2005). Further, time delays due to meeting lateness can also
create pacing issues in meetings that hurt group performance (Labianca, Moon, & Watt, 2005).
Meeting Lateness
12
Moreover, time pressure due to meeting lateness can derail the meeting processes necessary for
running satisfying and effective meetings (Lehmann-Willenbrock, Allen, & Kauffeld, 2013;
Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012; Sonnentag, 2001).
Taken together, we expect that meeting lateness will not only impair individual
experiences of the meeting and behavioral dynamics within the meeting, but should also be
reflected in terms of lower objective group performance outcomes. We therefore hypothesize:
H5: Meeting lateness results in inferior group performance compared to on-time
meetings.
Study 1: Meeting Lateness Field Study
Using a diverse sample of working adults from the United States who regularly attend
work meetings as a part of their job, participants completed a brief online survey on Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a panel sample tool used by researchers across disciplines
(Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Horton, Rand, & Zeckhauser, 2011; Huang, Bowling,
Liu & Li, 2014; Karim, Kaminsky, & Behrend, 2014; Rand, 2012; Shapiro, Chandler, &
Mueller, 2013). Additionally, we followed current conventions concerning best practices for
using Mturk (Cheung, Burns, Sinclair, & Sliter, 2016). Participants with more than 50% missing
data or who did not attend meetings regularly (i.e. defined as weekly) were dropped from the
sample, leaving a final usable sample of 252 participants. Of these, 56.9% were female.
Participants had an average tenure of 5.5 years and average age of 36.9 years. Participants held a
variety of different jobs including retail manager, sales manager, educator, sales specialist, social
worker, writer/filmmaker, clerk, construction worker, delivery specialist, cashier, IT manager,
data entry specialist, and so on.
Meeting Lateness
13
Participants were asked to report on their experiences in their most recent meeting. The
survey was designed such that the respondents were asked to think of their last meeting, provide
ratings of various aspects of the meeting, and at the end of that section, respond to a question
concerning whether the meeting started on time versus 5 minutes or 10 minutes late (Rogelberg
et al. 2014). Placement of the lateness question in this way helped to ensure priming effects were
not influencing the ratings of the meeting generally. Response options included “No, everyone
was on time”, “Yes, five minutes late”, and “Yes, ten minutes late”. Based on this variable, we
broke our sample down into three groups for analysis purposes including the control (i.e., started
on time) (n = 123), the meeting began five minutes late (n = 93), and the meeting began ten
minutes late (n = 36). The use of five minutes as a time increment distinguishing between on
time versus late is consistent with recent research on meeting lateness (Rogelberg et al., 2014).
We also asked about the specific purpose(s) for which participants’ recent meeting had been
held, using a recent taxonomy of meeting purposes (e.g., “Discussed an ongoing project”;
“Discussed technology concerns”; “Discussed quality, policy, and compliance”; “Discussed a
change in process”; “Discussed employment contract issues”; or “Discussed a problem and
potential solutions”; Allen, Beck, Scott, & Rogelberg, 2014). In addition, we asked for
demographic information as well as organizational descriptors.
Also, meeting satisfaction (Rogelberg, Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler, 2010) and
meeting effectiveness (Rogelberg et al., 2006) were assessed by asking participants to rate their
last meeting. Instructions read, “Please indicate your agreement with the following words or
phrases concerning your last meeting”. Six items were used to assess meeting satisfaction
including “satisfying” and “stimulating” and an additional nine items were used to assess
Meeting Lateness
14
meeting effectiveness including “effective” and “productive use of time”. Alpha reliability
estimates for this sample were .92 and .90, respectively.
Results of Study 1
The results indicate that meeting lateness was quite prevalent in this sample with slightly
more than half of all meetings rated starting five or more minutes late (51.2%). Table 1 provides
a summary of the cross-tabs analysis and shows some interesting patterns, though none of the
observed differences reached statistical significance (p > .05). The results by organizational type
indicate that the public sector had 56.2% late meetings compared to nonprofit at 53.8% and for-
profit firms at 48.2%. Though not statistically significant, the results by organizational size
suggest that mid-sized firms have more late meetings than smaller or larger firms in our sample.
Finally, the pattern of results by job level suggests that managers experience fewer late meetings
than those at lower levels in organizations generally. Moreover, we found no significant
relationships between the different meeting purposes as indicated by the meeting taxonomy items
and meeting lateness. This suggests lateness to workplace meetings occurs regardless of the
specific purpose for which a meeting is held.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
---------------------------------
Next we tested the extent to which meeting lateness showed differences across the
outcomes of interest and in the direction hypothesized. We provide means, standard deviations,
and intercorrelations of all measures in Table 2. Based on these analyses, it appears as though job
level was significantly related to both meeting satisfaction and effectiveness. Additionally, given
the correlation between meeting satisfaction and effectiveness as well as the potential concerns
related to common method bias (Conway & Lance, 2010), we used a CFA to test the
Meeting Lateness
15
measurement model and confirm that meeting satisfaction and effectiveness were distinctly
measured. Results indicated that a two-factor solution had a better fit than a one-factor solution
as demonstrated by the chi-square test showing a significant reduction in chi-square value from
the one-factor to the two-factor model (Δχ2 = -173.25, p < .05) As such, ANCOVA were used to
investigate the mean differences in meeting satisfaction and effectiveness across the late
conditions while controlling for job level. Before testing, it was noted that the means and
standard deviations suggested that meeting satisfaction for the control group had the highest
mean level (M = 3.61, SD = .87) with the five minutes late condition being second highest (M =
3.04, SD = .89) and the ten minutes late condition being the lowest (M = 2.85, SD = .91). The
meeting effectiveness followed similar trends with participants scoring the greatest anticipated
meeting effectiveness in the control group (M = 3.93, SD = .95) with the five minutes late
condition being the second highest (M = 3.66, SD = .73) and the ten minutes late condition
reporting the lowest mean levels (M = 3.25, SD = .97).
---------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
---------------------------------
Two ANCOVAs were used to test mean differences in meeting satisfaction and meeting
effectiveness across the groups. For meeting satisfaction, significant mean differences were
found (F (2, 38) = 9.77, partial
2 = .28, p < .05) and the lateness condition explained 28% of the
between subjects variance in meeting satisfaction. Post hoc analyses using the Tukey test showed
that compared to the control condition, the five minutes late group and the ten minutes late group
had significantly lower meeting satisfaction. For meeting effectiveness, significant mean
differences were found (F (2, 61) = 8.80,
2 = .20, p < .05) and the lateness condition explained
20% of the between subjects variance in meeting effectiveness. Post hoc analyses showed that
Meeting Lateness
16
compared to the control condition, the five minutes late group did not experience significantly
lower meeting effectiveness, however, the ten minutes late group showed significantly lower
meeting effectiveness. These results provide general support for H1 that late meetings are
perceived as less satisfying and effective than on-time meetings.
Study 2: Meeting Lateness Anticipation Lab Study
Study 2 was conducted using undergraduate students attending a Midwestern United
States university. The initial sample consisted of 78 participants (61% female). The participants
were recruited through the psychology department’s participant pool and given class credit. The
mean age of the students was 19.6 ranging from 18 to 36 years old. The sample consisted of
participants who classified themselves as Caucasian/White (66.7%), Asian (16.7%), Hispanic
(5.1%), African American (2.6%), or as another ethnicity (2.6%).
Participants signed up for the study sessions using an online interface. Each session was
capped at six participants and only sessions that had four or more were included in the study. In
Study 1, participants were greeted upon entering the meeting conference room. The proctor then
introduced the subject of discussion and told the participants that the meeting was a competition
for the best ideas and suggestions for improving the university’s general education curriculum.
The participants were informed that the meeting would not begin until everyone had arrived.
They were randomly assigned to one of three conditions. In the control condition (n = 21), the
confederate arrived and the meeting began on time. The five minutes late condition (n = 25)
began once the confederate arrived after five minutes. The ten minutes late condition (n = 22)
began once the confederate arrived after ten minutes. The participants were required to wait for
the confederate to arrive. Note that steps were taken to ensure the confederate was identical
across conditions (e.g., same person, same clothes, same book bag, and so forth). Specifically,
Meeting Lateness
17
the confederate was a male upper-level undergraduate student and all participants were lower-
level undergraduate students. During the debriefing, participants were asked if they recognized
anyone as a confederate and in no cases did participants recognize the confederate from classes
or as a research assistant. Once the confederate arrived or everyone was present in the control
condition, the proctor handed out the agenda with discussion topics along with a paper survey
concerning how the meeting would proceed. They were told that once everyone completed the
survey, the meeting would begin. However, rather than actually holding the meeting, participants
were dismissed after everyone completed the paper survey containing the measures below.
Meeting satisfaction (Rogelberg, Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler, 2010) and meeting
effectiveness (Rogelberg et al., 2006) were assessed using the same items as in Study 1, except
that the instructions were modified to reflect anticipation of the upcoming meeting. Instructions
read, “Please indicate your agreement with the following words or phrases that describes how
today’s meeting will likely be”. Alpha reliability estimates for this sample were .74 and .83,
respectively.
Demographic and control variables. Participants were asked about their age, gender, and
ethnicity. We considered the following as potential control variables: age, gender, ethnicity, and
group size. As none of these variables showed meaningful correlations with any of our variables
of interest (i.e., meeting satisfaction and effectiveness), we did not consider them in the analyses
testing the hypothesis (Becker, 2005).
Lateness manipulation check. We asked participants if anyone showed up late.
Instructions read, “did anyone arrive late to the meeting today?”. Response options included,
“no, everyone was here on time”, “yes, someone was five minutes late”, and “yes, someone was
ten minutes late”. The lateness manipulation check showed that all participants were aware of
Meeting Lateness
18
the lateness conditions and, without exception, they recognized which condition they had been in
(i.e. on time, five minutes late, ten minutes late).
Results of Study 2
Because participants in the late conditions were able to interact and potentially build
group entitativity, we decided to analyze the data using multi-level modeling (MLM) using HLM
software thereby accounting for the nesting effects of group assignment. A grouping variable
was used for coding 1 as control, 2 as five minutes late, and 3 as ten minutes late; this grouping
variable was used for subsequent mean analyses and was dummy coded with the control
condition serving as the reference group. Although participants were randomly assigned to
conditions, it is noteworthy that none of the demographic variables were correlated with the
outcome variables. Before testing, it was also noted that the means and standard deviations
suggested that the anticipated meeting satisfaction for the control group had the highest mean
level (M = 3.30, SD = .34) with the five minutes late condition being second highest (M = 3.02,
SD = .53) and the ten minutes late condition being the lowest (M = 2.94, SD = .51). The
anticipated meeting effectiveness followed similar trends with participants scoring the greatest
anticipated meeting effectiveness in the control group (M = 3.41, SD = .50) with the five minutes
late condition being the second highest (M = 3.14, SD = .68) and the ten minutes late condition
reporting the lowest mean levels (M = 3.11, SD = .62).
MLM using HLM 7.0 software was used to test mean differences in anticipated meeting
satisfaction and anticipated meeting effectiveness across the groups (i.e. compares all groups
simultaneously). The first step in our multilevel analysis was to examine whether there was
meaningful variance in the Level-1 variables (individual level) due to the Level-2 factor (group).
In order to test this, we conducted a null model analysis for each Level-1 variable and calculated
Meeting Lateness
19
the ICC(1) values, which indicated that there was significant between-group variation in each of
our Level-1 variables of interest. The ICC(1) values for anticipated meeting satisfaction and
effectiveness were .32 and .45, respectively. These values indicate that 32% and 45% of the
variance in these variables are due to Level-2 (i.e., group) factors.
Table 3 presents the results of the multilevel analysis predicting anticipated meeting
satisfaction and effectiveness. As hypothesized (H2a and H2b), meeting lateness appeared to
predict a reduction in both anticipated meeting satisfaction and effectiveness, but only for the ten
minute late condition (b02 = -.38 and -.57, respectively, p< .05), as compared to the control
condition. These results provide general support for our hypothesis that individuals anticipate
that a late starting meeting is going to be anticipated as less satisfying (H2a) and less effective
(H2b) than an on-time meeting.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
---------------------------------
Study 3: Meeting Lateness and Actual Meeting Outcomes Lab Study…
For Study 3, we recruited groups of undergraduate students attending a Midwestern
United States university. The sample consisted of 270 participants (66.7% female). Participants
were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: control (n = 90), five minutes late (n = 88),
or ten minutes late (n = 92). There were sixteen groups per condition and each group was
comprised of 5 or 6 participants depending upon participant availability. The mean age of the
sample was 19.2 years with a range from 17 to 38 years old. The sample consisted of participants
who classified themselves as Caucasian/White (75.2%), Asian (11.9%), Hispanic (5.2%),
African American (2.2%), Pacific Islander (0.7%), or as another ethnicity (2.6%).
Meeting Lateness
20
The same opening procedure was used in Study 3 as in Study 2, with one modification.
There were no confederates involved in any of the conditions. The participants in the two late
conditions were simply told that they were waiting for another participant to arrive. Then, after
the pre-defined time (i.e. five or ten minutes), the researcher indicated they could go ahead and
start without the late participant. The reason that confederates were not used in this study was to
avoid extraneous variables that differences in their behavior might have introduced. However, it
should be noted that this changes the manipulation such that the late individual is actually a “no
show”.
In terms of the meeting, students were informed that the college was revising the general
education requirements and that they were seeking recommendations from current students
through these small group discussion meetings. We chose a 30-minute time frame for the
meetings, with a hard-stop, consistent with the minimum length of many organizational meetings
as well as frequent practices (e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012; Lehmann-
Willenbrock & Allen, 2014; Schulte, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Kauffeld, 2013). However, the
actual duration of each meeting depended on the condition. Participants in the control group
started on time and were given 30 minutes, participants in the five minutes late group started late
and were given 25 minutes, and participants in the ten minutes late group started late and were
given 20 minutes. Time taken on the task, within condition, was accounted for in the analytic
strategy as explained below to help rule it out as a confounding factor.
To assess Meeting satisfaction (Rogelberg et al., 2010) and meeting effectiveness
(Rogelberg et al., 2006) we used the same measures as in Study 1, but rather than anticipating the
meeting, participants rated the meeting they just had. Alpha reliability estimates for this sample
were .77 and .85, respectively.
Meeting Lateness
21
To assess Demographics and control variables and the lateness manipulation check we
used the same measures as in Study 2. Similar to Study 2, none of the demographics and control
variables (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, and group size) related to the outcome variables and were
therefore not included in the models testing the hypotheses (Becker, 2005).
Time on task was measured as the total time from when the meeting started to when the
participants stopped working on the meeting tasks and agenda.
Coding pre-meeting interaction behavior. We conducted an in-depth social interaction
analysis of the pre-meeting phases in the 10-minutes-late condition. As noted earlier, we focused
our analysis on this particular experimental condition because we expected that participant
reactions to meeting lateness would be strongest in this condition, and because the relatively
longer pre-meeting phase in this condition would provide sufficient data points for an in-depth
analysis of the behavioral processes when waiting for late meeting attendees. Indeed, the 5-
minute late condition just lacked much interpersonal exchange.
To analyze these processes, we used the act4teams coding scheme for team interactions
(e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012; Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014). Given
our theoretical framework and particular study aim, we focused our analysis on negative
socioemotional behaviors observed in the pre-meeting period of these groups. The categorization
of dysfunctional socioemotional behaviors which we used in this study was developed in
previous field research (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012) and has been used extensively
in recent team process research (e.g., Goh, Fisher, & Sommer, 2015; Lehmann-Willenbrock et
al., 2013; Meinecke & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2015). Negative socioemotional communication
in meetings includes behaviors such as interruptions, criticizing others, and side conversations
that exclude other meeting participants (e.g., when two attendees are whispering among each
Meeting Lateness
22
other). Similar to previous research (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012), we summarized
these different negative socioemotional behaviors to one overall frequency measure per observed
group.
Four extensively trained raters coded the 10-minute pre-meeting segment in each of the
sixteen videos of the 10-minute late condition. They also coded the interaction during the actual
meeting itself in both the 10-minute late and the control condition, Coders were naive to the
study hypotheses. Behavior unitizing and coding was performed according to the rules of the
act4teams coding scheme (e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012) implemented by using
INTERACT software (Mangold, 2010). In accordance with the act4teams coding scheme, a new
unit was assigned whenever a new behavior started (i.e., more fine-grained that unitizing
according to speaker turns). For example, within the same speaker turn, there might be an
interruption followed by a criticizing statement.
When using software-supported coding from live video, units are identified according to
time rather than words. Concerning inter-rater reliability, as it is not possible for two raters to
unitize a video at the exact same nanosecond, behavioral units were identified by only one raters,
whereas the behavioral annotations were performed by two separate raters (for a similar
procedure, see Lehmann-Willenbrock, Allen, & Kauffeld, 2013). We obtained an overall inter-
rater reliability of ĸ = .89. Any disagreements between the raters were resolved by discussions.
For the 10-minutes late condition, we first compared frequencies of negative
socioemotional behaviors in the first five minutes to those frequencies observed in minutes 6-10
of the pre-meeting waiting period. Next, we investigated frequencies in negative socioemotional
communication in the actual meetings of these groups, compared to the groups in the control
condition. Finally, we used lag sequential analysis (e.g., Bakeman & Quera, 2011; Lehmann-
Meeting Lateness
23
Willenbrock et al., 2013) to examine how differences in the behavioral frequencies were
substantiated in terms of emergent behavioral patterns at the event level in each of the
conditions.
Group performance was assessed using three metrics. First, we totaled the number of
ideas generated by each group. Second, using independent raters, we coded each idea in terms of
quality and feasibility. The independent raters were trained research assistants. Training
consisted of reviewing current curriculum guidelines at the University where the participants
were recruited as well as meeting with the curriculum advisory board concerning current ideas
being considered by the college. For quality, coders rated each suggestion as either 1 for high
quality or 0 for low quality. Quality was defined for this study as, “A recommendation for
adjusting the core curriculum that is a product of clarity, relevance, and length; high grade,
superiority, or excellent”. For feasibility, coders rated each suggestion as either 1 for high quality
or 0 for low quality. For this study, feasibility was defined as, “A recommendation for adjusting
the core curriculum that is capable of being done, effected, or accomplished; something that
could be done both logically and possibly in comparison to similar curricula”. Raters were asked
to rate every idea generated by the groups and raters were naïve to group condition (i.e. raters did
not know which groups were from which condition). Initial agreement was 82% on quality
coding and 87% on feasibility coding. Additionally, Cohen’s Kappa was computed and inter-
rater reliability appeared to be satisfactory (K = .78 for quality and K = .83 for feasibility).
Discrepancies were then discussed and a final decision was agreed upon concerning each idea.
Finally, composites of quality and feasibility were computed.
Results of Study 3
Meeting Lateness
24
Group interaction behaviors when meetings start late. To examine the effects of meeting
lateness on negative socioemotional communication practices, we first considered the waiting
period (i.e., experiences of meeting lateness) in the 10-minutes late condition. Across all groups
(n = 16) in the 10-minutes-late condition, we observed an overall frequency of 55 negative
socioemotional behaviors in the second half of the waiting period (minutes 6 to 10), compared to
22 of these negative socioemotional behaviors during the first five minutes. To rule out the
possibility that the observed difference was merely due to an increase in speech acts over time,
we calculated the percentage of negative socioemotional behavior (relative to all observed
behaviors) for the two respective time periods. A Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test for related
samples showed a significant increase in these percentages in the percentage of negative
socioemotional behaviors during minutes 6-10 compared to the first five minutes of the waiting
period (Z = -2.60, p < .01), which lends support to H3. Table 4 further illustrates this finding.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
---------------------------------
Next, we compared the frequency of observed negative socioemotional behaviors during
the actual meeting, in the 10-minutes late condition versus the control condition respectively. To
account for differences in meeting duration, we related all of the observed frequencies (e.g.,
absolute number of interruptions in each group) to a 20-minute period by dividing the absolute
frequency of each behavior by the time on task and multiplying by 20 (for a similar procedure,
see Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014). Based on these relative frequencies and thus
controlling for meeting duration, criticizing statements were not more frequent in meetings that
started late (t = 1.10, ns). However, for side conversations, we did observe a higher rate of
occurrence in meetings that started late, although this difference was only marginally significant
(t = 1.71, p < .10, df = 27). We also observed a significantly higher rate of interruptions in the
Meeting Lateness
25
groups that started ten minutes late, compared to those who started on time (t = -2.51, p < .05, df
= 27). These findings lend some support to H4a.
Emergent interaction patterns. We focused on those negative behaviors where we did
observe significant differences in the overall frequencies (i.e., interruptions and side
conversations) and explored how these behaviors were embedded in the team interaction flow in
the two different conditions. In the following, any z-value larger than 1.96 indicates that an
observed Lag1 sequence of behavior (e.g., solution—interruption) occurred above chance.
We first considered behavioral sequences resulting in interruptions. In the 10-minutes late
condition, interruptions were triggered by the following behaviors: Prior interruptions (z = 5.35),
goal orientation (z = 2.80), and prior solutions (z = 2.49). Hence, in the lateness condition,
interruptions interfered with positive procedural behaviors (goal orientation, such as leading back
to the topic) as well as problem-solving. In the control condition, these behavioral sequences
were not statistically significant. In comparison with interruptions, side conversations occurred
somewhat more randomly throughout the meetings. We did observe a significant Lag1-sequence
of procedural suggestions followed by side conversations in the 10-minutes late condition
however (z = 3.51). Hence, when a group member tried to structure the meeting by providing a
procedural suggestion (e.g., “Let’s talk about … next”), group members tended to engage in side
conversations rather than responding to this constructive behavior. Again, this behavioral
sequence did not emerge in the control condition. Taken together, these findings show how the
higher overall frequency of negative socioemotional behaviors was substantiated by distinct
emergent behavioral patterns when meetings start late, thus lending support to H4b.
Effects of lateness on objective group performance outcomes. Because of the design of
Study 3, we were able to re-test H1a and H1b as well as H5, which stated that meeting lateness
Meeting Lateness
26
reduces meeting satisfaction, meeting effectiveness, and group performance. Table 5 contains
means and standard deviations for variables for focal outcomes of meeting effectiveness,
meeting satisfaction, and group performance.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 5 about here
---------------------------------
For the re-test of H1a and H1b, we proceeded similarly to Study 2 and used multi-level
modeling (MLM) using HLM software thereby accounting for the nesting effects of group
assignment. The same grouping variable was used in Study 3 as in Study 2 to categorize
meetings as beginning on time, five minutes late, or ten minutes late and was dummy coded with
the control condition serving as the reference group. The ICC(1) values for meeting satisfaction
and effectiveness were .27 and .39, respectively. These values indicate that 27% and 39% of the
variance in these variables are due to Level-2 (i.e., group) factors. Table 6 presents the results of
the multilevel analysis predicting meeting satisfaction and effectiveness. As hypothesized (H1a
and H1b), meeting lateness appeared to predict a reduction in both meeting satisfaction and
effectiveness, but only for the ten minute late condition (b02 = -.41 and -.28, respectively, p< .05),
as compared to the control condition.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 6 about here
---------------------------------
For H5 concerning group performance, MANOVA was used to test mean differences in
quality, feasibility, and number of ideas across all the groups. MANOVA is the appropriate
analysis in this case because group performance was objectively rated (quality and feasibility) or
counted (number of ideas) at the group level (i.e. no individual ratings of group performance by
group members). Significant mean differences were found in number of ideas
(F (2, 45) = 3.85, p < .05), quality of ideas (F (2, 45) = 4.14, p < .05), and feasibility of ideas (F
Meeting Lateness
27
(2, 45) = 3.83, p < .05) and the lateness condition explained 16%, 14%, and 15% of the variance
in the three group performance variables, respectively. Post-hoc analyses show that compared to
the control condition, only the ten minute late groups resulted in significantly lower levels of
number of ideas, quality, and feasibility.
Although the findings support H5, an important potential second explanation needed to
be investigated. Due to the nature of the manipulation and the design of the experiment, groups
were constrained concerning the maximum amount of time they could spend on the meeting task.
Granted, this is what typically happens in the workplace as meetings that start late often have to
end at the allocated time despite this tardiness. Interestingly, within conditions, there was still
considerable variation around time-on-task. Specifically, the standard deviations for group time
on task by condition illustrate the variability described (On time SD = 3.05, 5 minutes late SD =
2.44, and 10 minutes late SD = 4.32). This provided an opportunity to examine whether time-on-
task rather than lateness per se explains our findings. Importantly, time on task did not correlate
with meeting satisfaction, effectiveness, or group performance within each condition,
respectively.
General Discussion
Although meeting lateness is a prevalent phenomenon in the workplace, there are few
other previous research efforts aimed at understanding the effects of meeting lateness on
employee attitudes and behavior (see Rogelberg et al., 2014, for an exception). Overall, the
foregoing studies used a combination of descriptive base rates, experimental designs, and
quantitative interaction process analysis to converge upon our general conclusion that meeting
lateness is a frequent phenomenon that negatively impacts participants’ attitudes and
experiences, group interaction processes in the meeting, and group performance outcomes.
Meeting Lateness
28
Theoretical implications
Our overall findings have meaningful theoretical implications for individuals, groups, and
social behavioral interaction in general. First, in terms of negative consequences for the
individual, our findings consistently show that people anticipate and actually experience lower
meeting satisfaction and effectiveness when meetings start late. The experimental studies show
that meeting lateness has a meaningful negative impact on participants’ attitudes about the
meeting and its results, both in terms of post meeting experiences in the field (Study 1) and in
terms of anticipated meeting effectiveness (when experimentally inducing meeting lateness;
Study 2). These findings are consistent with and support the attribution theory mechanisms
ascribed by Mroz and Allen (2017). According to Mroz and Allen (2017), individuals draw
negative attributions towards individuals that arrive late and our findings confirm that these
attributions also impact general attitudes towards the meeting experience.
Second, the negative effects on actual group performance when we manipulated meeting
lateness (Study 3), as well as our in-depth interaction process analysis of the deteriorating group
interaction dynamics following meeting lateness, highlight the detrimental social consequences
of meeting lateness. Specifically, our findings concerning the pre-meeting phase (i.e., where
participants waited for the late individual) show that participants engaged in negative
socioemotional behaviors (such as criticizing others or interrupting one another) at an increasing
rate as lateness dragged on. This suggests that participants got increasingly frustrated and upset
the longer they were kept waiting for the late attendee. The transcript in Table 4 is exemplary of
a core observation that we made when coding the groups’ behaviors during this waiting period:
Whereas groups were initially polite and just generally wondering about the purpose of their
Meeting Lateness
29
meeting, they tended to grow continuously more annoyed as the waiting period for the
presumably late meeting attendee grew longer.
Our comparison of negative socioemotional communication practices within the actual
meeting further substantiates these findings, showing that meetings that started late suffered from
a significantly higher rate of interruptions in particular. Meetings that started late were also
characterized be emergent temporal patterns of negative socioemotional behavior, compared to
meetings that started on time. As such, it seems that the negative interaction dynamics
established in the waiting period (in the case of meeting lateness) can spill over into the actual
meeting itself. Such a spillover effect aligns with the idea that early interaction patterns can set
the stage for subsequent interaction behavior (Zijlstra et al., 2012), as well as with earlier
findings on the relevance of pre-meeting communication for the actual meeting itself (Allen et
al., 2014). The substantiation of these negative communication practices in terms of emergent
sequential patterns at the behavioral event level further underscores the negative social
consequences of meeting lateness.
Our findings regarding the deteriorating interaction dynamics within the late-starting
meeting itself are especially critical given previous research on negative communication
dynamics in meetings, which has shown that dysfunctional meeting behaviors such as criticizing
or complaining can pull groups into downward negative spirals and sap cognitive resources from
more productive efforts such as problem solving (e.g., Lehmann-Willenbrock & Kauffeld, 2010;
Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2011; Schulte et al., 2013). Additionally, our finding that meetings
starting ten minutes late significantly impaired meeting processes and meeting effectiveness
whereas “mild” meeting lateness (i.e., five minutes late) did not appear to affect meeting
effectiveness suggests that the magnitude of lateness is an essential characteristic to consider
Meeting Lateness
30
when examining meeting lateness (and perhaps other forms of lateness in the workplace), both
empirically and theoretically. An ancillary explanation for these findings concerns the role of
group norms. That is, starting a meeting ten minutes late apparently violates norms for
appropriate behavior in organizations related to group meetings, whereas starting five minutes
late may still be within the bounds of acceptable group behavior. To explore these arguments,
future research could focus on group norms more immediately and also consider how prior group
lateness affects individual lateness to meetings (cf. Blau, 1996).
Limitations and future directions
The studies presented here have several limitations worth mentioning. In a nascent
research area such as meeting lateness, these limitations point to excellent opportunities for
additional exploration. First, all meeting groups in both Study 2 and Study 3 were formed ad hoc
and recorded in a laboratory situation. Although the use of students in groups and teams research
has a long history in the social and organizational sciences and while it appears that lab-based
work is indeed quite generalizable (Greenberg, 1987; Camerer, 2011), examination of meetings
in organizations holds great merit. To manage this limitation, we presented Study 1 that served to
establish the existence of a relationship between meeting lateness and meeting outcomes among
employees in the “real world”. Further, others would argue that the pairing of field data and
experiments as reported here is a strength. For example, meta-analytic research shows greater
correspondence between paired lab and field study effects among I-O psychology studies than
other areas of psychology (Mitchell, 2012). Additionally, getting permission to manipulate
lateness in an organization may be problematic. After-all, the current findings suggest that
manipulating lateness in an organization would upset people, waste their time, and hamper
productivity. One option may be to perform a reflective diary study where individuals rate a
Meeting Lateness
31
series of meetings. Such a study would ideally contain both on-time and late meetings and allow
for natural comparisons of the respective meeting processes and outcomes.
Another issue around generalizability concerns the operationalization of lateness as either
five minutes or ten minutes late. Although this is consistent with previous research (Rogelberg et
al., 2014) and some defined timespan must be selected when doing an experiment, future
research should expand the lateness variable (e.g., by adding more experimental conditions).
Doing so would allow for a more nuanced investigation of lateness and when the negative effects
start to emerge. Moreover, a broader range of experimental conditions could address the idea of a
plateau effect of meeting lateness. For example, the negative effects of meeting lateness, in terms
of negative communication practices (such as negative socioemotional behavior; see Study 3)
and deteriorating group processes more generally may intensify when lateness increases, but
only up to a point. For example, when a meeting attendee arrives 20 or 30 minutes late, the
others might decide to start without that person—or call the meeting off.
Further, the manipulation of lateness from Study 2 to Study 3 was modified. In Study 2, a
confederate arrived late and participants immediately took a survey. In Study 3, no confederate
arrived and then participants held the meeting and took a survey. Study 2 has a person arriving
late whereas Study 3 has a “no show”. Although both situations caused the groups to start their
meeting late, the latter is an extreme form of lateness because they simply go on without the
person who never actually arrives. The choice of removing the confederate from Study 3
stemmed from concerns that keeping the confederate in the 48 sessions would introduce
confounding factors (e.g., confederate inconsistencies, discussion of the confederate’s late
behavior). Further, the studies presented here were not concerned with the cause of lateness (e.g.,
late arrival, a “no show”, room unavailable, and so on), but rather with the outcomes of meeting
Meeting Lateness
32
lateness. Although our Study 2 and Study 3 findings were highly consistent with one another,
future research should work to further disentangle the effects of different causes of the late start,
including the difference between someone arriving late versus someone not showing up at all.
Moreover, future research can consider employee responses to additional causes for meeting
lateness, such as poor meeting preparation, occupied meeting rooms, and so forth.
Besides the above research ideas stemming from limitations, further future research ideas
emerge given the vast potential of the meeting lateness construct coupled with its novelty. First,
is there something a meeting leader can to do “reset” the meeting stage after a late start? That is,
meetings often start late and this may be unavoidable in some cases. The current studies did not
assess meeting participants’ immediate affective reaction to the meeting starting late, but rather
focused on the outcomes. Knowing how people immediately react to the lateness is a necessary
first step in identifying what meeting leaders and attendees can do to mitigate the negative
effects of meeting lateness. For example, previous research shows that procedural
communication can inhibit negative socioemotional communication (Lehmann-Willenbrock et
al., 2013), suggesting that procedural statements may serve a mitigating function against the
negative effects of meeting lateness on communication practices in the meeting.
Second, another avenue for future research would be to consider the personality of the
individuals experiencing lateness to meetings (i.e. the meeting leader and attendees who are
waiting). For example, meeting lateness may be viewed as a counterproductive meeting
behavior. Previous research on more general counterproductive work behavior has linked the
personality trait narcissism to increased counterproductive behavior (Penney & Spector, 2002),
whereas agreeableness and conscientiousness have shown negative linkages to counterproductive
work behavior (e.g., Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006). Meeting lateness as a mild form of
Meeting Lateness
33
counterproductive behavior may be similarly affected by these personality traits. Our
experiments use random assignment to conditions to help account for variations in individual
differences. Future research could consider modeling personality rather than controlling for it
methodologically.
Third, the current study made no explicit attempt to control for or direct participants
towards who specifically was late, be that a supervisor, a colleague, or another manager. The role
of the late person may very well have an impact on people’s reaction to their lateness to the
meeting (Mroz & Allen, 2017). It is likely that the interpersonal ramifications of arriving late to a
meeting differ for employees and supervisors, but also depending upon the nature of the meeting.
In a recent study by Stoverink and colleagues, the lateness of a boss was expressly manipulated
as either not mattering or something worth apologizing for (Stoverink, Umphress, Gardner &
Miner, 2014). These and other meeting and individual meeting participant characteristics need
consideration and future research could model these differences.
Implications for practice
Several salient practical implications flow from the results of these studies. First,
managers should consider the frequency of late starts they have and reflect on why this may be
the case. For meeting attendee lateness, one option is to start on time regardless of those who are
late. It may be that the embarrassment of arriving late will reduce the late behavior. Additionally,
perhaps praise those who show up on time and talk offline with those who arrive late thus
rewarding good behavior and quietly sanctioning late behavior. Perhaps most importantly,
offline discussions with the chronically late meeting attendee can serve to find root causes as
well as provide an opportunity to clarify expectations. For meeting leaders, knowing the negative
outcomes of meeting lateness may provide some level of motivation to start the meeting on time.
Meeting Lateness
34
Proactively, discussion of meeting start and end-time expectations could be extremely helpful for
establishing desired norms.
Second, there are some process-oriented ways of managing the meeting relative to the
late arrival issue. For example, meeting leaders can adjust the agenda when the meeting starts
late. Specifically, they can review the agenda, deliberately jettison the less important items (e.g.,
items that are information and could be covered via email), and only cover the most urgent items.
Then, instead of covering everything, they still provide the full amount of time necessary for the
key strategic issues. Or, design the agenda so that they can start on time, but the very early issues
are less strategic and less dependent on complete attendance.
Conclusion
The series of studies presented here confirms a nagging suspicion that meeting lateness is
a problem not only for attendees’ satisfaction but also for performance outcomes tied to meetings
in a US-centric sample. As such, meeting lateness constitutes an organizational problem which is
both practically and theoretically meaningful. It is our hope that these findings energize a robust
program of investigating the causes and consequences of meeting lateness and helps meeting
leaders and attendees cope with this ongoing apparent problem.
Meeting Lateness
35
References
Allen, J. A., Beck, T., Scott, C., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2014). Understanding workplace meetings:
A qualitative taxonomy of meeting purposes. Management Research Review, 37, 791-
814. doi:10.1108/MRR-03-2013-0067
Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Landowski, N. (2014). Linking pre-meeting
communication to meeting effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 1064-
1081. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.844847
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the
behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, T. E. (2005). Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational
research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research
Methods, 8, 274-289. doi:10.1177/1094428105278021
Blau, G. (1995). Influence of group lateness on individual lateness: A cross-level examination.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1483-1496. doi:10.2307/256867
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications
for data aggregation and analysis. In. K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new
directions (pp. 349-384). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
Meeting Lateness
36
Camerer, C. F. (2011). The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental
economics: A reply to Levitt and List.” In G. R. Fréchette and A. Schotter (Eds.) The
Methods of Modern Experimental Economics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cascio, W. (1991). Costing human resources: The financial impact of behavior in organizations
(3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Kent.
Cheung, J. H., Burns, D. K., Sinclair, R. R., & Sliter, M. (2016). Amazon Mechanical Turk in
orgnaizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations. Journal of
Business Psychology, 1-15. doi:10.1007/s10869-016-9458-5
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding
common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25,
325–334. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6
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
De Dreu, C. K., & 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
Dishon-Berkovits, M., & Koslowsky, M. (2002). Determinants of employee punctuality. Journal
of Social Psychology, 142, 723-739. doi:10.1080/00224540209603932
Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group dynamics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
O'Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., & O'Boyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels: An
examination of group-and organizational-level effects in the study of counterproductive
Meeting Lateness
37
work behavior. Group & Organization Management, 36, 39-69.
doi:10.1177/1059601110390998
Goh, T. G., Fisher, C. M., & Sommer, S. A. (2015, August). To go fast, go slow: Effect of phase
durations on team performance trajectories in experimentation. Proceedings of the 75th
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver.
Goldberg, J. A. (1990). Interrupting the discourse on interruptions: An analysis in terms of
relationally neutral, power- and rapport-oriented acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 883-
903. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(90)90045-F.
Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy
of Management Review, 12(1), 157-159.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The online laboratory: Conducting
experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics, 14, 399-425.
doi:10.1007/s10683-011-9273-9
Huang, J. L., Bowling, N. A., Liu, M., & Li, Y. (2014). Detecting insufficient effort responding
with an infrequency scale: Evaluating validity and participant reactions. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 1-13. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9357-6
Imai, M. (2012). Gemba Kaizen: A commonsense approach to a continuous improvement
strategy (2nd ed.). New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, P. E., & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. (2000). The potential for social contextual and group
biases in team decision-making: Biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms.
Ergonomics, 43, 1129-1152. doi:10.1080/00140130050084914
Meeting Lateness
38
Karim, M., Kaminsky, S., & Behrend, T. (2014). Cheating, reactions, and performance in
remotely proctored testing: An exploratory experimental study. Journal of Business &
Psychology, 29, 555-572. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9343-z
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on
team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130-158.
doi:10.1177/1046496411429599
Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. A. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction
patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 18, 267-294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209
Koslowsky, M. (2000). A new perspective on employee lateness. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 49, 390-407. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00022
Koslowky, M., Krausz, M., Aizer, A., & Singer, A. D. (1997). Correlates of employee lateness:
Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 79-88.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.79
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations: Review
update. In N. Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12.
Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 412-469). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Labianca, G., Moon, H., & Watt, I. (2005). When is an hour not 60 minutes? Deadlines, temporal
schemata, and individual and task group performance. Academy of Management Journal,
48, 677-694. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843945
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. & Allen, J. A. (2014). How fun are your meetings? Investigating the
relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 99, 1278-1287. doi:10.1037/a0038083
Meeting Lateness
39
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J. A., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). A sequential analysis of
procedural communication in organizational meetings: How teams facilitate their
meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 365–388.
doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.844847
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Beck, S. J., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Emergent team roles in
organizational meetings: Identifying communication patterns via cluster analysis.
Communication Studies, 67, 37-57. doi:10.1080/10510974.2015.1074087.
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., Allen, J. A., & Belyeu, D. (2016). Our love/hate relationship with
workplace meetings: How good and bad meeting attendee behaviors impact employee
engagement and wellbeing. Management Research Review, 39, 1293-1312.
doi:10.1108/MRR-08-2015-0195
Liker, J., & Franz, J. K. (2011). The Toyota way to continuous improvement: Linking strategy
and operational excellence to achieve superior performance. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Liu, Y., & Berry, C. M. (2013). Identity, moral, and equity perspectives on the relationship
between experienced injustice and time theft. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 73-83.
doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1554-5
Mangold. (2010). INTERACT quick start manual V2.4 (Mangold International GmbH, Ed.).
Retrieved from www.mangold-international.com
Meeting Lateness
40
Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (2011). Merge ahead: A research agenda to increase merger and
acquisition success. Journal of Business & Psychology, 26, 161-168.
doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9219-4
Meinecke, A. L., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2015). Social dynamics at work: Meetings as a
gateway. In J. A. Allen, N. Lehmann-Willenbrock & S. G. Rogelberg (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of meeting science (pp. 325-356). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Mitchell, G. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the
psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 109-117.
Mroz, J. E. & Allen, J. A. (2017). An Experimental Investigation of the Interpersonal
Ramifications of Lateness to Workplace Meetings. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 90(4), 508-534. Doi: 10.1111/joop.12183.
O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., & O’Boyle, A. S. (2011). Bad apples or bad barrels: An
examination of group- and organizational-level effects in the study of counterproductive
work behavior. Group & Organization Management, 36, 39-69.
doi:10.1177/1059601110390998
O’Neill, T. A. and Allen, N. J. (2012). Team meeting attitudes: conceptualization and
investigation of a new construct. Small Group Research, 43, 186-210.
doi:10.1177/1046496411426485
Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task
performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1181-1197.
doi:10.2307/AMJ.2007.20159919
Meeting Lateness
41
Rand, D. G. (2012). The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help
theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299, 172-179.
doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.03.004
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors.
Communication Theory, 13, 184-203.doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00288.x
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, 86-96. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.83
Rogelberg, S. G., Scott, C. W., Agypt, B., Williams, J., Kello, J. E., McCausland, T., & Olien, J.
L. (2014). Lateness to meetings: Examination of an unexplored phenomenon. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 323-341.
doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.745988
Robinson, S. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of
work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal,
41, 658-672. doi:10.2307/256963
Robinson, S. L., Wang, W., & Kiewitz, C. (2014). Coworkers behaving badly: The impact of
coworker deviant behavior upon individual employees. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 123-143. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-
031413-091225
Meeting Lateness
42
Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution
process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp.
173-220). New York, NY:Academic Press.
Schulte, E.-M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Age, forgiveness, and meeting
behavior: A multilevel study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 928-949.
doi:10.1108/JMP-06-2013-0193
Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical
populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 213-220.
doi:10.1177/2167702612469015.
Sonnentag, S. (2001). High performance and meeting participation: An observational study in
software design teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 3–18.
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.5.1.3
Stoverink, A. C., Umphress, E. E., Gardner, R. G., & Miner, K. N. (2014). Misery loves
company: Team dissonance and the influence of supervisor-focused interpersonal justice
climate on team cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1059-1073.
Sunwolf, & Frey, L. R. (2005). Facilitating group communication. In S. Wheelan (Ed.), The
handbook of group research and practice (pp. 485–509). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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:10.1177/1088868311417186
Zijlstra, F. R., Waller, M. J., & Phillips, S. I. (2012). Setting the tone: Early interaction patterns
in swift-starting teams as a predictor of effectiveness. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 21, 749-777. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.690399
Meeting Lateness
43
Table 1
Base Rate Analysis of Meeting Lateness
Lateness Category
% On Time
Start
% Five Minutes
Late
% Ten Minutes
Late
Overall
48.8
36.9
14.2
Organization Type
For Profit Publicly Traded
(n = 45)
51.1
40
8.9
For Profit Privately Held
(n = 110)
51.8
36.4
11.8
Nonprofit Private
(n = 39)
46.2
41
12.8
Public Sector (e.g., government)
(n = 48)
43.8
31.3
24.9
Organization Size
0-50
(n = 60)
51.7
35.6
12.7
50-250
(n = 65)
39.1
37.7
23.2
251 and larger
(n = 61)
52.5
39.3
8.2
Job Level
Employee Associate
(n = 123)
44.7
39
16.3
Supervisor
(n = 51)
47.1
41.2
11.8
Manager
(n = 63)
56.6
30.3
13.2
Note. N = 252; small “n” indicates number of participants in that category; Organization size
analyzed by quartile
Meeting Lateness
44
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of all Measures for Study 1
M
SD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1. Meeting satisfaction
3.29
.94
(.92)
2. Meeting effectiveness
3.73
.90
.68*
(.90)
3. Tenure
5.46
5.52
.01
.05
-
4. Job level
1.94
1.13
.23*
.13*
.20*
-
5. Age
36.90
11.68
-.02
-.04
.46*
.02
-
6. Sex
1.58
.49
-.04
.04
.02
-.11
.14*
-
7. Education
4.01
1.21
.08
.11
.07
.13*
.11
-.02
-
Notes. Diagonal values are the internal consistency estimates for each scale. N = 252. *p < .05 (2-
tailed).
Meeting Lateness
45
Table 3
Multilevel regression results of the relationship between meeting lateness and anticipated
perceived meeting outcomes
Perceived Meeting Satisfaction
Perceived Meeting Effectiveness
b
SE
b
SE
Intercept (b00)
3.32**
.12
3.38**
.13
Level 2 Predictors
Five Late
(b01)
-.29
.16
-.22
.17
Ten Late (b02)
-.38*
.15
-.57**
.17
Note. Level 1 N= 73; Level 2 N = 15. ** p< .01, * p< .05. Level-2 predictors were grand mean
centered. Values (b’s) are unstandardized regression coefficients. Meeting lateness was dummy
coded with on-time being the reference point.
Meeting Lateness
46
Table 4
Sample Transcript from a Group in the 10 Minutes Late Condition (Study 3)
Event #
Speaker
act4teams code
68
C
Huh?
Question
69
E
Does anyone know why we're doing this?
Question
70
C
It's just like - we'll have to discuss it (the
meeting task at hand).
Opinion
71
B
I really could care less right now.
Feedback
72
C
[laughs]
73
E
[laughs]
74
C
What else do you have to do today?
Question
75
B
Sleep.
Knowledge/info
…
130
B
Are we seriously still waiting for this
person!
Criticizing
131
C
Yeah.
Active listening
132
B
[mumbles]
…
245
E
This is fantastic.
Criticizing
246
D
This is such a waste of time.
Criticizing
247
B
[mumbles]
248
…
All
[all talking at same time]
Side conversation
Note. Excerpt from the pre-meeting (waiting) phase. Events and annotations for verbal
statements according to the act4teams coding scheme. For details on the coding scheme, see
Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012). Unitizing and coding was performed using
INTERACT software (Mangold, 2010) rather than transcribing all verbal content; transcripts are
provided here for illustrative purposes only.
Meeting Lateness
47
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for Focal Variables in Study 3
Variable
Condition
Mean
Std. Deviation
Meeting Satisfaction
Control
3.78
.395
Five Minutes Late
3.69
.346
Ten Minutes
3.36
.433
Meeting Effectiveness
Control
3.61
.343
Five Minutes Late
3.48
.301
Ten Minutes Late
3.31
.298
Quality
Control
26.0
12.19
Five Minutes Late
18.88
8.82
Ten Minutes Late
16.43
7.71
Feasibility
Control
27.31
13.06
Five Minutes Late
20.81
8.48
Ten Minutes Late
17.38
8.76
Number of Ideas
Control
34.13
16.32
Five Minutes Late
26.44
9.69
Ten Minutes Late
22.44
8.94
Notes. N = 270; Control n = 16; five minutes late condition n = 16, ten minutes late condition n =
16.
Meeting Lateness
48
Table 6
Multilevel regression results of the relationship between meeting lateness and actual perceived
meeting outcomes
Perceived Meeting Satisfaction
Perceived Meeting Effectiveness
b
SE
b
SE
Intercept (b00)
3.77**
.09
3.60**
.07
Level 2 Predictors
Five Late (b01)
-.09
.13
-.12
.11
Ten Late (b02)
-.41**
.13
-.28*
.10
Note. Level 1 N= 270; Level 2 N = 48. ** p< .01, * p< .05. Level-2 predictors were grand mean
centered. Values (b’s) are unstandardized regression coefficients. Meeting lateness was dummy
coded with on-time being the reference point.
