ArticlePDF Available

Do We Really Need Another Meeting? The Science of Workplace Meetings



Meetings are routine in organizations, but their value is often questioned by the employees who must sit through them daily. The science of meetings that has emerged as of late provides necessary direction toward improving meetings, but an evaluation of the current state of the science is much needed. In this review, we examine current directions for the psychological science of workplace meetings, with a focus on applying scientific findings about the activities that occur before, during, and after meetings that facilitate success. We conclude with concrete recommendations and a checklist for promoting good meetings, as well as some thoughts on the future of the science of workplace meetings.
Current Directions in Psychological
1 –8
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
DOI: 10.1177/0963721418776307
If you had to identify, in one word, the reason
why the human race has not achieved, and never
will achieve, its full potential, that word would be
Dave Barry, American humorist (quoted in
Fotsch & Case, 2016)
Meetings are an inevitable expectation for today’s
workers—for better, or more often, for worse (Rogelberg,
Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler, 2010). Consider the
following: In the United States, there are between 11
million (Infocom, 1998) and 55 million meetings each
day (Keith, 2015), with employees averaging 6 hours
per week in meetings. Managers spend even more time
in meetings, with averages around 23 hours per week
and up to 80% of work time in meetings (Rogelberg,
Scott, & Kello, 2007). These figures demonstrate the
vast amount of organizational resources (e.g., employee
time, salaries) that go into meetings. Indeed, meetings
exist in nearly every organization regardless of culture,
industry, or size. But are these meetings worth the cost?
Unfortunately, empirical evidence tends to point to
widespread inefficiency when it comes to workplace
meetings. Some estimates indicate that as many as half
of all meetings are rated as “poor” by attendees, with
organizations wasting approximately $213 billion on
ineffective meetings per year (Keith, 2015). Further,
poorly structured meetings are costly beyond “time-is-
money” considerations, as employees’ negative disposi-
tions toward meetings can negatively influence their
perceptions of their work, well-being, and organiza-
tions’ bottom line (Allen, Rogelberg, & Scott, 2008).
When conducted appropriately, meetings can pro-
vide a forum for creative thinking, debate, discussion,
and idea generation, resulting in clear action plans and
next steps for moving work forward (Allen, Lehmann-
Willenbrock, & Rogelberg, 2015). Meetings are also
critical for sharing information across employees, solv-
ing problems, developing and implementing an orga-
nizational strategy, and hosting team debriefings (see
Table 1). Yet, more commonly, meetings can serve to
derail individual and organizational effectiveness and
well-being by demanding too much of employees’ time,
sometimes for little or no benefit. To address these
issues, more than 100 trade publications seek to pro-
vide help for managers who run, lead, and attend meet-
ings. However, these sources often do not account for
the developing scientific field of workplace-meetings
776307CDPXXX10.1177/0963721418776307Mroz et al.Science of Workplace Meetings
Corresponding Author:
Joseph A. Allen, University of Nebraska Omaha, Department of
Psychology, 6001 Dodge St., Omaha, NE 68182-0274
Do We Really Need Another Meeting?
The Science of Workplace Meetings
Joseph E. Mroz1, Joseph A. Allen1, Dana C. Verhoeven2,
and Marissa L. Shuffler2
1Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska Omaha, and 2Department of Psychology,
Clemson University
Meetings are routine in organizations, but their value is often questioned by the employees who must sit through them
daily. The science of meetings that has emerged as of late provides necessary direction toward improving meetings,
but an evaluation of the current state of the science is much needed. In this review, we examine current directions for
the psychological science of workplace meetings, with a focus on applying scientific findings about the activities that
occur before, during, and after meetings that facilitate success. We conclude with concrete recommendations and a
checklist for promoting good meetings, as well as some thoughts on the future of the science of workplace meetings.
meetings, organizations, workplace
2 Mroz et al.
Given these challenges, the need to apply findings
from meeting science outside the scientific realm is
increasing. Accordingly, in this review, we focus on
exploring the systematic, scientific study of workplace
meetings. We offer an overview of the literature, draw-
ing from almost 200 articles published in the last
decade, offering the most up-to-date evidence. After
exploring a brief history of meeting science, we provide
an overview of considerations and best practices orga-
nized around three key phases of meetings: before,
during, and after.
The Science of Meetings
Meetings are a unique context—intertwined with, yet
distinct from, broader work on groups and teams—with
wide-ranging implications for how individuals within
organizations perform in their roles and develop atti-
tudes about coworkers, the work itself, and the orga-
nization. Meeting science is the systematic study of
what occurs before, during, and after meetings; the
outcomes of meetings; and how meetings fit within
broader organizational contexts (Olien, Rogelberg,
Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Allen, 2015; see Table 2).
Although meeting science certainly complements and
informs the science of teams, especially given the wide-
spread use of meetings by teams, meeting science is
context specific. The science of meetings focuses on
the specific, dynamic context in which teams and
groups operate. This is not to say that every meeting is
the same, but that the meeting context is a common
period of concentrated team interaction, where out-
comes can be pivotal for directing future interactions,
and is therefore especially important to understand.
Meeting science sprang from early work by Schwartz-
man (1986) and Boden (1994), who argued for meetings
and talk in organizations as an object of study, rather
than a medium through which to study other topics.
Therefore, much of meeting science focuses on meet-
ings in which talk is the action—where people make
decisions, discuss a problem, and search for solutions.
Following this early work, meeting science began to
develop as researchers from various fields applied new
methods and techniques to the systematic study of
meetings (cf. Allen etal., 2015). These initial efforts
defined a meeting as any prescheduled, work-focused
gathering of at least two people (Schwartzman, 1986),
while more recent conceptualizations explain that
meetings need not be prearranged, but the discussion
must be more structured than a simple talk among
coworkers (Rogelberg, Leach, Warr, & Burnfield, 2006).
However, not all meetings are created equal. Many of
us can imagine what characterizes a meeting as “bad,
such as starting the meeting late, having no clear
agenda, getting off topic, being too long, failing to
establish clear next steps or action items, and multitask-
ing among the attendees (e.g., e-mailing) during the
meeting. In contrast, effective meetings should include
key personnel who possess the functional expertise
required for the task at hand, should provide relevant
and important information, are conducted in a timely
and punctual manner, and are productive (Allen etal.,
Applying Meeting Science to Ensure
Good Meetings: Key Questions and
Expanding from these early studies, meetings research
has begun to produce best practices for before, during,
and after the meeting. In the following sections, we
examine these different meeting phases, highlighting
Table 1. Overview of Some Primary Purposes of Meetings
Purpose Description
Share information Information is distributed among attendees but not necessarily reacted to or acted on.
Example: Team members attend weekly update meetings, providing updates about what they
worked on since the last meeting.
Solve problems and
make decisions
Attendees troubleshoot a new or unusual issue and may decide on how to resolve the issue.
Example: A computer programming team meets to discuss ways to speed up a slow program;
members assess the problem, brainstorm solutions leveraging their different expertise, and finally
create a plan for implementing the solution.
Develop and implement
organizational strategy
Leaders create and discuss strategic directions for the organization and how to implement changes.
Example: A top management team meets to discuss organizational goals and values to establish an
organizational strategy and develop plans.
Debrief a team after a
performance episode
Following an event or other milestone, a team discusses and reflects on what they expected to
happen, what happened, what went well, and what could have been improved.
Example: Firefighters hold a team debriefing after responding to a call to learn from the event for
future calls.
Science of Workplace Meetings 3
evidence-based practices to ensure meeting effective-
ness, which are summarized in the form of a checklist
in Table 3. Additionally, each section opens with key
questions generated from thinking about meetings as
existing in three phases: before, during, and after the
meeting (Allen etal., 2015).
Before the meeting: meeting design
and preparation
Key questions: How should meetings be structured?
When should we have a meeting? Who should
attend meetings?
Leveraging what is known about factors that contribute
to employee perceptions of meeting effectiveness, psy-
chologists who study meetings have considered design
characteristics that promote effective team meetings.
Design characteristics concern structural factors related
to the meeting. For example, circulating a written
agenda before the meeting, going over a verbal agenda
at the start of the meeting, starting and ending the
meeting on time, and ensuring that the meeting room
and equipment are appropriate and high quality
improve employees’ perceptions of meeting effective-
ness (Leach, Rogelberg, Warr, & Burnfield, 2009). In
terms of meeting structure, meetings should operate
according to an agenda that all attendees have access
to prior to the meeting, allowing them to make neces-
sary preparations (Cohen, Rogelberg, Allen, & Luong,
2011). Another important question to consider before
a meeting is whether a meeting is necessary. Many
meetings occur when another form of communication
would be more effective. Meetings that exist simply to
Table 2. Before, During, and After Meetings: Key Findings From Three Areas of Meeting Science
Context and key finding Reference
Before meetings: meeting design and composition
Frequency, diversity, and preparation
Attending many meetings, especially bad meetings, may increase
employee stress, fatigue, and perceived workload.
Luong & Rogelberg (2005)
Functionally diverse groups can generate better solutions during problem
solving because of their ability to consider a greater range of possible
Horwitz & Horwitz (2007)
Attendees should come to the meeting prepared and read the agenda to
improve meeting quality and discussion.
Cohen, Rogelberg, Allen, & Luong (2011)
During meetings: individual actions, interpersonal interactions, and leader behaviors
Individual actions
Arriving late to a meeting spurs negative social reactions and behavioral
intentions and reduces objective meeting quality.
Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Rogelberg
(2018); Mroz & Allen (2017)
High-performing employees participate more than low-performers in
Sonnentag (2001)
Interpersonal interactions
Humor and laughter patterns stimulate positive behaviors and group
Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen (2014)
Complaining is contagious, and groups with complainers perform poorly. Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012)
Leader behaviors
Managers can build employee engagement by making meetings relevant,
short, and participatory.
Allen & Rogelberg (2013)
Interactional fairness in meetings can make attendees’ participation in
meetings more likely.
Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012)
After meetings: proximal and distal outcomes
Meetings help set or adjust strategic directions for organizations. Jarzabkowski & Seidl (2008)
Debriefing meetings help build and reinforce an organization’s climate for
Dunn, Scott, Allen, & Bonilla (2016)
Positive team interactions in meetings predict organizational success. Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012)
Satisfaction with meetings is related to overall job satisfaction. Rogelberg, Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler (2010)
4 Mroz et al.
share routine, nonurgent information that does not
involve problem solving, decision making, or discussion
should be avoided.
The second decision that meeting facilitators must
make prior to a meeting is who should attend. People
often attend meetings that are not relevant to their
work, and they do not add much to the meeting itself.
Meeting leaders should consider the roles and contribu-
tions of all members who are anticipated to attend a
meeting by answering questions such as what the goal
of the meeting is, what expertise is needed to meet this
goal (Allen etal., 2008), and how frequently we need
Table 3. Checklist of Factors That Promote Good Meetings
Context and checklist item Source for further information
Before-meeting considerations
Meeting design
Call a meeting only when necessary. Luong & Rogelberg (2005)
Schedule meeting length to fit with meeting goals; avoid
long meetings.
Leach, Rogelberg, Warr, & Burnfield (2009)
Keep meeting size small by including only those people
whose expertise and knowledge are required.
Boivie, Bednar, Aguilera, & Andrus (2016)
Match technology to meeting objectives—use rich media (e.g.,
videoconferencing, teleconferencing) for virtual attendees.
Allison, Shuffler, & Wallace (2015)
Leader and attendee responsibilities
Set clear goals and desired outcomes for the meeting. Leach etal. (2009)
Prepare an agenda that is circulated in advance. Leach etal. (2009)
Make sure the meeting is relevant to everyone invited. Allen & Rogelberg (2013)
Come prepared by reviewing the agenda. Cohen, Rogelberg, Allen, & Luong (2011)
Ensure that technology is working and ready to go prior to
the meeting start time.
Allison etal. (2015)
During-meeting considerations
Attendee responsibilities
Arrive early (or on time). Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Rogelberg (2018); Mroz &
Allen (2017)
Avoid complaining, dominating communication behavior,
and inappropriate verbal statements.
Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012)
Avoid doing unrelated activities and nonparticipation. Odermatt etal. (2018)
Leader responsibilities
Follow an agenda that lays out clear goals and outcomes for
the meeting.
Leach etal. (2009)
Start the meeting on time. Rogelberg etal. (2014)
Avoid distractions and multitasking during the meeting. Odermatt etal. (2018)
Allow attendees to participate in the decision-making
process. If a decision is already made, let everyone know.
Mroz, Yoerger, & Allen (2018); Yoerger, Crowe, & Allen
Actively encourage everyone to participate. Malouff, Calic, McGrory, Murrell, & Schutte (2012)
Intervene when interpersonal communication patterns
become dysfunctional.
Odermatt etal. (2018)
After-meeting considerations
Short term
Send meeting minutes and action items out immediately
following meeting.
Cohen etal. (2011)
Briefly assess meeting satisfaction and quality immediately
following meetings to inform future meeting design.
Rogelberg, Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler (2010)
Long term
Incorporate meeting satisfaction as a component of
organization-wide employee engagement and satisfaction
Rogelberg etal. (2010)
Have leaders critically examine routine meetings to
determine their necessity and value.
Luong & Rogelberg (2005)
Science of Workplace Meetings 5
to meet to achieve our goal (Luong & Rogelberg, 2005).
As with any form of goal setting, difficult (yet achiev-
able) and specific goals for meetings should lead to
higher meeting success (Locke & Latham, 2006). Ensur-
ing that all of the people invited to the meeting have
meaningful contributions to make based on their roles
or expertise can also impact their subsequent attitudes
toward workplace meetings and their overall job satis-
faction. As Allen and Rogelberg (2013) found, employ-
ees who view their manager-led meetings as relevant
experience a greater sense of psychological meaning-
fulness in the meetings, which, in turn, results in more
highly engaged employees. However, not all premeet-
ing preparations reside with the meeting facilitator.
Meeting attendees can also promote meeting success
by reviewing the agenda before the meeting so they
are prepared to offer their input. Nonetheless, the deci-
sions made prior to a meeting can only set the meeting
up for success; what happens during the meeting is
where the real challenge of meeting effectiveness
comes into play (see Table 2 for an overview).
During the meeting: critical leader
and attendee actions
Key questions: What can leaders do during the
meeting to ensure that it runs smoothly? What can
attendees do? How should attendees interact?
During the meeting, the behaviors exhibited by attend-
ees and leaders, and interpersonal interactions that
occur among attendees, can facilitate or hinder meeting
effectiveness. For example, Sonnentag (2001), in an
early study in this area, reported that high-performing
and low-performing employees act differently in meet-
ings. High performers contribute more than low per-
formers by helping to set goals, facilitating group
understanding of work problems and seeking feedback.
Likewise, expert employees—those who are highly
functional in a given area—also contribute more to
meetings than nonexperts (Sonnentag & Volmer, 2009).
Additionally, there are universal actions, such as arriv-
ing to the meeting on time (Mroz & Allen, 2017), paying
attention, and avoiding distracting behaviors (e.g.,
emailing, instant messaging), that are important for all
meeting attendees.
Because people do not exist in a vacuum, and much
of what we do and think is influenced by the social
context and the behavior of others, meeting success is
also shaped by the behaviors and interaction patterns
that emerge among group members (Lehmann-
Willenbrock, Meyers, Kauffeld, Neininger, & Henschel,
2011). By targeting communication patterns within
meetings, several studies have linked behavioral
patterns to outcomes of interest. For example, people
who participate in a meeting by bringing up problems
relating to poor work processes or performance feel
less negative about their work a day after the meeting
(Starzyk, Sonnentag, & Albrecht, 2018). On the other
hand, when one person starts to complain in a meeting
by expressing so-called “killer phrases” that reflect futil-
ity or an unchangeable state (e.g., “nothing can be done
about that issue” or “nothing works”), other meeting
attendees begin to complain, which starts a complain-
ing cycle that can reduce group outcomes (Kauffeld &
Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012).
Furthermore, humor and laughter patterns in meeting
interactions seem to stimulate positive meeting behav-
iors, such as praising other people, encouraging people
to participate, and proposing solutions to problems, that
predict team performance concurrently and even 2 years
later (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014). Leveraging
this knowledge, meeting attendees should take stock of
the negative impacts that complaining can have on
meeting success, while meeting facilitators should work
to quell complaining as early as possible. Meeting suc-
cess often rests on the swift intervention and clear direc-
tion that meeting leaders provide.
During meetings, leaders play an unequivocal role
in establishing the meeting tone and focus. After estab-
lishing and circulating an agenda in the premeeting
phase, the facilitator is also responsible for setting a
clear purpose at the meeting onset and following the
agenda during the meeting to ensure that it stays on
track. Leaders who make meetings relevant to subordi-
nates, allow people to speak freely and to participate
in making decisions, and use time in meetings wisely
can foster engagement among their subordinates (Allen
& Rogelberg, 2013). Meeting leaders should also be
readily equipped to recognize dysfunctional behaviors
among attendees (e.g., complaining) and then to inter-
vene at the appropriate time to refocus the meeting.
For example, if complaining begins, the meeting leader
should not participate in the complaining but instead
try to move discussion back to agenda items.
After the meeting: considerations for
follow-up and lasting impact
Key questions: What are our actions from here?
How do we ensure follow through? How do
meetings impact the attendees and the organization?
What are the immediate and distal outcomes?
While much of meeting success depends on the prepa-
ratory steps taken prior to a meeting and the actions
of leaders and followers during the meeting, ensuring
meeting effectiveness does not end there. Indeed, actions
6 Mroz et al.
taken well after a meeting ends can make or break
attendees’ perceptions of meeting success. Therefore, it
is critical that meeting organizers follow through on
meeting objectives by sending meeting minutes to all
relevant parties as a record of decisions made during the
meeting, the action plan for next steps, and the desig-
nated roles and responsibilities assigned to achieve
meeting outcomes (Cohen etal., 2011). Sending minutes
also provides meeting details to anyone who was unable
to attend and facilitates attendee follow-through. In addi-
tion to these actions, leaders must also seek out employee
feedback regarding meeting satisfaction to help mitigate
the negative perceptions associated with meetings.
One additional critical application of the science of
meetings after they occur is in the seeking and incor-
porating of attendee feedback to inform future meeting
design. Because researchers have found that more time
spent in meetings is associated with greater fatigue,
stress, and perceived workload, it is important that feed-
back regarding meeting satisfaction is acquired on a
regular basis, especially to identify what makes a meet-
ing bad or unsatisfying. Indeed, Rogelberg and col-
leagues (2006) expanded this line of inquiry and found
that bad meetings were negatively associated with well-
being, whereas good meetings did not have the same
detrimental effect. Further, meeting satisfaction has been
noted to be a significant, distinct predictor of employee
job satisfaction, even when accounting for other facets
of satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with pay, promotion
opportunities, the work itself, and coworkers; Rogelberg
etal., 2010). Meetings have also been linked to employee
engagement, or the degree to which employees invest
personal energies in performing their work (Christian,
Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). Accordingly, managers who
take the time to identify potential concerns or issues
with current meetings may be able to better structure
future meetings if they actively request and are open to
feedback after the meeting.
The Future of Meeting Science
Although current work on meetings reveals a great deal
about how meetings influence individuals, teams, and
organizations, emerging work suggests promising new
directions for the study of meetings and further devel-
opment of the science. We provide some insights into
new work on meetings, as well as some suggestions on
how to advance the field. First, responding to general
calls to move psychological research away from sur-
veys, innovative research in the meeting context has
begun to examine video- and audio-recorded behaviors
in meetings. By focusing on behaviors, researchers can
begin to examine specific, behaviorally based interven-
tions to help meeting leaders and other individuals
overcome poor communication problems, complaining,
and otherwise-derailed meetings. New behavioral stud-
ies of meetings also consider patterns of behaviors
within groups and how those behaviors relate to indi-
vidual, group, and organizational outcomes. Lehmann-
Willenbrock and Allen (2018) provided an overview of
these methods, classified as the modeling of temporal-
interaction dynamics, and their complexities.
Second, exploration is needed regarding the impact
of technology in meetings both for meeting purposes
and for other purposes. Technology can be pivotal for
bringing attendees together from around the world via
virtual meetings (Allison, Shuffler, & Wallace, 2015), but
it can also be a major distraction. Having phones or
laptops available during meetings may encourage mul-
titasking, resulting in inattention and distraction, but
the effect is not yet clear. Work is currently underway
that seeks to address how meeting attendees respond
to others using cellphones and laptops during meetings,
either for personal or business-related responses, but
additional research is needed to better understand what
the right role may be for technology.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, meeting sci-
ence needs additional conceptual and theoretical clar-
ity. To fully emerge as a science in workplace meetings,
meeting science must grapple with the questions of
why and how meetings work and impact other indi-
viduals, beyond reliance on the variety of current theo-
ries. For example, one theoretical orientation for
conceptualizing the role of meetings in organizations
is meetings as stressors (Scott, Allen, Rogelberg, &
Kello, 2015). Work in this vein (e.g., Luong & Rogelberg,
2005; Rogelberg etal., 2006) has often used conservation-
of-resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989). In brief,
COR theory proposes that individuals experience psy-
chological stress when valued resources are lost or
threatened. In the case of meetings, the resources are
often time for work and a sense of goal accomplishment
(Mroz & Allen, 2017). Another theoretical approach is
to conceptualize meetings as rituals wherein groups
and organizations form cultures, identities, and climates
(Scott etal., 2015). Nonetheless, the articles reviewed
here occasionally suffer from a lack of theory or theo-
ries that are mostly mundane and do not directly
explain what is observed. Unifying meetings-oriented
theories that focus on multiple levels of analysis could
overcome these limitations.
Recommended Reading
Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G.
(Eds.) (2015). (See References). An edited book with
many chapters on meeting science.
Cohen, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., & Luong, A.
(2011). (See References). An article that examines the idea
that how meetings are designed can influence perceived
meeting quality.
Science of Workplace Meetings 7
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. L., & Allen, J. A. (2018). (See
References). An article describing how to study and ana-
lyze behavioral patterns within groups—an emerging area
of meeting science.
Schwartzman, H. B. (1986). (See References). The original
article based on the book by the same author that was
the first scientific study of “the meeting.”
Action Editor
Randall W. Engle served as action editor for this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest
with respect to the authorship or the publication of this
Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G.
(Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of meeting sci-
ence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Rogelberg, S. G.
(2018). Let’s get this meeting started: Meeting lateness
and actual meeting outcomes. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 39, 1008–1021. doi:10.1002/job.2276
Allen, J. A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Manager-led group
meetings: A context for promoting employee engage-
ment. Group & Organization Management, 38, 543–569.
Allen, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., & Scott, J. (2008). Meaningful
meetings: Improve your organization’s effectiveness one
meeting at a time. Quality Progress, 41, 48–53.
Allen, J. A., Sands, S. G., Mueller, S. L., Frear, K. A., Mudd,
M., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2012). Employees’ feelings about
more meetings: An overt analysis and recommendations
for improving meetings. Management Research Review,
35, 405–418. doi:10.1108/01409171211222331
Allison, B. B., Shuffler, M. L., & Wallace, A. M. (2015). The
successful facilitation of virtual team meetings. In J. A.
Allen, N. Lehmann-Willenbrock, & S. G. Rogelberg (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of meeting science (pp. 680–
706). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in
action. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Boivie, S., Bednar, M. K., Aguilera, R. V., & Andrus, J. L.
(2016). Are boards designed to fail? The implausibility of
effective board monitoring. The Academy of Management
Annals, 10, 319–407. doi:10.1080/19416520.2016.1120957
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011).
Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of
its relations with task and contextual performance.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
Cohen, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., & Luong, A.
(2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee per-
ceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 90–104. doi:10.1037/
Dunn, A. M., Scott, C., Allen, J. A., & Bonilla, D. (2016).
Quantity and quality: Increasing safety norms through
after action reviews. Human Relations, 69, 1209–1232.
Fotsch, B., & Case, J. (2016, October 4). Inside the thrilling,
agonizing, and always engaging ‘open-book’ company
meeting. Forbes. Retrieved from
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt
at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–
524. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team
diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of
team demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015.
Infocom. (1998). Meetings in America: A study of trends,
costs and attitudes toward business travel, teleconfer-
encing and their impact on productivity. Retrieved from
Jarzabkowski, P., & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in
the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29,
1391–1426. doi:10.1177/0170840608096388
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings
matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organi-
zational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130–158.
Keith, E. (2015, December 4). 55 million: A fresh look at
the number, effectiveness, and cost of meetings in the
U.S. [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://blog.lucidmeet
Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L.
(2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of
design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology,
24, 65–76. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9092-6
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2014). How fun
are your meetings? How and when humor patterns
emerge and impact team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99, 1278–1287. doi:10.1037/a0038083
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Allen, J. A. (2018). Modeling
temporal interaction dynamics in organizational set-
tings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33, 325–344.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meyers, R. A., Kauffeld, S.,
Neininger, A., & Henschel, A. (2011). Verbal interaction
sequences and group mood. Small Group Research, 42,
639–668. doi:10.1177/1046496411398397
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-
setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
15, 265–268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x
Luong, A., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2005). Meetings and more meet-
ings: 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
Malouff, J. M., Calic, A., McGrory, C. M., Murrell, R. L., &
Schutte, N. S. (2012). Evidence for a needs-based model
8 Mroz et al.
of organizational-meeting leadership. Current Psychology,
31, 35–48. doi:10.1007/s12144-012-9129-2
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, 509–534. doi:10.1111/joop.12183
Mroz, J. E., Yoerger, M. A., & Allen, J. A. (2018). Leadership
in workplace meetings: The intersection of leadership
styles and follower gender. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 25, 309–322. doi:10.1177/15480
Odermatt, I., König, C. J., Kleinmann, M., Bachmann, M.,
Röder, H., & Schmitz, P. (2018). Incivility in meet-
ings: Predictors and outcomes. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 33, 263–282. doi:10.1007/s10869-017-9490-0
Olien, J. L., Rogelberg, S. G., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N.,
& Allen, J. A. (2015). Exploring meeting science: Key
questions and answers. In J. A. Allen, N. Lehmann-
Willenbrock, & S. G. Rogelberg (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of meeting science (pp. 12–19). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L., Scott, C. W., &
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
Rogelberg, S. G., Scott, C., & Kello, J. (2007). The science
and fiction of meetings. MIT Sloan Management Review,
48, 18–21.
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 temporal phenomenon.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
23, 323–341. doi:10.1080/1359432x.2012.745988
Schwartzman, H. B. (1986). The meeting as a neglected social
form in organizational studies. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 8, pp. 233–258). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Scott, S., Allen, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G., & Kello, A. (2015).
Five theoretical lenses for conceptualizing the role of
meetings in organizational life. In J. A. Allen, N. Lehmann-
Willenbrock, & S. G. Rogelberg (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of meeting science (pp. 20–48). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Sonnentag, S. (2001). High performance and meeting partici-
pation: An observational study in software design teams.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 3–18.
Sonnentag, S., & Volmer, J. (2009). Individual-level predictors
of task-related teamwork processes: The role of expertise
and self-efficacy in team meetings. Group & Organization
Management, 34, 37–66. doi:10.1177/1059601108329377
Starzyk, A., Sonnentag, S., & Albrecht, A. G. (2018). The
affective relevance of suggestion-focused and problem-
focused voice: A diary study on voice in meetings.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
91, 340–361. doi:10.1111/joop.12199
Yoerger, M., Crowe, J., & Allen, J. A. (2015). Participate or else!
The effect of participation in decision-making in meetings
on employee engagement. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 67, 65–80. doi:10.1037/cpb0000029
... Workplace meetings are such ubiquitous communication events in modern organizations that they shape the day-to-day realities of employees and management. As a result, they have received increased scholarly attention in recent years (e.g., Mroz et al., 2018). As communication can vary in its degree of formality (i.e., the extent of prespecification, conventionality, and rule-boundedness; Kraut et al., 1990), meetings can take on both formal as well as informal forms. 1 However, the existing body of research largely focusses on meetings as discrete formal events (cf. ...
... Accordingly, we need to advance an understanding of the informal and unscheduled events that surround formal meetings and explain how these evolve and relate to other workplace phenomena. Specifically, formal meetings may not be able to fully serve all the important task-and relationship-focused purposes (e.g., sharing information, making decisions, managing conflict, e.g., Allen et al., 2014;Holmes & Marra, 2004;Mroz et al., 2018) that they are intended to, meaning that participants may leave a formal meeting with some degree of ambiguity that warrants further discussion. This state of ambiguity can lead to what we call the meeting after the meeting (MATM). ...
... Meeting design characteristics. In reviewing the existing meeting science landscape, initial attempts have been made to summarize evidence-based recommendations for meeting design characteristics that contribute towards successful meetings (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2018;Mroz et al., 2018). Meeting design can encompass physical (e.g., lighting, room temperature), temporal (e.g., meeting length, promptness of meeting start and end), procedural (e.g., using an agenda, taking minutes), and attendee (e.g., inviting only those participants who have expertise relevant to the meeting, having a meeting facilitator) characteristics that can influence meeting satisfaction and effectiveness (Cohen et al., 2011;Leach et al., 2009;Odermatt et al., 2015). ...
Full-text available
This article offers initial theorizing on an understudied phenomenon in the workplace: the meeting after the meeting (MATM). As an informal and unscheduled event, the MATM takes place outside managerial control and has potentially far-reaching consequences. However, our current knowledge of the MATM relies primarily on practitioner observations, and conceptual work that integrates the MATM into the larger meeting science literature is missing. This article fills this gap by outlining key defining features of the MATM that can be used to structure future research. Moreover, and based on theorizing concerning the affect-generating nature of meetings, we develop an affect-based process model that focuses on the antecedents and boundary conditions of the MATM at the episodic level and shines light on meetings as a sequential phenomenon. Plain Language Summary This article sheds light on an understudied but rather common phenomenon in the workplace: The meeting after the meeting (MATM). Defined as an unscheduled, informal and confidential communication event, the MATM has the potential to create new structures in everyday organizational life. Yet, our current knowledge of this particular meeting type is very limited and largely based on anecdotal accounts by practitioners. To guide future research, this article first outlines key features of the MATM, focusing on when the MATM occurs, where it takes place, how it takes place, why it takes place, and who is involved in the MATM. Next, this article presents an affect-based process model of the MATM. To this end, antecedents and boundary conditions at the episodic level are outlined, highlighting that meetings should be seen as interconnected, sequential events.
... 680-706) may not have a direct impact on VC fatigue, based on the literature it can be argued that they indirectly may play an important role. Numerous studies have shown that badly managed offline meetings have a negative impact on employees' motivation, engagement, and energy [43][44][45]. This effect might be amplified by online meetings with ineffective social rules and regulations. ...
... The study presented in [34], however, suggested that the perceived duration of a meeting may be a more relevant factor than the meeting duration per se, thus indicating the need for follow-up studies. Further, earlier work in the field of meeting science has shown that the number of meetings and meeting load have a negative impact on employee well-being and are associated with higher daily fatigue and subjective workload [45,55,56]. In addition, a recent large-scale analysis of multitasking behavior during remote meetings using VC indicated that the increase in number of meetings has also triggered an increase in multitasking behavior to catch up with certain tasks, which in turn can lead to reduced attention and mental fatigue [53]. ...
Full-text available
Videoconferencing (VC) is a type of online meeting that allows two or more participants from different locations to engage in live multi-directional audio-visual communication and collaboration (e.g., via screen sharing). The COVID-19 pandemic has induced a boom in both private and professional videoconferencing in the early 2020s that elicited controversial public and academic debates about its pros and cons. One main concern has been the phenomenon of videoconference fatigue. The aim of this conceptual review article is to contribute to the conceptual clarification of VC fatigue. We use the popular and succinct label “Zoom fatigue” interchangeably with the more generic label “videoconference fatigue” and define it as the experience of fatigue during and/or after a videoconference, regardless of the specific VC system used. We followed a structured eight-phase process of conceptual analysis that led to a conceptual model of VC fatigue with four key causal dimensions: (1) personal factors, (2) organizational factors, (3) technological factors, and (4) environmental factors. We present this 4D model describing the respective dimensions with their sub-dimensions based on theories, available evidence, and media coverage. The 4D-model is meant to help researchers advance empirical research on videoconference fatigue.
... The literature does, however, help us interpret our findings. For example, despite the potential drawbacks of large meetings or emails with many recipients, these forms of communication practices may help synchronize how information is shared Cohen et al., 2011;Mroz et al., 2018). Furthermore, expanding the number of email recipients and meeting attendees increases the likelihood that important information is received by all relevant individuals in an organization (Skovholt and Svennevig, 2006). ...
Full-text available
We explore the impact of COVID-19 on employees’ digital communication patterns through an event study of lockdowns in 16 large metropolitan areas in North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Using de-identified, aggregated meeting and email meta-data from 3,143,270 users, we find, compared to pre-pandemic levels, increases in the number of meetings per person (+12.9 percent) and the number of attendees per meeting (+13.5 percent), but decreases in the average length of meetings (−20.1 percent). Collectively, the net effect is that people spent less time in meetings per day (−11.5 percent) in the post-lockdown period. We also find significant and durable increases in length of the average workday (+8.2 percent, or +48.5 min), along with short-term increases in email activity. These findings provide insight into how formal communication patterns have changed for a large sample of knowledge workers in major cities. We discuss these changes in light of the ongoing challenges faced by organizations and workers struggling to adapt and perform in the face of a global pandemic.
Who doesn’t love a magic trick? When we watch magicians perform, we enjoy being fooled by their manipulations and sleights of hand. But when leaders in our workplaces use the same techniques as magicians to further personal agendas, they engage in a special and unique form of falsity. This can be useful in furthering organizational goals and performance, but it can also lead to frustration, dysfunction, and even the collapse of the organization. Drawing on research on the psychology of magic, we explain how business leaders construct “magical processes” that can be used to mislead and manipulate workers in the same ways that magicians trick their audiences. We propose a typology of magic tricks in organizations and introduce the acronym CARD to summarize the four steps in these processes: concealing, attracting attention, retaining attention, and directing behavior. We describe each step, provide illustrations, and explain how managers and employees might detect and defend against each one. Finally, we identify structural conditions that may make organizations vulnerable to magical processes. We hope to improve readers’ ability to detect magic and CARD tricks, and to pierce through to the agendas hidden behind these false facades.
Meeting science has advanced significantly in its short history. However, one-on-one (1:1) meetings have not been studied empirically as a focal topic despite making up nearly half of all workplace meetings. While some meeting science insights may apply to 1:1 meetings, others may not (or may function differently) due to conceptual, theoretical, and practical differences between meetings involving dyads and groups. Although 1:1 meetings come in various forms (e.g., peer-to-peer, employee-to-customer), we chose to use manager-direct report 1:1 meetings as an exemplar given their prevalence, theoretical relevance, and practical implications. In this paper, we first review some conceptual differences between dyads and groups. We then discuss how these differences likely manifest in the meeting context (before, during, and after meetings), and outline related propositions. Last, we leverage this conceptual framework and subsequent propositions to provide guidance for future research and theory on 1:1 meetings. In doing so, we hope this paper will act as the impetus for research and theory development on 1:1 meetings. Plain Language Summary Meeting science has flourished over the past two decades, with research and theory exploring best practices for leading and attending workplace meetings. However, a large portion of this research has focused on meetings of three or more people – despite the fact that meetings are often defined as a gathering between two or more people. Ignoring the one-on-one (1:1) meeting is a missed opportunity, as 1:1 meetings have a large presence in industry. It has been estimated that nearly half (47%) of all meetings are 1:1s, and these dyadic meetings often have unique purposes (e.g., performance appraisals) and involve different interactions (e.g., more interpersonal) outside of larger group meetings. Industry and practice have begun to explore these 1:1 meeting-especially meetings between managers and direct reports. For example, internal studies conducted at Microsoft and Cisco found that direct reports who had more frequent and effectively run 1:1 meetings with their managers were more engaged than their counterparts. While companies have seemingly acknowledged the importance of these meetings, research lags behind. Little empirical or theoretical investigations have explored 1:1 meetings. Yet, with the continued growth in the number of meetings worldwide, it is important to obtain empirical insights specific to 1:1 meetings. Doing so will help inform best practices when it comes to leading and attending 1:1 meetings. Thus, in this conceptual review of 1:1 meetings, we provide a future research agenda encouraging researchers (and practitioners) to investigate this unique (and important) meeting type – the one-on-one meeting between a manager and their direct report.
Although meetings are an omnipresent organisational practice for interactive idea generation, we know little about how the switch to digital forms affects innovation-oriented behaviours in meetings. This mixed-methods study explores the role of digital meetings in the generation of process innovations in the Ministry of the Interior of the city-state Hamburg in Germany during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on observations, informal interviews, documents, group discussions, and an online survey, we combine qualitative and quantitative methods to develop, test, and elaborate on a conceptual model. The model describes how and why the digital meeting format relates to meeting performance and facilitates process innovations in organisations. Our findings show that digital meetings are perceived as equally burdensome, but more effective than face-to-face meetings. We theorise that technical restrictions of digital meetings, such as sequential speaking, provide enabling limits for employees to take charge and improve processes at work. The technical features of digital meetings, such as multi-channel communication and easy access, also allow more employees to take charge and improve organisational processes. We conclude that digital meetings (unintentionally) bring about brainstorming facilitator rules, spur organisational creativity, and therefore turn out to be an (underestimated) practice for stimulating process innovations.
Users of modern web-conferencing platforms often view their own face as well as those of other attendees, which has been proposed as a contributing factor to negative attitudes towards virtual meetings. Two studies of people attending regular virtual meetings, one conducted with newly remote employees from a variety of organizations and one with business students shifted to remote learning, test this assumption. In both studies, the association between frequency of self-view during meetings and aversion to virtual meetings was contingent on a dispositional trait: the user's degree of public self-consciousness. In extending research on meeting satisfaction from in-person meetings to virtual ones, the results presented here indicate the need to consider specific technological features of virtual collaboration tools in conjunction with individual differences among users.
Conference Paper
This paper investigates the degree to which meeting success can be predicted through holistic, acoustic-prosodic measurements. The analyzed meetings are taken from the Parking Lot Corpus in which 70 groups of three to six students discuss the traffic situation at their university and come up with parking and transportation recommendations. The number, feasibility, and quality of these recommendations as well as the mean effectiveness and satisfaction ratings across group members provide the basis for correlations with three sets 15 acoustic-prosodic features that cover pitch, duration/timing, intensity, and the absolute frequencies of local events such as silent pauses. Results show that meeting success is, in fact, considerably correlated with the overall “sound” of the individual meetings, with pitch features being the most diverse and powerful predictors. In addition, we found that the “sound” of subjectively effective meetings differs from the “sound” of objectively productive meetings, i.e. meetings that generate a high output of feasible and/or high-quality recommendations. The prosodic feature patterns suggest that effective meetings are short and matter-of-fact, whereas the productive meetings are longer and have a lively speech melody that makes these meetings stimulating. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and technological innovation.
Full-text available
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 2 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 were significantly lower when meetings started late. In Study 3, participants holding actual group meetings were randomly and blindly assigned to either a 10 min late, 5 min 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.
Full-text available
Most workplace phenomena take place in dynamic social settings and emerge over time, and scholars have repeatedly called for more research into the temporal dynamics of organizational behavior. One reason for this persistent research gap could be that organizational scholars are not aware of the methodological advances that are available today for modeling temporal interactions and detecting behavioral patterns that emerge over time. To facilitate such awareness, this Methods Corner contribution provides a hands-on tutorial for capturing and quantifying temporal behavioral patterns and for leveraging rich interaction data in organizational settings. We provide an overview of different approaches and methodologies for examining temporal interaction patterns, along with detailed information about the type of data that needs to be gathered in order to apply each method as well as the analytical steps (and available software options) involved in each method. Specifically, we discuss and illustrate lag sequential analysis, pattern analysis, statistical discourse analysis, and visualization methods for identifying temporal patterns in interaction data. We also provide key takeaways for integrating these methods more firmly in the field of organizational research and for moving interaction analytical research forward.
Full-text available
Purpose The purpose of this study is to provide a deeper understanding of uncivil meeting behaviors (UMBs) by exploring their frequency, potential predictors, and perceived impact on meeting outcomes. Five forms of UMBs were identified and examined. Key situational variables (meeting characteristics) and individual differences (Big Five factors and the Dark Triad of personality) were explored as potential predictors of UMBs. Methodology We collected data from two independent samples of meeting participants (Ns = 345, 170) via two online surveys. We used confirmatory factor analysis, correlations, hierarchical multiple regressions, and relative weight analyses to analyze the data. Findings The findings demonstrated that attendees’ perceptions of UMBs were linked to lower ratings of meeting satisfaction and effectiveness. In particular, the ratings were most affected by the observation of attendees who did not participate actively and who showed inappropriate interpersonal behavior. Results further suggest situational variables (meeting purpose and meeting norms) and individual differences (narcissism, psychopathy, and agreeableness) as potential predictors of UMBs. Implications By showing the consequences of UMBs on meeting outcomes and by providing insights into potential causes of engagement in UMBs, this study offers valuable input for running and leading work meetings. Originality/Value No previous study has empirically examined how different forms of UMBs affect meeting outcomes. Additionally, the paper introduces situational and personality variables that may act as potential predictors of UMBs.
Full-text available
Virtual teams, whose members may be freaged in interdependent tasks while geographically dispersed, are highly prevalent workgroups within organizations today. Because these global virtual teams must rely on technology to fulfill team goals across time and space, they may warrant unique meeting styles and structure. This chapter reviews the literature on virtual team meetings, providing evidence regarding the factors that may aid in the facilitation of such meetings based on existing research, and offers practitioners and professionals guidelines for successfully facilitating virtual team meetings. Drawing on previous meeting and global virtual team research, we make the following recommendations: Select a facilitator, select appropriate information and communication technology, set meeting norms, set and reinforce team roles, acknowledge time zone and cultural differences, and follow up with action items.
Full-text available
Although work meetings remain an enduring and commonplace organizational communication activity, scholars have only recently begun to theorize the meeting as a phenomenon unto itself. When meetings have been studied, they have usually been analyzed as settings for the exploration of other phenomena.Recent research that examinesmeetings addresses a broad range of issues, but often leaves theoretical questions and assumptions regarding the nature of meeting communication itself and the role of meetings in shaping organizational life underspecified or completely unarticulated. What are meetings really? Why should practitioners and scholars see them as more significant than any other organizational phenomenon? Why should they believe that work meetings actually play an important role in shaping (i.e., rather than merely reflecting) larger attitudes and perceptions about organizations and the individuals who facilitate and participate in them? This chapter presents a set of metaphors that capture the various ways in which meetings are approached in contemporary research. Each metaphor reflects and sustains distinct assumptions about what meetings are, what role they play in organizational life, and the manner in which they constitute organizations. We argue that meeting science should deploy both practical and theoretical assumptions that position meetings as generative activities through which groups and organizations are constituted and sustained. The chapter also describes related directions for future research that would add to our understanding of the various ways that meeting communication shapes individual and organizational outcomes. Work meetings remain an enduring and frequently occurring activity in organizational life. Unfortunately, in spite of their prevalence, meetings have usually only been analyzed by scholars as settings for the exploration of other phenomena such as decision making or group development (Schwartzman, 1986). Consequently, the practical relevance and related frustrations of work meetings have received far more attention than theoretical questions about what meetings are and how they fit into larger organizational processes and outcomes. Researchers have only recently begun to theorize the meeting as a phenomenon unto itself (e.g., Rogelberg, Leach, Warr, and Burnfield, 2006), and theory development regarding the role of meetings in organizational life has been particularly sparse.
Building on the affective events theory framework, we argue for voice as affect-relevant action and investigate the affective consequences of voice in meetings within persons. We administered daily surveys over one workweek to examine how suggestion-focused and problem-focused voice in meetings relate to state positive and state negative affect at work. Our analyses are based on the data of 124 employees reporting on 224 meetings. Employees’ problem-focused voice in meetings was associated with a decrease in employees’ state negative affect at the end of the next workday. Employees’ suggestion- focused voice, however, was not associated with an increase in employees’ state positive affect at the end of the next workday. Future studies should investigate boundary conditions that might change the affective consequences of employees’ voice in meetings.
Meetings are ubiquitous across organizations, yet researchers have paid scant attention to the role of meeting leaders in affecting meeting outcomes. Because meetings are important discursive sites, the style of a meeting leader may influence subordinate views of the meeting and leader. Using a sample of working adults, we first demonstrated that meeting attendees who perceived their leader as participative viewed the leader as more warm and competent than meeting attendees who had a directive leader. We explain this finding through the framework of social exchange theory. In Study 2, we conducted an experiment to further probe the relation between meeting leader style and subordinate perceptions of the leader. Again, participants viewed participative leaders as more warm and competent than directive leaders. Interestingly, working adults preferred participative leaders over directive leaders across every type of work meeting. We further found that participant gender interacted with leader style, such that men rated directive leaders are warmer than did women, but men and women did not differ in their assessments of participative leaders.
Individuals often attend meetings at work to which at least one person arrives late. Building from attributional theories of interpersonal behaviour, we conducted an experiment to determine the cognitive, affective, and behavioural components of people's reactions to meeting lateness. Participants read one of eight experimental vignettes that described someone arriving 5 or 15 min late to an important or unimportant meeting, after which the person who arrived late offered either a controllable or an uncontrollable reason for being late. Participants reported greater anger and a willingness to punish the late arrival who gave a controllable excuse, whereas sympathy and prosocial intentions followed the late arrival who gave an uncontrollable excuse. To establish generalizability, we replicated the results using a survey of workers who reported on their thoughts and experiences in their last meeting to which someone arrived late. Overall, our findings also indicated that accounting for the severity of the transgression uniquely contributed to emotional and behaviour reactions, which is an improvement on existing attributional models. Practitioner points • Arriving late to workplace meetings can have negative effects on interpersonal relationships, despite the prevalence of the behaviour. • Organizations and managers should encourage all meeting attendees to arrive to meetings on time – this avoids the negative effects of lateness and also sets the stage for positive meeting interactions. • Managers can take steps to mitigate the effects of lateness if it occurs. Agendas should be flexible to allow the movement of discussion points if someone arrives late.
Workplace safety is a concern for both scholars and practitioners alike because accidents and injuries can result in time away from work and lost organizational resources. This study focuses on how one type of post-incident discussion can be effectively used to promote positive safety norms. It adds to the growing body of research on after action review meetings, one type of post-incident discussion intervention commonly used in high reliability organizations to increase future workplace safety behaviors. This study also extends the sensemaking and high reliability literatures by examining a three-way interaction between perceived frequency of after action review meetings, ambiguity reduction and psychological safety. Survey data were obtained from 330 firefighters. Results from the three-way interaction showed that safety norms were highest when perceived after action review frequency, ambiguity reduction and psychological safety were simultaneously high, and safety norms were lowest when perceived after action review frequency, ambiguity reduction and psychological safety were simultaneously low. By examining both the perceived quantity and quality of after action review meetings, this study provides insight into which after action review facilitation objectives are most likely to increase positive safety norms and ultimately create a shared understanding of how to behave safely in future workplace events in high reliability organizational contexts.