Content uploaded by Peter Warr
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter Warr on Jul 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
“Not Another Meeting!” Are Meeting Time Demands Related
to Employee Well-Being?
Steven G. Rogelberg
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Desmond J. Leach and Peter B. Warr
University of Sheffield
Jennifer L. Burnfield
Bowling Green State University
Using an interruptions framework, this article proposes and tests a set of hypotheses concerning the
relationship of meeting time demands with job attitudes and well-being (JAWB). Two Internet surveys
were administered to employees who worked 35 hr or more per week. Study 1 examined prescheduled
meetings attended in a typical week (N ⫽ 676), whereas Study 2 investigated prescheduled meetings
attended during the current day (N ⫽ 304). As proposed, the relationship between meeting time demands
and JAWB was moderated by task interdependence, meeting experience quality, and accomplishment
striving. However, results were somewhat dependent on the time frame of a study and the operational
definition used for meeting time demands. Furthermore, perceived meeting effectiveness was found to
have a strong, direct relationship with JAWB.
Keywords: meetings, groups or teams, effectiveness, well-being, burnout, satisfaction
The meeting is a vehicle for many organizational activities, and
employees spend much time in meetings. It is often suggested that
the amount of time in meetings has increased over the past few
decades. For example, Mosvick and Nelson (1987) reported that
the average executive participated in twice as many meetings in
the 1980s than in the 1960s. In Tobia and Becker’s (1990) survey
of 1,900 business leaders, almost 72% reported spending more
time in meetings than they did 5 years ago. Furthermore, the
majority of respondents anticipated spending more time in meet-
ings in the near future.
Despite this practical importance, the meeting is a “neglected
social form in organizational studies,” as indicated in the title of
Schwartzman’s (1986) article. She discussed how the meeting has
been used as a methodological tool to study other topics (e.g.,
small-group dynamics and group decision making) but rarely
studied empirically in its own right. Since Schwartzman’s plea, the
scant empirical research that does exist has usually focused nar-
rowly on the format (e.g., Bluedorn, Turban, & Love, 1999) or
structure (e.g., Volkema & Niederman, 1995) of meetings, or it has
been driven by other interests such as technology (e.g., Kiesler &
Sproull, 1992; Rawlins, 1990). In addition, a large number of
nonempirical trade articles and books have been published (e.g.,
Streibel, 2003), based on anecdotal information rather than on
research findings.
To the extent that meetings are successful in helping organiza-
tions and employees achieve their goals, their utility as an orga-
nizational tool is evident. However, a common emphasis in dis-
cussion and popular writing is on their negative aspects, for
example, how they interrupt more important tasks and generate
negative feeling. In this article, we examine the affective correlates
of meeting attendance not only to shed empirical light onto the
anecdotal claims but also to address a substantial gap in the
meetings research literature. Specifically, we argue that time spent
in meetings (referred to as meeting time demands) does not itself
impact overall job attitudes and well-being (hereafter referred to as
JAWB). Instead, we propose that the effects of meeting time
demands will be moderated by task interdependence, perceived
meeting effectiveness, and personal factors such as an individual’s
confidence in his or her abilities to perform effectively in meet-
ings. In some circumstances and for some people, meeting time
demands will positively relate to JAWB. In other circumstances
and for some people, meeting time demands will negatively relate
to JAWB. We also expect that perceived meeting effectiveness
will directly relate to JAWB.
Interruptions
Most of our hypotheses are informed by research and theory on
work interruptions, in that we view many meetings as a particular
kind of interruption. Job analysis makes it clear that all work roles
have primary tasks and responsibilities, so that the achievement of
explicit and/or implicit goals or requirements is central to effective
work performance. In addition, individuals often create their own
personal objectives within projects that are emotionally salient to
Steven G. Rogelberg, Department of Psychology, University of North
Carolina at Charlotte; Desmond J. Leach and Peter B. Warr, Institute of
Work Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom;
Jennifer L. Burnfield, Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State
University.
We thank Toby Wall, Alexandra Luong, Ben Tepper, Jim Conway, Jeff
Stanton, Jason Williams, and Molly Behringer for their insightful com-
ments and assistance in these research efforts.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven
G. Rogelberg, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at
Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28270. E-mail: sgrogelb@email.uncc.edu
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
2006, Vol. 91, No. 1, 86 –96 0021-9010/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.83
83
them. As a recent typology of work interruptions suggests, activ-
ities, events, or circumstances (even positive ones) that disrupt the
achievement of those goals may function as interruptions (Jett &
George, 2003).
Such interruptions to goal achievement are usually experienced
negatively. Kirmeyer (1988) measured volume of work, interrup-
tions, and competing demands in a sample of police radio dis-
patchers. Volume of work did not have a direct effect on perceived
role overload, but its effect was instead mediated through inter-
ruptions. Zeigarnik and her colleagues (1927, as cited in Butter-
field, 1964) found that when people were prevented from finishing
a task, they resumed that task when given the freedom to do so. In
addition, interrupted tasks were recalled more frequently than
finished tasks. Zijlstra, Roe, Leonora, and Krediet (1999) found
that when participants in an experimental group were periodically
interrupted by telephone calls from the researcher, their effort was
increased, yet as a result of this increase in effort expenditure, a
negative impact on emotions and well-being occurred.
In explaining the harmful effect of interruptions, Zijlstra et al.
(1999) invoked the theory of activity regulation (Hacker, 1978,
1986, as cited in Zijlstra et al., 1999). That theory is built on the
fact that work is a goal-directed activity. When an interruption
occurs, the regulation of activity and associated cognitive pro-
cesses are disrupted, and the individual has to modify his or her
action plans (perhaps unenthusiastically) to include the interrupt-
ing event. In addition, further resources are often needed to deal
with the demands of the interruption as well as the regulation of all
of the activities collectively. In a similar manner, Zohar (1999)
pointed out that when a continuing activity is interrupted by an
external factor, the individual must exert greater effort to over-
come that obstacle. Consequently, greater effort depletes the re-
sources that could have been allocated to the primary task, which
may result in increased fatigue and negative mood. Negative mood
can also occur because the rate of progress toward completion of
the primary task has been slowed.
Although many events can disrupt employees in that way, we
believe that meetings may serve as a unique form of interruption.
In many cases, meeting attendance disrupts salient forms of goal
achievement (e.g., when ongoing work had to be terminated to
meet the new demand). In other cases, attendance may instead aid
movement toward that goal. The impact of meetings on JAWB
thus depends on several moderating factors. We consider as par-
ticularly important (a) the amount of interdependence inherent in
one’s job, (b) the perceived effectiveness of a meeting, and (c)
personal characteristics such as work orientation and meeting
confidence.
Task Interdependence
Some jobs require employees to work through interaction with
colleagues (high task interdependence), and in others people op-
erate on their own (low task interdependence). The theory of
activity regulation would suggest that meetings serve more
strongly as interruptions in low task interdependent jobs in that
they are more likely to interfere with personal goal-directed activ-
ity. Conversely, given that meetings are often used to coordinate
and integrate employee work activities, in high task interdependent
jobs, they are less likely to be inconsistent with goal-directed
activity and in fact may be a welcomed event. This reasoning is
loosely consistent with the argument of Gillie and Broadbent
(1989) who, on the basis of a laboratory study, suggested that the
nature of the interrupting activity, in particular its similarity to the
main task and its complexity in terms of information processing, is
more important than just the fact that an interruption occurs. In
other words, what makes interruptions demanding is not so much
the mere change of activity but rather the fact that accompanying
thought processes are affected (e.g., other tasks have to be kept in
memory in order to resume work once the interruption has ended).
Hypothesis 1: Task interdependence will moderate the rela-
tionship between meeting time demands and JAWB. For
employees in low interdependent jobs, meeting time demands
will be negatively related to JAWB. In high interdependent
jobs, a positive relationship between meeting time demands
and JAWB is expected.
Perceived Meeting Effectiveness
The perceived value of meeting activities may also be a deter-
minant of whether that meeting functions as an interruption. For
low-quality experiences, meeting time demands are likely to func-
tion as interruptions, in that task activities were not only disrupted
but the interruption was perceived as a waste of time. Alterna-
tively, high-quality meeting experiences are less likely to be
viewed and function as an interruption because they are productive
and potentially of value to one or more people. At the very least,
the fact that a meeting was experienced positively may mitigate
some of the negative processes associated with interruptions.
Hypothesis 2a: Perceived meeting effectiveness will moder-
ate the relationship between meeting time demands and
JAWB. Meeting time demands will be negatively related to
JAWB when perceptions of meeting effectiveness are low.
When perceptions of meeting effectiveness are high, a posi-
tive relationship between meeting time demands and JAWB
is expected.
Given the prevalence and salience of meetings at work, it would
be expected that experiences in a meeting are linked to temporary
and more general affect. The notion that perceived performance is
related to concurrent affect is well substantiated by empirical
research (e.g., Fisher & Noble, 2004) and theory. Control theory
(Carver & Scheier, 1990), for example, suggests that when per-
formance is perceived to fall below a desired standard, negative
feelings ensue. With regard to more stable work attitudes, decades
of research demonstrates that satisfying work activities–tasks are
significant determinants of more general feelings toward a job and
intentions to quit.
Hypothesis 2b: Perceived meeting effectiveness will be pos-
itively related to JAWB.
Personal Characteristics
It is clear that employee behavior is a function of both organi-
zational context and individual characteristics (e.g., Ostroff, 1993).
In addition, research has long recognized that personal factors may
moderate the relationship between daily events and stress (e.g.,
Caspi, Bolger, & Eckenrode, 1987). Personal factors may thus be
84
ROGELBERG, LEACH, WARR, AND BURNFIELD
important in understanding variations in the relationship between
meeting time demands and JAWB.
Given the lack of research and theory in the meetings area, we
can only speculate as to which characteristics of a person may be
the most relevant moderators. Factors were chosen that either
relate to an interest in meetings or liking of meetings. The three
personal factors we study are accomplishment striving, individu-
alistic orientation, and meeting self-confidence.
Accomplishment Striving
According to Barrick, Stewart, and Piotrowski (2002), “accom-
plishment striving reflects an individual’s intention to accomplish
tasks and is characterized by a high task orientation” (p. 44). They
continued: “Task oriented employees have a strong desire to
accomplish task-related goals as a means of expressing their indi-
vidual attributes and preferences” (p. 44). Accomplishment striv-
ing has been found to be related to job performance, conscien-
tiousness, and extraversion (Barrick et al., 2002).
Again making reference to the theory of activity, individuals
with a higher task focus are expected to establish more goals
and/or more difficult goals and may become more engaged in
accomplishing their immediate work tasks. For those individuals,
meetings are more likely to function as interruptions. Conversely,
for individuals with lower accomplishment strivings (those less
likely to have specific aims to accomplish), meetings may not
function as readily as interruptions and may sometimes operate as
welcome and positive events. That reasoning is consistent with
research by Kirmeyer (1988), who found that Type A individuals
were more negatively affected by interruptions than those individ-
uals without this personality pattern.
Hypothesis 3: Accomplishment striving will moderate the
relationship between meeting time demands and JAWB.
Meeting time demands will be negatively related to JAWB
for employees high in accomplishment striving. For individ-
uals low in accomplishment striving, a positive relationship
between meeting time demands and JAWB is expected.
Individualistic Orientation
Individualistic orientation refers to a person’s propensity to rely
on himself–herself rather than others when engaging in tasks.
Individuals high in this orientation tend to believe that for some-
thing to be done correctly, they have to do it themselves. Individ-
ualists tend to maximize their own outcomes with limited regard
for others’ outcomes, and they tend to do so even when inter-
dependent others demonstrate high levels of cooperation (e.g.,
Kuhlman & Marshello, 1975; McClintock & Liebrand, 1988).
Given that meetings involve collectives of people working to-
gether in some fashion (often to make a joint decision), we would
expect meetings to function more readily as interruptions for
participants high in individualistic orientation. Conversely, for
those low in this orientation (who are more collectivistic in nature),
meeting attendance may operate as an attractive form of activity
rather than a disruption of preferred tasks. This is because people
with a disposition toward collectivism often have positive attitudes
toward their in-groups, internalize the norms of their in-groups,
and enjoy doing what their in-groups expect them to do (Bontempo,
Lobel, & Triandis, 1990; Lee & Ward, 1998).
Hypothesis 4: Individualistic orientation will moderate the
relationship between meeting time demands and JAWB.
Meeting time demands will be negatively related to JAWB
for employees high in individualistic orientation. For individ-
uals low in individualistic orientation, a positive relationship
between meeting time demands and JAWB is expected.
Meeting Self-Confidence
Meeting self-confidence can be viewed in terms of an individ-
ual’s judgment of his or her capability to function effectively in a
meeting. Consistent with research and theory on self-efficacy
across a wide range of tasks and activities (Bandura, 1986, 1997),
self-confidence in meetings should influence a participant’s
thought patterns and emotional reactions. Unlike those high in
meeting self-confidence, less confident individuals will be more
likely to approach a meeting with feelings of anxiety and uncer-
tainty. As a result, for those with low meeting self-confidence,
meetings should tend to function as interruptions to their preferred
activities.
Hypothesis 5: Meeting self-confidence will moderate the re-
lationship between meeting time demands and JAWB. Meet-
ing time demands will be negatively related to JAWB for
employees low in meeting self-confidence. For individuals
high in meeting self-confidence, a positive relationship be-
tween meeting time demands and JAWB is expected.
The Present Studies
This article describes two Internet-based investigations to ex-
amine the hypotheses outlined above. Study 1 focuses on typical
meeting time demands, looking at the general job attitudes and
job-related well-being. To complement that more general perspec-
tive, Study 2 examines time demands in specific meetings and
well-being for that particular day. Consistent with the spirit of
research triangulation (e.g., Rogelberg & Brooks-Laber, 2002), the
two studies together allow us to view a common phenomenon from
partially different perspectives. In both studies, the meetings ex-
amined are those that are prescheduled, in that their occurrence
was determined in advance of the event as opposed to chance or
spontaneous happenings.
Procedure: Both Studies
For both investigations, respondents were contacted through personal
referrals, university alumni lists, online interest groups, commercially
purchased double-opt-in e-mail services, banner advertisements, university
Web sites, and letters in newspapers and professional magazines. The two
samples were recruited concurrently but were independent of one another.
For Study 1, a sample of 676 full-time employees (working at least 35
hr per week) was obtained: 69% and 31%, respectively, from the United
States and the United Kingdom. Participants were 60% female and aver-
aged 39.15 years of age (SD ⫽ 10.96). Overall, 52% of respondents
supervised others. In terms of tenure with the current organization, 32%
had worked 2 years or less, 19% worked 2.01 to 4 years, 26% worked 4.01
to 10 years, and 23% worked 10.01 or more years. Fifty-four percent of the
sample worked for private for-profit organizations, 14% worked for private
nonprofit organizations, and 32% worked for public sector (e.g., national or
city government) organizations. The most common employment sectors
were education (20%), finance–insurance–real estate (10%), health care
85
MEETING TIME DEMANDS
(8%), manufacturing (7%), other service (7%), public administration (6%),
retail trade (4%), and communications (3%).
For Study 2, 304 participants were recruited (80% from the United
States, 12% from the United Kingdom, and 8% from Australia). All had
attended at least one meeting in the current day. Participants were 70%
female and averaged 38.24 years of age (SD ⫽ 10.47). In total, 53% of
respondents supervised others. Regarding tenure with the current organi-
zation, 34% had worked 2 years or less, 20% worked 2.01 to 4 years, 30%
worked 4.01 to 10 years, and 15% worked 10.01 or more years. Sixty-one
percent of the sample worked for private for-profit organizations, 16%
worked for private nonprofit organizations, and 23% worked for public
sector (e.g., national or city government) organizations. The most common
employment sectors were education (16%), health care (14%), finance–
insurance–real estate (12%), other service (9%), retail trade (8%), manu-
facturing (6%), public administration (4%), communications (3%), and
transport (2%).
Prior to survey deployment, we implemented an extensive pilot-testing
strategy designed for Internet survey research (Burnfield, Rogelberg,
Leach, & Warr, 2003). Pilot participants examined the surveys for clarity
and perceived relevance of content, ease of use, technical difficulties, and
completion time. Content and layout were modified in response to this
feedback. The surveys were also tested on different types of computers and
browsers to identify the most effective formats and to make modifications
as shown to be necessary.
The two studies were introduced in a general e-mail presentation, which
contained a link to a survey Web site. Potential participants were advised
that the survey would take 15 to 20 min to complete and were informed that
While the security of the Internet cannot be guaranteed with 100%
confidence, we do not ask for any information that might identify you
personally. In addition, reports of the project will show only aggre-
gated patterns (i.e., your results will be combined with all others).
To encourage participation, we provided the researchers’ contact details for
those individuals who wanted more information about the research, and we
indicated that a summary of results across all participants would be made
available at the research Web site (the URL was provided). No participant
complaints or problems were reported. Data were compiled on the Internet
by a vendor and then downloaded for analysis.
The surveys contained sections on time spent in meetings, meeting
experiences, work characteristics, JAWB, personal characteristics, and
demographics. Throughout the survey, respondents were reminded of our
focus on prescheduled meetings. Given that respondents completed a
questionnaire in their free time during the working day or afterward, great
efforts were made to restrict the number of items (e.g., shortened versions
of scales were used along with single-item indicators
1
when appropriate).
Study 1: Questionnaire Content
Meeting Time Demands
A work meeting was defined for respondents as a scheduled
(i.e., prearranged) gathering of two or more individuals for the
purpose of a work-related interaction (Schwartzman, 1986) that
takes place either on or off site. To promote a common frame of
reference, this definition excluded unscheduled and spontaneous
interactions. The focus in Study 1 was explicitly on a typical week.
Meeting time demands can be viewed in terms of either the
amount of time spent in meetings or as the number of meetings
attended. It is desirable to learn about patterns associated with both
of those indicators of time demand, and two operational definitions
were therefore used.
The first, time spent in meetings, was based on employee
responses to the item “On average, approximately how long do you
spend in meetings in a typical week? (Indicate in hours to the
nearest hour)___.” The second, number of meetings, was based on
employee responses to the item “On average, how many meetings
do you attend in a typical week? (Indicate the number)___.”
Task Interdependence
A single item was used to assess task interdependence: “The
nature of my job is such that I generally work independently of
others.” Responses were made on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). Scores were reverse-
coded such that higher scores reflected greater interdependence.
Perceived Meeting Effectiveness
Perceived meeting effectiveness was assessed with six items
developed for this study. Participants were asked to rate the effec-
tiveness of meetings attended in a typical week in terms of the
following: “achieving your own work goals” “achieving col-
leagues’ work goals” “achieving your department–section– unit’s
goals” “providing you with an opportunity to acquire useful infor-
mation” “providing you with an opportunity to meet, socialize, or
network with people” and “promoting commitment to what was
said and done in the meeting.” Responses were rated on a 5-point
continuum (1 ⫽ extremely ineffective,5⫽ extremely effective).
Principal-components factor analysis yielded one factor with an
eigenvalue over 1.0 that explained 63% of the variance. An aver-
age score was computed across the six items. The alpha internal
consistency for scores on this scale was .87.
Accomplishment Striving
Three items from Barrick et al.’s (2002) Accomplishment Striv-
ing subscale of the Motivational Orientation Inventory were used.
This measure is designed to assess three components of accom-
plishment striving, and we included one item from each: attention
and direction (“I set personal goals to get a lot of work accom-
plished”), intensity and persistence (“I put a lot of effort into
completing my work tasks”), and arousal (“It is very important to
me that I complete a lot of work”). The alpha internal consistency
for the three-item measure was .69.
Individualistic Orientation
Two items were used from Factor 1 of Triandis, Bontempo,
Villareal, Asai, and Lucca’s (1988) measure of individualism–
collectivism (also included in Wagner’s, 1995, measure). These
items pertain to personal independence and self-reliance: “If you
want something done right, you’ve got to do it yourself” and “In
the long run the only person you can count on is yourself.” Items
were scored on a 5-point agree–disagree continuum. The alpha
estimate of internal consistency was .72.
1
Single-item indicators are not ideal. However, they have been used
effectively in many studies. For instance, a meta-analysis by Wanous,
Reichers, and Hudy (1997) showed that single-item measures of job
satisfaction are highly correlated with multi-item measures of that con-
struct.
86
ROGELBERG, LEACH, WARR, AND BURNFIELD
Meeting Self-Confidence
Eight items were developed to assess self-confidence in one’s
ability to work effectively in meetings. Each item covered a
different element of meeting behavior (e.g., “presenting your
work– data to others” “proposing new ideas to others” “engaging
in ‘small talk’ with others” “participating in general discussions”).
Participants rated their confidence in each respect on a 5-point
scale (1 ⫽ not at all confident,5⫽ very confident). The alpha
internal consistency reliability estimate for scores on this measure
was .90.
JAWB
Four measures differing in their emphasis on immediate affect
or attitude were used to assess JAWB. Two scales examined
feelings about the job, one item assessed overall satisfaction, and
a final measure assessed intentions to quit.
Warr’s (1990) Job-Related Well-Being questionnaire (as in
Mullarkey, Wall, Warr, Clegg, & Stride, 1999) was used to assess
two axes of job-related affect: from anxiety to comfort and from
depression to enthusiasm. Those two axes run between opposite
quadrants of a conceptual space containing the orthogonal dimen-
sions of pleasure and psychological arousal. Although significantly
intercorrelated, the two forms of well-being are differentially re-
lated to several organizational features (e.g., Warr, 1990). For
example, employees in higher level jobs report significantly less
job-related depression but significantly more job-related anxiety,
and anxiety– comfort is more strongly associated with work over-
load than is depression–enthusiasm. That differential overload
pattern suggests that anxiety– comfort may be particularly respon-
sive to meetings that create additional load by interrupting task
activities.
Instructions for the well-being scales were as follows: “Think-
ing of your work overall, to what extent does it make you feel each
of the following?” The Anxiety–Comfort scale is composed of six
adjectives: tense, anxious, calm, relaxed, worried, and comfort-
able. The Depression–Enthusiasm scale comprises optimistic,
gloomy, motivated, depressed, miserable, and enthusiastic. The
two scales were intermixed in presentation, with a 5-point
response scale (1 ⫽ not at all,5⫽ to a great extent). Negative
items were reverse-scored, so that higher means represented
more positive well-being. Alpha internal consistency estimates
were .85 for job-related anxiety– comfort and .88 for job-related
depression– enthusiasm.
Overall satisfaction with the job was assessed through a single
item: “Overall, I am satisfied with my job.” Responses were made
on a 5-point continuum ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to5
(strongly agree).
The final index of JAWB, assessing an individual’s intention to
leave his or her job. Three items were used to measure intentions
to quit (Parra, 1995), namely, “I may look for another job soon” “I
often think of quitting my present job” and “I intend to stay in my
present job.” Responses were 3 (yes), 0 (no), and 1 (cannot
decide), and the alpha internal consistency estimate was .83.
Results
Using standard conventions (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), we
screened the data set for univariate and bivariate outliers. Very few
extraneous values were identified. The outlier group was too small
to study in and of itself and thus was deleted. Means, standard
deviations, and intercorrelations among the principal variables
examined in Study 1 are displayed in Table 1.
Meeting time demands. Employees spent, on average, 5.60 hr
(SD ⫽ 5.10) in scheduled meetings during a typical week. That
time involved, on average, 4.20 meetings (SD ⫽ 3.48). It is
noteworthy that the range of responses for both indices was quite
large; considerable variability in meeting time demands was found.
The association between time and number of meetings was strong
and positive (r ⫽ .87, p ⬍ .05).
Supervisors spent more time ( p ⬍ .05) in prescheduled meet-
ings (M ⫽ 6.60 hr, SD ⫽ 5.69) and attended more often (M ⫽ 5.00
meetings, SD ⫽ 3.87) than nonsupervisors (M ⫽ 4.35 hr, SD ⫽
4.04; M ⫽ 3.34 meetings, SD ⫽ 2.72). Men ( p ⬍ .05) spent more
time (M ⫽ 6.88 hr, SD ⫽ 5.95) and attended more meetings (M ⫽
5.07 meetings, SD ⫽ 3.78) than women (M ⫽ 4.56 hr, SD ⫽ 4.15;
M ⫽ 3.59 meetings, SD ⫽ 3.04). Organizational size (number of
employees) was positively related to time spent in meetings (r ⫽
.24, p ⬍ .05) and number of prescheduled meetings (r ⫽ .23, p ⬍
.05). The amount of task interdependence in one’s job was posi-
tively related to time spent in meetings (r ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .05) and
number of meetings (r ⫽ .24, p ⬍ .05).
Table 1
Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
Variable MSD 1234567891011
1. Time 5.60 5.10 —
2. Number 4.20 3.46 .87** —
3. Task interdependence 3.81 0.89 .20** .24** —
4. Meeting effectiveness 3.62 0.77 .01 .03 .07 —
5. Accomplishment striving 4.01 0.63 .06 .05 .02 .20** —
6. Individual orientation 3.09 0.96 ⫺.16** ⫺.15** ⫺.28** ⫺.22** .13** —
7. Meeting confidence 3.34 0.82 .17** .17** .03 .15** .22** ⫺.07 —
8. Anxiety–comfort 3.16 0.83 ⫺.05 ⫺.03 ⫺.03 .35** .04 ⫺.21** .23** —
9. Depression–enthusiasm 3.87 0.85 .14** .16** .07 .54** .26** ⫺.34** .25** .60** —
10. Job satisfaction 3.79 1.04 .01 .03 ⫺.01 .45** .27** ⫺.19** .17** .51** .74** —
11. Intentions to quit 2.47 3.11 ⫺.04 ⫺.05 ⫺.08* ⫺.32** ⫺.20** .21** ⫺.08 ⫺.37** ⫺.61** ⫺.67** —
Note. N ⫽ 621–626.
* p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. ** p ⬍ .01, two-tailed.
87
MEETING TIME DEMANDS
These four significant predictors, when collectively regressed on
time in meetings or number of meetings, remained independently
significant ( p ⬍ .05) and collectively accounted for a moderate
proportion of variance (adjusted R
2
⫽ .15 and .17, p ⬍ .05, for
time and number, respectively). The small correlations of meeting
time demands with age and tenure dissipated after controlling for
the other significant demographic indicators.
Meeting time demands and JAWB. Table 1 shows that, with
the exception of significant correlations with the enthusiasm well-
being index, neither index of meeting time demands was linearly
correlated with any form of JAWB. In addition, no curvilinear
relationships (quadratic and cubic) were found.
Testing the hypotheses. To test the study hypotheses, we un-
dertook moderated multiple regression analyses. In each analysis,
the demographic variables (see above) that yielded significant
mean differences for meeting time demands were controlled (gen-
der, supervisory status, and organizational size). Data source (i.e.,
country) was also controlled in each analysis. A logarithmic trans-
formation was undertaken on both indicators of meeting time
demands to reduce the significant ( p ⬍ .05) skew that would serve
to violate the normality assumption. It is noteworthy that when
analyses were run without the logarithmic transformation, a nearly
identical pattern of results emerged in all cases.
Our hypotheses were a priori, directional, and derived from
theory. Consistent with statistical theory (e.g., Loether & Mc-
Tavish, 1988, p. 544), we use a one-tailed test of statistical sig-
nificance. Pragmatically, the use of a one-tailed test also serves to
improve the power of our moderated regression analyses (which
typically lack power; Aiken & West, 1991). The p ⬍ .05 conven-
tion was used to determine statistical significance.
When applicable, we plotted significant interaction effects using
procedures (e.g., plotting values ⫾ 1 SD) recommended by Aiken
and West (1991). To promote interpretability, we centered our
primary predictors prior to the creation of a cross-product term.
Task interdependence. Hypothesis 1 states that task interde-
pendence will moderate the relationship between meeting time
demands and JAWB. For the first operational definition of de-
mands, the interaction of interdependence
2
with time spent in
meetings was significant ( p ⬍ .05) for the enthusiasm well-being
index, the job satisfaction index, and the intention to quit index.
The interaction was not significant for the comfort well-being
index. See Table 2 for a summary of the results. Each interaction
plot revealed the same basic pattern of results, as illustrated in
Figure 1. That diagram shows that time spent in meetings in a
typical week is negatively related to satisfaction for those in jobs
with low task interdependence. Conversely, meeting time is pos-
itively correlated with satisfaction for those in jobs with high task
interdependence. This pattern supports Hypothesis 1.
A similar but more robust pattern of results emerged for the
number of meetings attended. The interaction between task inter-
dependence (see Footnote 2) and number of meetings was signif-
icant ( p ⬍ .05) for job-related comfort, job-related enthusiasm, job
satisfaction, and intention to quit. See Table 3 for a summary of the
results. Each interaction plot revealed the same basic pattern of
results, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Perceived meeting effectiveness. Hypothesis 2a states that per-
ceived meeting effectiveness will moderate the relationship be-
tween meeting time demands and JAWB. For neither operational
definition of demands (time or number of meetings) was the
interaction significant for any of the indicators of JAWB.
Hypothesis 2b (that perceived meeting effectiveness will be
positively related to JAWB) was supported across all of the indi-
cators ( p ⬍ .05). JAWB measures were regressed (one at a time)
on perceived meeting effectiveness (controlling for number of
meetings attended, country source, gender, supervisory status, and
organizational size). Beta weights associated with perceived meet-
ing effectiveness were positively ( p ⬍ .05) related to job-related
comfort (⌬R
2
⫽ .07), job-related enthusiasm (⌬R
2
⫽ .22), job
satisfaction (⌬R
2
⫽ .20), and intention to quit (⌬R
2
⫽ .10). Nearly
identical results were found when time in meetings was controlled
for instead of number of meetings.
Personal characteristics. Hypothesis 3 states that accomplish-
ment striving will moderate the relationship between meeting time
demands and JAWB. For time spent in meetings, the interaction
with striving was significant ( p ⬍ .05) for the job-related comfort
index, job-related enthusiasm index, the job satisfaction index, and
the intention to quit index. See Table 4 for a summary of the
results. Each interaction plot revealed the same basic pattern of
results, as illustrated in Figure 2. Namely, a positive relationship
between meeting time demands and job satisfaction was found for
individuals low in accomplishment striving, but a negative relation-
ship was found for individuals high in accomplishment striving.
A similar but less robust pattern of results emerged for the
second operational definition, number of meetings. The interaction
was significant ( p ⬍ .05) only for job-related enthusiasm and
intention to quit. See Table 5 for a summary of the results. Each
interaction plot revealed the same basic pattern of results, as
illustrated in Figure 2.
Hypothesis 4 states that individualistic orientation will moderate
the relationship between meeting time demands and JAWB. For
2
Supervisory status was not controlled in these analyses given its
conceptual overlap with interdependence as a construct.
Table 2
Study 1 Moderated Regression Results Involving
Interdependence and Time in Meetings
Step and predictor
Depression–
enthusiasm
Job
satisfaction
Intentions
to quit
Step 1
Country code .06 .11* .10*
Organization size ⫺.10* ⫺.10* .04
Gender ⫺.03 ⫺.04 .07*
Total R
2
.00 .02* .01*
Step 2
Time in meetings .13* .03 ⫺.00
Interdependence .07* .02 ⫺.11*
Total R
2
.03* .02 .02*
⌬R
2
.03* .00 .01*
Step 3
Time in Meetings ⫻
Interdependence .09* .09* ⫺.10*
Total R
2
.04* .03* .03*
⌬R
2
.01* .01* .01*
Note. The standardized regression coefficients presented are those de-
rived at the third step.
* p ⬍ .05, one-tailed.
88
ROGELBERG, LEACH, WARR, AND BURNFIELD
both operational definitions, the interaction term was not signifi-
cant for any of the indicators of JAWB.
Hypothesis 5 states that meeting self-confidence will moderate
the relationship between meeting time demands and JAWB. How-
ever, the interaction term was not significant for any of the
indicators of JAWB for either time in meetings or number of
meetings. Note that Table 1 shows a positive correlation of meet-
ing self-confidence with each indicator of JAWB ( p ⬍ .05).
Summary
Study 1 examined the relationship of meeting time demands
with JAWB, focusing on typical weekly meetings. As expected,
task interdependence and accomplishment striving were found to
moderate, in the predicted direction, the relationship between
meeting time demands and JAWB. For instance, the relationship
between time in meetings in a typical week and job satisfaction is
strong and positive when task interdependence is high but is
negative when interdependence was low.
As predicted, perceived meeting effectiveness was positively
and significantly associated with JAWB, regardless of the amount
of time that individuals spent in meetings or the number of meet-
ings they attended. For instance, across the analyses, perceived
meeting effectiveness accounted for some 27% and 19% of the
variance in job-related enthusiasm and job satisfaction scores,
respectively.
Although the pattern of significant interactions was similar for
both indices of time demands, reflecting the strong association
between the two aspects of demand, it was not identical. Specifi-
cally, accomplishment striving moderated the relationship between
time in meetings and all four measures of JAWB, but the pattern
of findings was less consistent for number of meetings. The
converse applied, but to a lesser extent, to the moderating effects
of task independence on the relationship of time and number with
JAWB. Overall, the results of Study 1 suggest that our hypotheses
concerning the relationship between meeting time demands and in
general forms of JAWB has some explanatory value when the
frame of reference is a typical week.
Study 2 was designed to examine the hypotheses in a more
restricted time period—a single day. At the day level of analysis,
finer distinctions can be examined (it is more proximal to the
meeting event). Because of the potential variations in daily meet-
ing experience, it is possible that the pattern of results at this more
proximal level of analysis could differ from a more aggregated
conceptualization of meetings because of the potential variations
in daily meeting experience. Similarly, the potential effects of an
interruption should be more salient at the daily level rather than at
the more abstract “in general” level.
Study 2
This study examined meeting time demands and JAWB for a
given day. For Study 2, JAWB was operationalized in a slightly
different manner. Given our interest in feelings about a particular
day, the more stable intentions to quit index was dropped. Per-
ceived productivity for the day (amount of work completed) was
added and assessed along with three indicators of feelings about
Figure 1. Two-way interaction of task interdependence (inter) and time
in meetings to predict job satisfaction in Study 1.
Table 3
Study 1 Moderated Regression Results Involving Interdependence and Number of Meetings
Step and predictor Anxiety–comfort
Depression–
enthusiasm
Job
satisfaction
Intentions
to quit
Step 1
Country code .02 .05 .11* .10*
Gender ⫺.11* ⫺.03 ⫺.04 .07*
Organization size ⫺.07 ⫺.10* ⫺.10* .04
Total R
2
.02* .01 .02* .01*
Step 2
No. of meetings ⫺.06 .15* .02 .01
Interdependence .01 .07 .03 .12*
Total R
2
.02* .04* .02* .02*
⌬R
2
.00 .03* .00 .01*
Step 3
No. of Meetings ⫻ Interdependence .07* .11* .09* .12*
Total R
2
.02* .05* .03* .04*
⌬R
2
.00* .01* .01* .02*
Note. The standardized regression coefficients presented are those derived at the third step.
* p ⬍ .05, one-tailed.
89
MEETING TIME DEMANDS
the particular work day. Measures for this study were all com-
pleted at the end of a work day. At that time, specific ratings were
requested for each of a person’s meetings attended that day.
Meeting Time Demands
As in Study 1, individuals reported on the number of their
prescheduled work-related meetings, defined in the same way.
However, in this case, focus was on the present day rather than a
typical week. Respondents also indicated for each meeting they
had attended how long it had lasted; 15-min intervals were spec-
ified on the questionnaire (e.g., 16 to 30 min, 31 to 45 min). The
separate meeting lengths were added together to index a person’s
time spent in meetings during that day.
Perceived effectiveness of today’s meetings was measured by
computing the average score of the single-item ratings of each
meeting attended that day. Ratings were provided on a 5-point
scale (1 ⫽ complete waste of time,5⫽ excellent use of time).
For today’s job-related anxiety– comfort and job-related
depression– enthusiasm (measured as before), alpha coefficients
were .87 and .86, respectively. Task interdependence was assessed
by the same single item, and today’s overall job satisfaction was
measured by “Overall, I was satisfied with my job today,” with
five possible responses from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly
agree).
Perceived productivity for the current work day was examined
through two items: “My work-day today was productive” and “I
Figure 2. Two-way interaction of accomplishment striving (acc) and time
in meetings to predict job satisfaction in Study 2.
Table 4
Study 1 Moderated Regression Results Involving Accomplishment Striving and Time in Meetings
Step and predictor Anxiety–comfort
Depression–
enthusiasm
Job
satisfaction
Intentions
to quit
Step 1
Country code ⫺.00 .01 .06 ⫺.05
Organization size ⫺.06 ⫺.08* ⫺.09* .03
Gender ⫺.13* ⫺.07* ⫺.09* .10*
Supervise others ⫺.03 .04 .01 ⫺.03
Total R
2
.02* .01* .02* .01*
Step 2
Time in meetings ⫺.07 .11* .00 ⫺.00
Accomplishment striving .06 .25* .26* ⫺.19*
Total R
2
.03* .08* .09* .05*
⌬R
2
.01* .07* .08* .04*
Step 3
Time in Meetings ⫻ Accomplishment Striving ⫺.09* ⫺.09* ⫺.10* .08*
Total R
2
.03* .09* .10* .06*
⌬R
2
.01* .01* .01* .01*
Note. The standardized regression coefficients presented are those derived at the third step.
* p ⬍ .05, one-tailed.
Table 5
Study 1 Moderated Regression Results Involving
Accomplishment Striving and Time in Meetings
Step and predictor
Depression–
enthusiasm
Intentions
to quit
Step 1
Country code .00 ⫺.05
Organization size ⫺.09* .03
Gender ⫺.07 .10*
Supervise others .03 ⫺.03
Total R
2
.01* .01
Step 2
No. of meetings .14* .00
Accomplishment striving .25* ⫺.19*
Total R
2
.10* .05*
⌬R
2
.09* .04*
Step 3
No. of Meetings ⫻ Accomplishment
Striving ⫺.07* .08*
Total R
2
.10* .06*
⌬R
2
.00* .01*
Note. The standardized regression coefficients presented are those de-
rived at the third step.
* p ⬍ .05, one-tailed.
90
ROGELBERG, LEACH, WARR, AND BURNFIELD
got a lot done today at work.” The same 5-point response contin-
uum was provided, and the alpha coefficient was .92.
One’s accomplishment striving, individualistic orientation, and
meeting self-confidence in general were measured with the same
items as in Study 1. Alpha coefficients of internal consistency were
.77, .78, and .92, respectively.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the
principal variables examined in Study 2 are displayed in Table 6.
Meeting time demands. In total, 219 respondents attended one
meeting in their work day, 58 attended two meetings, 19 attended
three meetings, and 8 respondents had four meetings in their work
day. Supervisors, t(301) ⫽ 4.23, p ⬍ .05, had more meetings (M ⫽
1.55, SD ⫽ 0.84) than nonsupervisors (M ⫽ 1.21, SD ⫽ 0.52).
Men (M ⫽ 1.70, SD ⫽ 0.90) had more ( p ⬍ .05) meetings than
women (M ⫽ 1.27, SD ⫽ 0.60). Reported task interdependence in
one’s job was positively related to the number of meetings at-
tended today (r ⫽ .20, p ⬍ .05) and time spent in meetings (r ⫽
.15, p ⬍ .05). These three significant predictors, when collectively
regressed on today’s number, remained independently significant
( p ⬍ .05) and collectively accounted for a moderate proportion of
variance (adjusted R
2
⫽ .13, p ⬍ .05).
As with the more extended time perspective of Study 1, the
relationship between today’s time and number of meetings is
strongly positive (r ⫽ .67, p ⬍ .05). Today’s meeting time was
significantly ( p ⬍ .05) related to supervisory status, gender, and
task interdependence. These three significant predictors, when
collectively regressed on today’s time, remained independently
significant ( p ⬍ .05) and collectively accounted for a moderate
proportion of variance (adjusted R
2
⫽ .11, p ⬍ .05). The small
correlation of today’s meeting time with organizational size dissi-
pated after controlling for the other significant demographic indi-
cators. The pattern of results using number of meetings as the
criterion variable was nearly identical to the above.
Neither indicator of today’s meeting time demands (time or
number) was correlated with any indicator of JAWB, except for
time and job-related comfort (r ⫽ –.11, p ⬍ .05). No curvilinear
relationships (quadratic or cubic) were found.
Testing the hypotheses. As for Study 1, multiple regression
analyses were undertaken. Demographic variables were again con-
trolled, as was the country of each respondent. Given potential day
of week effects on JAWB (Egloff, Tausch, Kohlmann, & Krohne,
1995; Parkinson, Briner, Reynolds, & Totterdell, 1995), day of
survey completion was also controlled. To conform with data
analytic assumptions, a square root transformation was applied to
the two measures of meeting time demands to reduce the signifi-
cant skew ( p ⬍ .05). When analyses were run without the trans-
formation, a nearly identical pattern of results emerged. Hypoth-
eses were tested using one-tailed tests of significance. The p ⬍ .05
convention was used to determine statistical significance.
When applicable, we plotted significant interaction effects using
procedures (plotting values ⫾ 1 SD) recommended by Aiken and
West (1991). To promote interpretability, we centered our primary
predictors prior to the creation of a cross-product term.
Task interdependence. Hypothesis 1 is that the relationship of
meeting time demands with JAWB will be moderated by task
interdependence. For both indicators of time demand, the interac-
tion beta weight (see Footnote 2) was not significant for any of the
outcome variables.
Perceived meeting effectiveness. Hypothesis 2a states that per-
ceived meeting effectiveness will moderate the relationship be-
tween meeting demands and JAWB. The interaction between
number of meetings and perceived meeting effectiveness was
significant ( p ⬍ .05) for today’s job-related comfort, job-related
enthusiasm, job satisfaction, and perceptions of productivity. See
Table 7 for a summary of the results. Each interaction plot revealed
the same basic pattern of results, as illustrated in Figure 3. It can
be seen that for individuals reporting high perceived meeting
effectiveness, a positive relationship is present between meeting
time demands and job satisfaction but that for individuals reporting
lower perceived meeting effectiveness, a negative relationship
exists.
Similar, but weaker, results were found for amount of time in
meetings today. The interaction with perceived meeting effective-
ness was significant ( p ⬍ .05) for the job-related comfort index,
the job-related enthusiasm index, and perceptions of productivity
but not for the job satisfaction index. See Table 8 for a summary
Table 6
Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
Variable MSD 12 3 45 6 7891011
1. Time 5.71 5.34 —
2. Number
a
1.39 0.72 .67** —
3. Task interdependence 2.51 1.21 .15** .20** —
4. Meeting effectiveness
b
3.79 0.91 .01 .02 ⫺.06 —
5. Accomplishment striving 4.00 0.66 .15** .03 ⫺.16** .25** —
6. Individual orientation 3.37 0.96 ⫺.12* ⫺.13* ⫺.26** ⫺.12* .20** —
7. Meeting confidence 3.62 0.86 .16** .17** ⫺.12** .17** .37** ⫺.04 —
8. Anxiety–comfort 3.43 0.92 ⫺.11* ⫺.11 ⫺.16** .25** .15** ⫺.17** .23** —
9. Depression–enthusiasm 3.77 0.85 .05 ⫺.04 ⫺.07 .48** .36** ⫺.21 .29** .63** —
10. Job satisfaction 3.76 1.05 .03 ⫺.04 ⫺.17** .39** .46** .02 .38** .42** .64** —
11. Perceived productivity 3.79 0.96 .04 ⫺.06 ⫺.15** .30** .46** .05 .42** .35** .54** .85** —
Note. N ⫽ 455–479.
a
N ⫽ 300–304.
b
N ⫽ 378–381.
* p ⬍ .05, two-tailed. ** p ⬍ .01, two-tailed.
91
MEETING TIME DEMANDS
of the results. Each interaction plot revealed the same basic pattern
of results, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Hypothesis 2b suggests that perceived meeting effectiveness
will be positively related to JAWB, and this was found to be the
case. JAWB measures were regressed (one at a time) on perceived
meeting effectiveness (controlling for number of meetings at-
tended, country source, day of week, gender, supervisory status,
and organizational size).
Beta weights associated with perceived meeting effectiveness
were positively ( p ⬍ .05) related to job-related comfort (⌬R
2
⫽
.07), enthusiasm (⌬R
2
⫽ .23), job satisfaction (⌬R
2
⫽ .20), and
perceived productivity (⌬R
2
⫽ .11). Nearly identical results were
found when time in meetings was controlled for instead of number
of meetings.
Personal characteristics. Hypothesis 3 (that the relationship
between meeting demands and JAWB will be moderated by ac-
Table 7
Study 2 Moderated Regression Results Involving Perceived Meeting Effectiveness
and Number of Meetings
Step and predictor Anxiety–comfort
Depression–
enthusiasm
Job
satisfaction Productive
Step 1
Country Dummy Code 1 ⫺.05 ⫺.00 .00 .03
Country Dummy Code 2 ⫺.05 .02 ⫺.08 ⫺.13*
Day of week Dummy Code 1 ⫺.00 ⫺.03 ⫺.02 ⫺.04
Day of week Dummy Code 2 .10 .03 .03 .02
Day of week Dummy Code 3 .10 ⫺.07 ⫺.00 ⫺.03
Day of week Dummy Code 4 .03 ⫺.13* ⫺.12* ⫺.12
Gender .05 ⫺.04 .07 .04
Supervise others .14* .01 .10* .05
Total R
2
.05* .02 .05* .04
Step 2
No. of meetings ⫺.11* ⫺.08 .03 ⫺.02
Meeting effectiveness .31* .53* .50* .40
Total R
2
.13* .25* .24* .15*
⌬R
2
.08* .23* .19* .11*
Step 3
No. of Meetings ⫻ Meeting Effectiveness .14* .12* .15* .22*
Total R
2
.15* .26* .26* .19*
⌬R
2
.02* .01* .02* .04*
Note. The standardized regression coefficients presented are those derived at the third step.
* p ⬍ .05, one-tailed.
Figure 3. Two-way interaction of number (#) of meetings and perceived
meeting effectiveness (eff) to predict job satisfaction in Study 2.
Table 8
Study 2 Moderated Regression Results Involving Perceived
Meeting Effectiveness and Time in Meetings
Step and predictor
Anxiety–
comfort
Depression–
enthusiasm
Step 1
Country Dummy Code 1 ⫺.05 ⫺.00
Country Dummy Code 2 ⫺.05 .01
Day of week Dummy Code 1 ⫺.00 ⫺.03
Day of week Dummy Code 2 .10 .03
Day of week Dummy Code 3 .10 ⫺.06
Day of week Dummy Code 4 .02 ⫺.13*
Gender .05 .03
Supervise others .16* .02
Total R
2
.05 .02
Step 2
Time in meetings ⫺.15* ⫺.04
Meeting effectiveness .29* .51*
Total R
2
.14* .25*
⌬R
2
.09* .23*
Step 3
Time in Meetings ⫻ Meeting
Effectiveness .11* .13*
Total R
2
.15* .27*
⌬R
2
.01* .02*
Note. The standardized regression coefficients presented are those de-
rived at the third step.
* p ⬍ .05, one-tailed.
92
ROGELBERG, LEACH, WARR, AND BURNFIELD
complishment striving) was also examined for both operational
definitions of time demands. The interaction between accomplish-
ment striving and number of meetings was significant ( p ⬍ .05)
for the job-related enthusiasm index, job satisfaction, and per-
ceived productivity, but not for job-related comfort. See Table 9
for a summary of the results. Each interaction plot revealed the
same basic pattern of results, as illustrated in Figure 2. For indi-
viduals high in accomplishment striving, there was a negative
relationship between number of meetings today and JAWB, but for
those low in accomplishment striving, a positive relationship was
found. On the other hand, for time spent in meetings today, this
interaction was not significant for any of the outcome variables.
Hypothesis 4 suggests that the association between meeting time
demands and JAWB will be moderated by individualistic orienta-
tion. For both indicators of today’s meeting time demands, the
interaction was nonsignificant for any of the indicators of JAWB.
The same null result was obtained for Hypothesis 5 (that the
relationship between meeting time demands and JAWB will be
moderated by meeting self-confidence). Examination of Table 6
shows that, as in Study 1, meeting self-confidence was positively
correlated with each indicator of JAWB ( p ⬍ .05).
Summary
The focus of Study 2 was on meeting time demands and their
correlates in a single day. The article’s theoretical hypotheses were
again partially supported. Perceived meeting effectiveness was
found to moderate the relationship between both indices of meet-
ing time demands and JAWB. For instance, a strong and positive
relationship between number of meetings today and job-related
comfort occurred when rated meeting effectiveness was high, but
a negative relationship was present when perceived effectiveness
was low. In addition, accomplishment striving moderated the
relationship of number of meetings today with JAWB and per-
ceived personal productivity. For instance, a negative relationship
between today’s meeting number and personal productivity was
found when accomplishment striving was high, but a positive
relationship was found when such striving was low. However, the
interaction between accomplishment striving and time in meetings
on JAWB was not significant, and no moderation effects were
found for task interdependence, individualistic orientation, and
self-confidence in meetings.
As expected, the findings show that meeting effectiveness has a
strong, direct relationship with JAWB, even after taking into
account the amount of time spent in meetings and the number of
meetings attended. In particular, across the analyses, meeting
effectiveness accounted for some 22%, 20%, and 10% of the
variance in job-related enthusiasm, job satisfaction, and reported
productivity, respectively.
General Discussion
These investigations of the conditions under which meeting time
demands impact JAWB provide both theoretical and practical
contributions to the scant empirical literature in this area. In two
studies, we tested the moderating effects of task interdependence,
accomplishment striving, individualistic orientation, confidence in
meetings, and perceived meeting effectiveness on the relationship
between meeting time demands and JAWB. In addition, the direct
effect of perceived meeting effectiveness was examined. In doing
so, we used two indices of time demands: how much time people
spend in meetings and how many meetings they attend.
These two indicators were examined from two perspectives. The
first considered attendance at meetings in a typical week relative to
general JAWB (Study 1), whereas the second time frame was more
specific, concerning the relationship between meetings today and
JAWB on that single day (Study 2). Across the studies, neither
indicator of meeting time demands was consistently related to the
outcome variables. Instead, differential relationships with JAWB
were found for three out of the five suggested moderators, namely,
task interdependence (Hypothesis 1), meeting experience quality
(Hypothesis 2), and accomplishment striving (Hypothesis 3). Mod-
erating results for accomplishment striving were consistent across
Studies 1 and 2. However, the pattern of other findings was
different in some respects across the studies. First, task interde-
pendence was found to moderate the relationship of meeting time
demands with JAWB in Study 1 but not in Study 2. Second,
meeting experience quality moderated
3
the relationship of time
demands with JAWB in Study 2 but not in Study 1.
The differential pattern of effects for task interdependence and
meeting quality may be seen to reflect the different perspectives of
the two studies (i.e., on either a typical week or today’s meetings).
Viewed in this way, task interdependence is a salient factor for
understanding the effects of typical meetings on more general
3
Given that perceived meeting effectiveness could be conceived as a
mediator, we ran some additional analyses. In neither study did perceived
effectiveness mediate the relationship between meeting time demands and
JAWB.
Table 9
Study 2 Moderated Regression Results Involving
Accomplishment Striving and Number of Meetings
Step and predictor
Depression–
enthusiasm
Job
satisfaction Productive
Step 1
Country Dummy Code 1 ⫺.04 ⫺.02 .01
Country Dummy Code 2 .04 ⫺.04 ⫺.09
Day of week Dummy Code 1 ⫺.06 ⫺.03 ⫺.05
Day of week Dummy Code 2 .02 .04 .04
Day of week Dummy Code 3 ⫺.03 .03 ⫺.00
Day of week Dummy Code 4 ⫺.11 ⫺.09 ⫺.09*
Gender ⫺.06 .03 ⫺.01
Supervise others .00 .07 .00
Total R
2
.02 .05* .04
Step 2
No. of meetings ⫺.09 ⫺.06 ⫺.05
Accomplishment striving .35* .47* .50*
Total R
2
.15* .27* .29*
⌬R
2
.13* .22* .25*
Step 3
No. of Meetings ⫻
Accomplishment Striving ⫺.13* ⫺.11* ⫺.09*
Total R
2
.16* .28* .30*
⌬R
2
.02* .01* .01*
Note. The standardized regression coefficients presented are those de-
rived at the third step.
* p ⬍ .05, one-tailed.
93
MEETING TIME DEMANDS
JAWB but less important when considered for the meetings of a
single day. In other words, the interruption effect of meetings for
individuals who work independently of others is evident over the
longer, rather than the shorter, term. In contrast, perceived meeting
effectiveness has a more apparent short-term effect, being useful
for understanding the impact of meetings on how people feel at the
end of a day.
Assessment of meeting effectiveness for one particular day’s
meetings is likely to be more descriptive of actual events than is
perceived meeting effectiveness for a typical week, which may
draw on broad recollections and possible invalid generalizations.
Although not a diary study, by examining meetings in a single day
and JAWB at the end of the day, Study 2 shares one advantage of
diary studies in that it reduces retrospective bias by capturing
experience close to the time of occurrence (Stone, Shiffman,
Schwartz, Brodereick, & Hufford, 2003). Taken together, this
finding demonstrates the value of conducting research on the daily
level of analysis as a complement to research using a more ex-
tended frame of reference; a short- and long-term measurement
perspective can be differentially relevant for understanding some
processes.
Another issue of note concerns the operational definition of
meeting time demands. Overall, our findings suggest that either
index of meeting time demands is appropriate for understanding
stable JAWB as a function of meeting attendance, although the
effects are not identical for the two indices. The pattern of findings
for Study 2 indicates that number of prescheduled meetings at-
tended today is more closely associated with JAWB than is time
spent in meetings. Furthermore, taking into account effects at both
p ⬍ .05 and p ⬍ .10, number of meetings is more frequently
related to JAWB across both studies. Such a pattern is consistent
with the interruptions framework on which both studies are based:
The number of meetings attended, rather than the length of each
meeting, will be most associated with task disruption, because of
the repeated disturbance of activity regulation and effort required
to incorporate many meetings.
Particularly robust was the moderating impact of accomplish-
ment striving. Across both studies, that personal characteristics
emerged as a key factor linking meeting time demands to JAWB,
and it is one to which the interruptions framework is particularly
relevant. For individuals with a strong desire to accomplish work
goals, meetings are arguably more of an interruption than for those
with a lower desire. It is intriguing, however, that a greater number
of meetings is associated with increased JAWB for those lower in
accomplishment striving. For those who are less goal oriented, our
findings highlight the possibility that some meetings may be
desired, for example, to permit social interaction or to provide
structure to an unstructured day.
Across the studies, no significant effects were found for meeting
self-confidence or individualistic orientation. It seems probable
that the relationship between self-confidence and JAWB might be
more complex than was originally hypothesized. Self-confidence
might play a key role when one is expected to lead or facilitate a
meeting but becomes less important when one is able merely to
observe in a passive manner. A finer grained analysis than is
possible here is required to learn about such patterns. A similar line
of reasoning can also be applied to individualistic orientation:
Some types of meetings do not require individuals to work to-
gether on a task (e.g., those that primarily involve information
dissemination), whereas others (e.g., joint problem solving) pose
more collective requirements. The latter type of meeting would
presumably be more troublesome for participants of an individu-
alistic disposition, whereas this aspect of personality is irrelevant
in meetings that require no interdependent working. A more in-
depth empirical investigation of specific meeting types is required
to test for differentiated patterns of that kind.
Finally, despite our effect sizes being fairly typical in multivar-
iate moderator analyses, we posit that our findings are actually
conservative estimates of the interruptive potential of meetings.
Specifically, meetings that are scheduled in advance should have
less of a negative effect than unscheduled meetings (i.e., less likely
to be an interruption; less likely to hinder goal activity) because (a)
a worker can arrange his or her schedule to take the meeting into
account, and (b) the worker can plan to make good use of the
meeting time. Unscheduled meetings, on the other hand, are more
likely to strongly disrupt activities. In fact, it may be the case that
for unscheduled meetings a main effect relationship may be found
such that the frequency of unscheduled meeting is negatively
related to JAWB. However, assessing unscheduled meetings is not
without challenge. They are more difficult to define (e.g., Do
informal stop-in-the-hallway meetings count as a meeting?) and
thus count objectively compared with prescheduled meetings.
The findings have both conceptual and practical implications.
This study provides support for our conceptual stance on meetings
as a form of interruption, with negative effects on certain individ-
uals. This perspective, as far as we are aware, has not previously
been incorporated into the meetings literature. Follow-up research,
building on the interruptions framework, is now warranted. For
example, future research should examine the actual mechanisms
through which meetings influence well-being and how meeting
time demands actually translate to or function as perceived or real
interruptions (e.g., how meetings impact activity regulation and
cognitive effort).
In terms of practical implications, two issues are important. The
first concerns the assessed effectiveness of meetings and factors
related to it. Across the studies, perceived meeting effectiveness
was a strong predictor of JAWB and was found to moderate the
relationship of today’s meeting time demands with JAWB (Study
2). Trade literature (e.g., Streibel, 2003) argues that perceptions of
meeting effectiveness would appear to be promoted to the extent
that people come prepared to meetings, an agenda is used, meet-
ings are punctual (start and end on time), purposes are clear, and
there is widespread attendee participation. We recommend that
organizations include such factors in good-practice guidelines for
the conduct of their meetings.
To understand components of overall job attitudes, one should
consider the principal tasks–activities in which employees are
required to spend large amounts of time (Taber & Alliger, 1995).
Given the organizational reliance on meetings, meeting attendance
is a task whose evaluation should often be examined. Our data
suggest that these affective reactions figure prominently in an
employee’s general JAWB. Taken together, organizations should
consider assessing perceived meeting effectiveness in surveys of
employee satisfaction.
Although a large number of people took part in this research and
our hypotheses of meeting time demands and JAWB were tested
from two partially contrasting perspectives, the present studies
have limitations. The first concerns the fact that they were cross-
94
ROGELBERG, LEACH, WARR, AND BURNFIELD
sectional in design. Although the findings are consistent with
several predictions, they provide a limited basis for establishing
causality. Nevertheless, cross-sectional investigations are particu-
larly appropriate in undeveloped research domains, where identi-
fication of interrelationships and the development of conceptual
frameworks are still needed. In addition, longitudinal within-
person designs are required in order to examine the relationship
between meeting experiences and effects over time. For example,
how do individuals feel on days where meeting time demands are
greater or less than what is usual for that person, more or less
effective than usual, use more or less appropriate structures, and so
forth? Another longitudinal possibility is to collect reports of
JAWB in the morning and end of the work day, then determine if
meeting variables during that day predict change in affect.
In addition to further examination of our nonsignificant findings
in more detailed research conditions, there is much scope to
develop the present framework of moderator variables. For in-
stance, the perceived dullness of one’s job could be examined as a
moderator: For those who feel that their work is tedious, meetings
may be perceived as a welcome interruption, as they provide an
opportunity for social interaction. Furthermore, consistent with Jett
and George’s (2003) interruptions typology, interruptions (in this
case, meetings) may be detrimental to the person being interrupted
to the extent that they result in (a) insufficient time to perform
time-sensitive tasks, (b) stress or anxiety associated with feelings
of increased time pressure, and/or (c) a disruption of a person’s
focused attention on a task. Future research should examine the
role of time pressure in current task activities and incongruity with
meeting context to explore this notion further.
Anecdotally, it is not uncommon to hear claims that meetings
are a “waste of time,” an “impediment,” and so forth. It is inter-
esting to note that participants’ data do not appear to support these
claims. The observed average scores for perceived meeting effec-
tiveness are above the scale midpoint. Furthermore, if meetings
were perceived as generally undesirable, a negative correlation
between meeting time demands and JAWB would have been
found. It was not. Future research should examine how far an
individual’s public claims about meetings are consistent with his
or her private response. It may be socially unacceptable to publicly
claim that meetings are desirable. Instead, a social norm to com-
plain about meetings may exist—not doing so could reflect poorly
on the employee.
There is a need to carry out more focused studies in terms of
sample selection. Findings from the present studies are likely to be
generalizable, as both samples extend across occupational posi-
tions and organizational types. However, it would be worthwhile
to examine whether the same pattern of findings is evident for
specific groups of employees (e.g., junior managers who work for
the same employer) to assess whether (and, if so, how) unique
contextual factors affect meeting experiences and outcomes.
Most important, future research should incorporate meeting-
level variables. Meetings differ among themselves in several ways.
The typology suggested by Schwartzman (1986) distinguished
primarily between those that are scheduled or planned in advance
and others that are chance or spontaneous happenings. Many
employees experience meetings of both kinds. It is important to
investigate separately the two kinds of event and to seek to account
for key processes in terms that are distinct from each other (al-
though some themes are of course common to both). Likewise,
there is a need to examine the impact of different meeting types on
JAWB. Future studies could test, for example, whether specific
types have a stronger relationship with JAWB than others and
whether the moderation effect of accomplishment striving or other
variables is equivalent for all types of meeting. In addition to
meeting type, focused studies could examine an individual’s role
in the meeting (e.g., did he or she call the meeting?), whether
meeting attendance was voluntary, and how confident and com-
fortable was the individual with the meetings he or she attended in
a particular day. These factors may all relate to how meetings
impact well-being. It is important that the interdependence con-
struct be assessed at a more microlevel to determine how closely
each meeting was aligned with the person’s individual job respon-
sibilities and ongoing work activities for that day. According to an
interruptions framework, this focused assessment is likely to yield
more robust findings and will more directly test the claims of
Gillie and Broadbent (1989) that the nature of the interrupting
activity, in particular its similarity to the main task, is more
important than just the fact that an interruption occurs.
In general, our goal was to examine meeting demands and
meeting experiences to seek its relationship to JAWB. It was not
our aim to conclude that meetings are either effective or ineffective
(both types obviously exist). Rather, our research attempted to
uncover broad, macroissues of importance in addition to establish-
ing the meeting as a viable research topic in and of itself. By
building on our proposed framework and findings, we hope that
future studies will further elucidate the conditions under which
work meetings can maximally benefit both employees and the
organization.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Holt.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and
job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among
sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51.
Bluedorn, A. C., Turban, D. B., & Love, M. S. (1999). The effects of
stand-up and sit-down meeting formats on meeting outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 277–285.
Bontempo, R., Lobel, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1990). Compliance and value
internalization in Brazil and the U.S.: Effects of allocentrism and ano-
nymity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 200 –213.
Burnfield, J. L., Rogelberg, S. G., Leach, D. J., & Warr, P. (2003). Building
a solid foundation for Internet research: An international case study.
Journal of e-Commerce and Psychology, 3(3 & 4), 89 –103.
Butterfield, E. C. (1964). The interruption of tasks: Methodological, fac-
tual, and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 62, 309–322.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive
and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97,
19 –35.
Caspi, A., Bolger, N., & Eckenrode, J. (1987). Linking person and context
in the daily stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 52, 184–195.
Egloff, B., Tausch, A., Kohlmann, C.-W., & Krohne, H. W. (1995).
Relationships between time of day, day of the week, and positive mood:
Exploring the role of the mood measure. Motivation & Emotion, 19,
99 –110.
Fisher, C. D., & Noble, C. S. (2004). A within-person examination of
95
MEETING TIME DEMANDS
correlates of performance and emotions while working. Human Perfor-
mance, 17, 145–168.
Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. E. (1989). What makes interruptions disrup-
tive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Re-
search, 50, 243–250.
Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the
role of interruptions in organizational life. Academy of Management
Review, 28, 494–507.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communi-
cation technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 52, 96–123.
Kirmeyer, S. L. (1988). Coping with competing demands: Interruption and
the Type A pattern. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 621– 629.
Kuhlman, D. M., & Marshello, A. (1975). Individual differences in game
motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategic effects in prison-
er’s dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 69 – 81.
Lee, L., & Ward, C. (1998). Ethnicity, idiocentrism-allocentrism, and
intergroup attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 109 –
123.
Loether, H. J., & McTavish, D. G. (1988). Descriptive and inferential
statistics: An introduction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
McClintock, C. G., & Liebrand, W. B. G. (1988). The role of interdepen-
dence structure, individual value orientation, and other’s strategy in
social decision making: A transformational analysis. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 55, 396 – 409.
Mosvick, R., & Nelson, R. (1987). We’ve got to stop meeting like this! A
guide to successful business meeting management. Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
Mullarkey, S., Wall, T. D., Warr, P. B., Clegg, C. W., & Stride, C. B.
(Eds.). (1999). Measures of job satisfaction, mental health and job-
related well-being: A bench-marking manual. Sheffield, England: Shef-
field Academic Press.
Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influences on
individual behavior and attitudes in organizations. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 56 –90.
Parkinson, P. B., Briner, R. B., Reynolds, S., & Totterdell, P. (1995). Time
frames for mood: Relations between momentary and generalized ratings
of affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 331–339.
Parra, L. F. (1995). Development of an intention to quit scale. Unpublished
manuscript, Bowling Green State University.
Rawlins, C. (1990). The impact of teleconferencing on leadership of small
decision-making groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-
ment, 10, 37–52.
Rogelberg, S. G., & Brooks-Laber, M. E. (2002). Securing our collective
future: Challenges facing those designing and doing research in indus-
trial and organizational psychology. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook
of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (pp.
479 – 485). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Schwartzman, H. B. (1986). The meeting as a neglected social form in
organizational studies. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Re-
search in organizational behavior (pp. 233–258). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Hufford,
M. R. (2003). Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries.
Controlled Clinical Trials, 24, 182–199.
Streibel, B. J. (2003). The manager’s guide to effective meetings. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Multivariate data analysis (4th
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Taber, T. D., & Alliger, G. M. (1995). A task-level assessment of job
satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 101–121.
Tobia, P. M., & Becker, M. C. (1990). Making the most of meeting time.
Training and Development Journal, 44, 34 –38.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N.
(1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on
self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 54, 323–338.
Volkema, R. J., & Niederman, F. (1995). Organizational meetings: Formats
and information requirements. Small Group Research, 26, 3–24.
Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism– collectivism: Effects on
cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152–172.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job
satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 247–252.
Warr, P. B. (1990). The measurement of well-being and other aspects of
mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 193–210.
Zijlstra, F. R., Roe, R. A., Leonora, A. B., & Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal
factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 163–185.
Zohar, D. (1999). When things go wrong: The effect of daily work hassles
on effort, exertion, and negative mood. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 265–283.
Received September 8, 2004
Revision received January 5, 2005
Accepted January 24, 2005 䡲
96
ROGELBERG, LEACH, WARR, AND BURNFIELD
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Applied Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.