Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality.

Steven G. Rogelberg · Joseph Andrew Allen · Alexandra Luong

146 citations0/0 files storedGroup Dynamics Theory Research and Practice

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Team Dynamics and Performance Conferences and Exhibitions Management Facilities and Workplace Management

Abstract

Meetings are a common tool in organizations and are used for a variety of purposes and implemented in a variety of ways. Despite the prevalence of meetings, surveys suggest that they are often unproductive and costly. The current study focused on how meetings are designed in hopes of providing practically and theoretically meaningful recommendations for improving meeting quality. A total of 18 design characteristics associated with staff/team meetings were identified and their relevance to perceptions of meeting quality was tested. Using an online panel-based respondent pool of working adults, 367 individuals participated in a survey that they completed within 48 hr of their most recent staff/team meeting. The results demonstrated that 9 of the design characteristics, spanning all 4 categories of design characteristics (i.e., temporal, physical, procedural, and attendee), significantly predicted perceptions of meeting quality. Furthermore, this study validated and greatly extended previous research showing that agenda use, meeting punctuality, facility quality, and meeting facilitator status relate to meeting quality. In addition, this study identified specific relationships to meeting quality for several facility quality characteristics, including lighting, meeting space, refreshments, and temperature, and expanded our knowledge of key characteristics by identifying agreement use and the number of attendees as important. Taken together, these findings suggest that effective meeting design warrants holistic attention to all meeting aspects. These results were robust across demographics, including organizational type, gender, and supervisory status. Implications for meeting design are discussed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 146 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.1980Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior 1977Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.2006Method Variance in Organizational Research 2010What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research 1984Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness 2006Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics 2005The Social Processes of Organizational Sensemaking

Cited by

2020Collaborating During Coronavirus: The Impact of COVID-19 on the Nature of Work 2018Do We Really Need Another Meeting? The Science of Workplace Meetings 2015Meetings at work: Perceived effectiveness and recommended improvements 2014Understanding workplace meetings 2016Meetings as a positive boost? How and when meeting satisfaction impacts employee empowerment

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.