Meetings Matter

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

[1]  F. Harary,et al.  STRUCTURAL BALANCE: A GENERALIZATION OF HEIDER'S THEORY1 , 1977 .

[2]  T. R. Featheringham,et al.  On systemic problem solving and the error of the third kind , 1974 .

[3]  R. A. Wicklund.  Objective Self-Awareness , 1975 .

[4]  J. Hackman,et al.  Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration , 1975 .

[5]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[6]  Donald C. Pelz,et al.  Innovation Complexity and the Sequence of Innovating Stages , 1985 .

[7]  William H. Glick,et al.  Conceptualizing and Measuring Organizational and Psychological Climate: Pitfalls in Multilevel Research , 1985 .

[8]  Janice R. Kelly,et al.  TEMPO: A Time-based System for Analysis of Group Interaction Process , 1989 .

[9]  W. Coward,et al.  Linearity of ability-performance relationships: A reconfirmation. , 1990 .

[10]  R. A. Cooke,et al.  The Impact of Group Interaction Styles on Problem-Solving Effectiveness , 1994 .

[11]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Efficacy-Performing Spirals: A Multilevel Perspective , 1995 .

[12]  Sabine Sonnentag,et al.  Excellent software professionals: experience, work activities, and perception by peers , 1995, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[13]  G. Stewart,et al.  Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. , 1997, The Journal of applied psychology.

[14]  D. Levine,et al.  A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. , 1999, Psychological review.

[15]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes , 2001 .

[16]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Integrating Knowledge in Groups: How Formal Interventions Enable Flexibility , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[17]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[18]  L. Dyer,et al.  Right from the Start: Exploring the Effects of Early Team Events on Subsequent Project Team Development and Performance , 2004 .

[19]  A. Luong,et al.  Meetings and More Meetings: The Relationship Between Meeting Load and the Daily Well-Being of Employees. , 2005 .

[20]  S. Rogelberg,et al.  "Not another meeting!" Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[21]  Simone Kauffeld,et al.  Self‐directed work groups and team competence , 2006 .

[22]  Albrecht Becker,et al.  Knowledge Management in Interaction: Transactive Knowledge Systems and the Management of Knowledge , 2006 .

[23]  P. Gollwitzer,et al.  Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes , 2006 .

[24]  M. Frese,et al.  Making Things Happen : Reciprocal Relationships between Work Characteristics and Personal Initiative ( PI ) in a Four-Wave Longitudinal Structural Equation Model , 2008 .

[25]  Roderick I. Swaab,et al.  The Pros and Cons of Dyadic Side Conversations in Small Groups , 2008 .

[26]  Tammy L. Rapp,et al.  Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future , 2008 .

[27]  Ronald F. Piccolo,et al.  A META‐ANALYSIS OF TEAMWORK PROCESSES: TESTS OF A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH TEAM EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA , 2008 .

[28]  Joachim Funke,et al.  Complex problem solving: a case for complex cognition? , 2010, Cognitive Processing.

[29]  Meikuan Huang,et al.  A Conceptual Framework of the Effects of Positive Affect and Affective Relationships on Group Knowledge Networks , 2009 .

[30]  J. Keyton,et al.  Perceiving Strategic Meeting Interaction , 2009 .

[31]  R. Meyers,et al.  Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions , 2009 .

[32]  Steven G. Rogelberg,et al.  Perceived Meeting Effectiveness: The Role of Design Characteristics , 2009 .

[33]  Marissa L. Shuffler,et al.  Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction , 2010 .

[34]  Udo Konradt,et al.  Two-Dimensional Structure of Team Process Improvement: Team Reflection and Team Adaptation , 2011 .

[35]  Simone Kauffeld,et al.  Verbal Interaction Sequences and Group Mood , 2011 .

[36]  Leslie A. DeChurch,et al.  Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. , 2009, The Journal of applied psychology.