See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316757177

A brief overview of literature on meetings

Research · May 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35947.95527

CITATIONS READS
0 1,859

1 author:

Mitchell Friedman
Naval Postgraduate School
13 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mitchell Friedman on 08 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

MEETINGS 1

A Brief Overview of Literature on Meetings

Mitchell Friedman

University of San Francisco

friedman@usfca.edu, +1-415-517-5756
MEETINGS 2

Meetings are pervasive in organizations, with an estimated 11 million held in the U.S.

every day (Allen, Rogelberg, & Scott, 2008). Defined as planned gatherings of three or more

people who join together to address a group or organizational function, meetings play a vital role

in coordinating and managing organizational activities (Jarzabkowski & Seidl, 2008; Volkema &

Niederman, 1996). The importance and ubiquity of meetings have inspired a plethora of

nonempirical publications that aim to offer user-friendly information for time-pressed

professionals charged with planning, conducting, and participating in them. These publications

include chapters in higher education textbooks (e.g., Bell & Smith, 2006; Munter, 2006), mass-

market works devoted solely to meetings (e.g., Frank, 1989), and articles in trade and

professional literature (e.g., Francisco, 2007).

Drawing both on this literature and peer-reviewed articles published from the 1950s

through the 1980s, researchers recently have attempted to further understanding of meetings by

exploring them from diverse perspectives including setting or purpose (Carrington & Johed,

2007; Christiansen & Varnes, 2008; Riehl, 1998); small-group dynamics (Kloppenborg &

Petrick, 1999); meeting processes, which encompasses roles, functions, communications, and the

use of technology for support (Niederman & Volkema, 1999; Rienks, Nijholt, & Barthelemess,

2009; Volkema & Niederman, 1996); impact on employees (Luong & Rogelberg, 2005;

Rogelberg, Leach, Warr, & Burnfield, 2006); and connection to wider organizational activities

(Jarzabkowski & Seidl, 2008). This paper will focus on the latter three areas as they offer the

greatest potential for melding the writer’s professional experience in organizational and

interpersonal communications with his budding research interests. Perhaps more important, this

selection illustrates the potential for a vibrant meetings research that also could resonate with

scholars investigating broader organizational issues.

MEETINGS 3

Meeting Processes

Introduction

Meetings often are criticized as inefficient because a third of their time is wasted

(Elsayed-Elkhouly, Lazarus, & Forsythe, 1997). Authors of nonempirical works speculate if

anything can be done to make meetings better and to that end offer guidance on agendas,

minutes, follow up on decisions, and other issues (Lee, 2008; Levasseur, 1992). Concurrently,

the quest to improve meeting functioning by looking at advance planning, communication,

facilitation, and other processes has emerged as a theme in peer-reviewed literature. Two articles

considered here illuminate common challenges faced by researchers in this area.

Oral and Written Communications in Meetings

Volkema and Niederman (1996) aim to bridge the gulf between normative models on the

use of meeting tools and practices and actual meeting operations. To this end, the researchers

address three topics: the extent to which primary meeting planning/management tools and

information technologies are used in regularly scheduled meetings; the control and distribution

of such tools; and how the use of these tools relates to meeting management.

Volkema and Niederman (1996) apply descriptive statistical methods to data collected

during the observation of regularly scheduled meetings held by 35 groups at diverse

organizations. In response to the first research topic, the vast majority of groups employed at

least one meeting management tool. Agendas and documents distributed during the meeting

proved most popular, meeting evaluation the least. Meetings were more likely to start and end on

time when documents were distributed in advance, an agenda was used, or minutes were taken.

Regarding the second research topic, the majority of groups sent an announcement, agenda, or

other document to participants in advance of the meeting although agendas offered so little detail
MEETINGS 4

that they mainly served to encourage timely attendance. The use of alternative media and other

technologies was largely absent. In terms of the third research topic, data did not show

significant relationships between meeting planning or management tools and meeting attendance,

participation, or assignments. These tools by themselves seemingly had more impact on reducing

meeting length than with encouraging member participation. The positive relationship between

the timing of such document distribution prior to the meeting and participation, however,

suggests a means of encouraging ongoing, active engagement in discussions.

The results of this field study generally support the findings of limited previous empirical

research on the prevalence of written and oral communications in meetings, with Volkema &

Niederman (1996) considering their study as a step towards building an empirically based theory

of organizational meetings. In addition, they anticipate their findings will have practical

implications for group facilitators using written documents in meetings management as well as

for designers of computer-based meeting support systems who can highlight the addition of text-

based communications to oral communications used for in-group activities.

The researchers acknowledge the limitations of using a single researcher-observer

focused on specific variables, not to mention the difficulties they consider inherent in attempting

to measure outcomes such as productivity or performance in field studies. Given their intent to

observe actual meetings, the latter challenge seems unavoidable and illustrative of the need for a

steady stream of field and laboratory-based studies that each can contribute to the understanding

of meeting practices discussed in nonempirical literature. To this end, Volkema & Niederman

(1996) suggest subsequent studies to include additional process variables and potential linkages

to meeting outcomes, as well as to explore use of agendas and minutes as detailed investigation

of these documents remained largely outside the focus of their study.

MEETINGS 5

The Use of Technology: Pro-Active Meeting Assistants

Rienks et al. (2009) argue that meeting inefficiency has fueled 30 years of research on the

use of technology for support. They maintain that technology-enabled processes positively

impact meeting performance by saving money and time as well as creating new opportunities. In

support of this thesis, Rienks et al. divide their article into two parts: a review of the literature on

how technology might be incorporated into pro-active meeting assistants that aid participants and

act autonomously, and a simulation of several forms of such meeting assistants.

Research on meetings assistants presented here highlights the diverse considerations that

need to be incorporated into their design and functioning. Different virtual assistants need to

contribute to informational, social, and/or organizational goals in meetings. Such agents can

provide assistance before, during, and after meetings by greeting attendees, scheduling, choosing

the chair based on personalities of participants, providing content, and determining what

information should be captured and shared with others, among other functions. While Rienks et

al. (2009) consider individual and social aspects of meetings absent from Volkema &

Niederman’s (1996) research, they nonetheless recognize the inherent difficulties involved in

integrating the complex constellation of meeting roles and dynamics into a meeting assistant that

could carry out one or more of the aforementioned functions.

Rienks et al. (2009) also address the special challenges associated with designing a

meeting assistant to manage conflict, a task that has bedeviled meeting facilitators and attracted

attention from researchers as well (see Niederman & Volkema, 1999). Despite difficulties in

identifying conflict types and corresponding resolution strategies, they speculate that this type of

meeting assistant offers promise for suggesting best-known solutions to avoid or limit conflicts

and thus can contribute to more efficient meetings.

MEETINGS 6

The article concludes with a summary of experiments exploring whether and in what

form meetings assistants can help to achieve more efficient meetings. One system called Second

Messenger successfully encouraged quiet group members to contribute more frequently while

concurrently decreasing contributions from dominant members. The researchers also describe a

laboratory experiment involving two groups, with one using an assistant in the form of a

simulated Wizard of Oz technique where a human being controls system behavior remotely.

Meanwhile, meeting participants believe they are interacting with the system. Such meetings

lasted on average 57% longer than had actually been planned when no system was used,

suggesting using assistants can shorten meeting length. That said, Rienks et al. (2009) admit

their effort warrants considerable additional research with larger sample sizes studied over longer

time periods. Moreover, despite the researchers’ desire to highlight the potential for ambient

intelligent systems to blend seamlessly into users’ work practices, future research also needs to

consider more closely the interaction between technology, employee productivity, and meeting

satisfaction in light of other work suggesting that users dissatisfied with meeting technologies

may discontinue using them despite demonstrable benefits (Briggs, Reinig, & de Vreede, 2006).

In short, Rienks et al. (2009) highlight critical issues involved in the conduct of meetings,

the potential for meeting assistants to address them, difficulties involved in creating workable

technology, and the complexities of investigating the relationship between meeting processes and

efficiency. Their insight into meeting mechanics promises to guide ongoing scholarly work on

melding meeting support and technology despite offering few practical benefits to individuals

grappling with participating and managing meetings bereft of such assistance. Finally, the

researchers highlight the value of laboratory-based research on meetings when field studies are

neither practical nor possible.

MEETINGS 7

Impact of Meetings on Employees

Introduction

In addition to bemoaning meetings as inefficient, writers often argue that meetings waste

time as they divert attention from key responsibilities and negatively impact worker morale

(Rogelberg et al., 2006). The apparent surge in frequency and length of meetings thus would

seem to have an impact on individual workers, albeit an indeterminate one given limited research

on this topic (Luong & Rogelberg, 2005). Rogelberg et al. aim to address this gap in the

literature, in turn illuminating the relationship between time demands of meetings (also referred

to as meeting load) and employee well-being. Their effort reflects a second theme in the

meetings literature that analyzes their impact on participants, a consideration largely excluded

from articles exploring meeting processes.

Meeting Time Demands and Employee Well-Being

Drawing on research and theory on work interruptions, Rogelberg et al. (2006) consider

meetings a form of interruption that disrupt and aid goal achievement. Time spent in meetings

thus does not by itself impact overall job attitudes and well-being (JAWB). Instead, the

researchers predict that the relationship between meeting time demands (i.e., how much time

employees spend in meetings and how many meetings they attend) and JAWB will be moderated

by task interdependence (i.e., the extent to which employees work alone or with others),

accomplishment striving (i.e., intention to accomplish tasks), individualistic orientation (i.e.,

propensity to rely on oneself rather than others), confidence in meetings (i.e., judgment of one’s

ability to function effectively), and perceived meeting effectiveness (i.e., inherent value attached

to the experience). More specifically, meeting time demands will relate positively to JAWB for
MEETINGS 8

some and negatively for others. The researchers also believe that perceived meeting

effectiveness would relate directly to JAWB.

The first of the researchers’ two Internet-based studies surveyed full-time employees

regarding their participation in meetings during one week, and concluded that when employees

have high task interdependence a positive, strong relationship exists between time in meetings

and job satisfaction. Perceived meeting effectiveness was positively associated with JAWB in

this study. The second study examined time demands and JAWB for one day. Perceived

meeting effectiveness was found to moderate the relationship between meeting time demands

and JAWB, with a strong and positive relationship between the number of meetings and job-

related comfort when effectiveness was high.

These findings support Rogelberg et al. (2006)’s concept of meetings as interruptions,

with negative and positive impacts on individuals. Accomplishment striving and meeting

effectiveness loom especially large in this study. Employees less interested in achieving goals

desired more meetings to socialize or structure their day, and so were less likely to view

meetings as negative interruptions than employees with a strong desire to achieve goals. The

importance of meeting effectiveness for JAWB regardless of time spent in meetings or number

attended argues for advance preparation, an agenda with clear a purpose, start and end times, and

the use of other meeting tools and documents discussed in the literature on meeting processes.

Rogelberg et al.’s (2006) data does not support claims that meetings are a waste of time

or an impediment to productivity in organizations. Nor does it offer insight into meeting

effectiveness. Using one day and one-week timeframes for the two studies, moreover, limits

generalizability of results. That said, the focus on meeting demands as distinct from meeting

processes and their relationship to employee well-being represents an important contribution to

MEETINGS 9

peer-reviewed meetings literature that begs for additional investigation incorporating different

job-related variables observed over longer timeframes.

Relationship of Meetings to Organizational Activities

Introduction

The effects of meetings upon host organizations remain a relatively unexplored topic,

despite their conspicuousness in domains such as strategy formation where they serve as focal

points of activity. Drawing on Hendry & Seidl’s (2003) concept of strategic episodes as

sequences of events marked by beginnings and pre-defined endings, Jarzabkowski & Seidl

(2008) analyze meeting initiation, conduct, and termination to assess the impact of meetings on

the flow of strategy activity within organizations. In the process, they demonstrate how meeting

characteristics contribute to the maintenance or changing of organizational structures and goals.

Strategy Meetings and Their Role in the Organization

Based on an analysis of meeting data collected during a longitudinal study of 51 strategy

meetings held in three universities over a seven-year period, Jarzabkowski & Seidl (2008)

develop a three-stage path that explains how meeting processes were associated with emergence

of proposals for change in strategy, the capacity for these proposals to be maintained and

developed, and the implications for their abandonment or selection, with the latter action

culminating in their adoption by the organization. Their results are presented in two sections:

characteristics of meetings and a taxonomy of meeting practices.

The researchers distinguish between three meeting phases and their potential for

stabilizing or destabilizing existing organizational strategy. The intiation of a strategy meeting

has three practices that establish meeting structure and authority: meeting location, setting the
MEETINGS 10

agenda, and chairing the meeting. Each practice is neither stabilizing nor destabilizing by itself

but nonetheless assumes symbolic importance as top managers use them to advance interests

relative to strategic orientations. Similarly, meeting chairs employ four discussion practices and

techniques to build bridges to other meetings that shape the evolution of organizational strategy.

The second section of this article builds on the aforementioned work by isolating distinct

paths through which variations to strategy were shaped by different combinations of meeting

practices employed over a series of meetings. The researchers conclude that 15 variations exist,

with 11 included in an empirically grounded taxonomy of meeting practices.

Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2008) conclude that specific meeting practices during distinct

phases contribute to either stabilizing or destabilizing strategic orientations. Stable meeting

practices contribute to change, moreover, as they represent an alteration of interaction among

participants so they may step outside existing frameworks and propose potential variations

(Hendry & Seidl, 2003). Individual meetings thus assume greater importance than suggested by

the research on processes or employee well-being, and cannot be studied in isolation as

developments typically unfold over a series of meetings. In short, meetings individually and

collectively have a vital organizational role given their potential for shaping stability and change.

Future research on strategy development promises to illuminate further this impact, in the

process refining the taxonomy through application in diverse settings.

Conclusion

The sheer volume of meetings in organizations by itself would seem to cry out for a

vigorous research agenda exploring their operations, impact, and overall organizational purposes.

The fact that references cited in these four articles reflect many years of observations about
MEETINGS 11

meeting inefficiency and the amount of time spent in meetings appears to lend further credence

to this perspective. Yet the researchers whose works are discussed here grapple openly with a

dearth of data. Volkema & Niederman (1996) and Rogelberg et al. (2006) cite a lack of empirical

studies on meetings in general, with the former also noting historical difficulties in gaining

access to meetings and supporting documents. Rogelberg et al. go so far as to stipulate that an

aim of their article is “to establish the meeting as a viable research topic in and of itself” (p. 95),

above and beyond investigating the impact of meetings on employee well-being.

While addressing these challenges, the researchers could very well usher in a new era in

research on meetings. Rogelberg et al. (2006) and Jarzabkowski and Seidl (2008) engage in

particularly promising avenues of inquiry by drawing on non-meetings literature for the

theoretical grounding and using methodologies that lend themselves to extension and application.

In the process, these articles touch on broader concerns with financial and practical importance

that could resonate significantly with researchers and practitioners alike. Likewise, Rienks et

al.’s (2009) effort augurs well for future research given the tantalizing potential for technology

use in meetings. That these researchers received government funding for their work points to

this ongoing interest. Volkema and Niederman (1996) tackle a topic long the focus of

nonempirical works and in the process offers a potential roadmap for future research. In short,

perhaps the key to energizing meetings research rests in melding meetings with broader

organizational concerns, theories from related fields, and methodological rigor. This

combination promises to benefit not just the understanding of meetings, but also contexts and

organizations in which they take place.

MEETINGS 12

References

Allen, J.A., Rogelberg, S.G., & Scott, J.C. (2008). Mind your meetings. Quality Progress, 41(4),
48-53.

Bell, A.H., & Smith, D.M. (2006). Management communication (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.

Briggs, R.O., Reinig, B.A, & de Vreede, G.J. (2006). Meeting satisfaction for technology-
supported groups: An empirical validation of a goal attainment model. Small Group
Research, 37(6), 585-611.

Carrington, T., & Johen, G. (2007). The construction of top management as a good steward: A
study of Swedish annual general meetings. Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability
Journal, 20(5), 702-728.

Elsayed-Elkhouly, S.M., Lazarus, H., & Forsythe, V. (1997). Why is a third of your time wasted
in meetings? Journal of Management Development, 16(9), 672-676.

Francisco, J.M. (2007). How to create and facilitate meetings that matter. Information
Management Journal, 41(6), 51-58.

Frank, M.O. (1989). How to run a successful meeting in half the time. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

Hendry, J., & Seidl, D. (2003). The structure and significance of strategic episodes: Social
systems theory and the routine practices of strategic change. Journal of Management
Studies, 40, 175-196.

Jarzabkowski, P. & Seidl, D. (2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy.
Organization Studies, 29(11), 1391-1426.

Kloppenborg, T.J., & Petrick, J.A. (1999). Meeting management and group character
development. Journal of Managerial Issues, 11(2), 166-179.

Lee, S.F. (2008). How should team meetings flow? R.A!R.A! approach as a meeting process.
The Journal for Quality and Participation, 31(1), 25-28.

Levasseur, R.E. (1992). People skills: What every professional should know about designing and
managing meetings. Interfaces, 22(2), 11-14.

Luong, A., & Rogelberg, S.G. (2005). Meetings and more meetings: The relationship between
meeting load and the daily well-being of employees. Group Dynamics, 9(1), 58-67.

Munter, M. (2006). Guide to managerial communication – effective business writing and

speaking (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
 MEETINGS 13

Niederman, F., & Volkema, R.J. (1999). The effects of facilitator characteristics on meeting
preparation, set up, and implementation. Small Group Research, 30(3), 330-360.

Riehl, C. (1998). We gather together: Work, discourse, and constitutive social action in
elementary school faculty meetings. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 91-
125.

Rienks, R., Nijholt, A., & Barthelmess, P. (2009). Pro-active meeting assistants: Attention
please! AI & Society, 23, 213-231.

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(1), 86-96.

Volkema, R.J., & Niederman, F. (1996). Planning and managing organizational meetings: An
empirical analysis of written and oral communications. Journal of Business
Communication, 33(3), 275-296.

View publication stats