Perceived Meeting Effectiveness: The Role of Design Characteristics
The aim of this investigation was to test hypotheses about meeting design characteristics (punctuality, chairperson, etc.) in relation to attendees’ perceptions of meeting effectiveness.
Two studies were conducted: Study 1 investigated meetings attended in a typical week (N = 958), whereas Study 2 examined the last meeting attended on a particular day (N = 292).
A number of design characteristics (in particular agenda use and quality of facilities) were found to be important in predicting perceived effectiveness. Attendee involvement served as a key mediator variable in the observed relationships. Neither meeting type nor size was found to affect the relationships of the design characteristics and involvement with effectiveness. Meeting size, however, was negatively related to attendee involvement.
The findings help us to better understand relationships between design characteristics and attendees’ perceptions of meeting effectiveness. Meeting organizers can use the findings to guide administration of meetings, with potential to enhance the quality of meetings.
Meetings are a common organizational activity but are rarely the focus of empirical research. The use of two complementary studies, to our knowledge, provides a unique account of the contribution of design characteristics to perceptions of meeting effectiveness.
KeywordsMeeting effectiveness Design characteristics Attendee involvement
- Bennett, R. J. (1998). Perceived powerlessness as a cause of employee deviance. In R. W. Griffin, A. O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Violent and deviant behavior. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Carlozzi, C. L. (1999). Make your meetings count. Journal of Accountancy, 187, 53–55.Google Scholar
- Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Kieffer, J. R. (1988). The strategy of meetings. New York: Warner.Google Scholar
- LaForce. (2004). Meeting time. www.team-creations.com.
- Schwartzman, H. B. (1986). The meeting as a neglected social form in organizational studies. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 233–258). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Sisco, R. (1993). What to teach team leaders. Training (New York, N.Y.), 62–67.Google Scholar
- Sobel, M. E. (1988). Direct and indirect effect in linear structural equation models. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common problems/proper solutions: Avoiding error in quantitative research (pp. 46–64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Spencer, J., & Pruss, A. (1992). Managing your team: How to organise people for maximum results. London: Piatkus.Google Scholar
- Tropman, J. E. (1996). Making meetings work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Waddell, W. C., & Rosko, T. A. (1993). Conducting an effective off-site meeting. Management Review (February), 40.Google Scholar