Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 65–76 | Cite as

Perceived Meeting Effectiveness: The Role of Design Characteristics

  • Desmond J. LeachEmail author
  • Steven G. Rogelberg
  • Peter B. Warr
  • Jennifer L. Burnfield



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.


Meeting effectiveness Design characteristics Attendee involvement 


  1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01806.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlozzi, C. L. (1999). Make your meetings count. Journal of Accountancy, 187, 53–55.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Kieffer, J. R. (1988). The strategy of meetings. New York: Warner.Google Scholar
  7. LaForce. (2004). Meeting time.
  8. Nixon, C. T., & Littlepage, G. E. (1992). Impact of meeting procedures on meeting effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6, 361–369. doi: 10.1007/BF01126771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 86–96. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Sisco, R. (1993). What to teach team leaders. Training (New York, N.Y.), 62–67.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Spencer, J., & Pruss, A. (1992). Managing your team: How to organise people for maximum results. London: Piatkus.Google Scholar
  15. Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skilful than our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47, 143–148. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(81)90005-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tropman, J. E. (1996). Making meetings work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Volkema, R. J., & Niederman, F. (1995). Organizational meetings: Formats and information requirements. Small Group Research, 26, 3–24. doi: 10.1177/1046496495261001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Waddell, W. C., & Rosko, T. A. (1993). Conducting an effective off-site meeting. Management Review (February), 40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Desmond J. Leach
    • 1
    Email author
  • Steven G. Rogelberg
    • 2
  • Peter B. Warr
    • 3
  • Jennifer L. Burnfield
    • 4
  1. 1.Leeds University Business School, Maurice Keyworth BuildingThe University of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.University of North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City BoulevardCharlotteUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Work PsychologyUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  4. 4.Human Resources Research Organization (HumRRO)AlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations