Perceived Meeting Effectiveness: The Role of Design Characteristics

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this investigation was to test hypotheses about meeting design characteristics (punctuality, chairperson, etc.) in relation to attendees’ perceptions of meeting effectiveness.

Design/Methodology/Approach

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).

Findings

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.

Implications

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.

Originality/Value

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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. www.team-creations.com.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Waddell, W. C., & Rosko, T. A. (1993). Conducting an effective off-site meeting. Management Review (February), 40.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Desmond J. Leach.

Additional information

Received and reviewed by former editor, George Neuman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leach, D.J., Rogelberg, S.G., Warr, P.B. et al. Perceived Meeting Effectiveness: The Role of Design Characteristics. J Bus Psychol 24, 65–76 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9092-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Meeting effectiveness
  • Design characteristics
  • Attendee involvement