Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:46:22.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Exploring Meeting Science

Key Questions and Answers

from Part I - Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2015

Joseph A. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Steven G. Rogelberg
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Get access

Summary

Abstract

As a relatively new field of scientific study, meeting science continues to generate many questions. For example, what is meeting science? Who are meeting scientists? What distinguishes meeting science from other related fields of inquiry? The purpose of this chapter is to address these commonly asked questions. In this chapter we review what meeting science is, discuss the nascent nature of the field, describe who meeting scientists are and what they do, and disentangle the relationship between meeting science and team science. To close, we outline directions for future research on meetings.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baltes, B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156179. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barge, J. K., & Keyton, J. (1994). Contextualizing power and social influence in groups. In Frey, L. R. (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. 85105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Boden, Deirdre. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Chaney, L. H., & Lyden, J. A. (1997). Employees' perceptions of impressions conveyed by selected aspects of business meetings. Proceeding of the Academy of Managerial Communications, 2, 1217.Google Scholar
Clifton, J., & Van de Miroop, D. (2010). “Doing” ethos – A discursive approach to the strategic deployment and negotiation of identities in meetings. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 24492461. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., & Luong, A. (2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 90104. doi: 10.1037/a0021549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 941. doi: 10.2307/256496Google Scholar
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 86107. doi: 10.2307/256901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130158. doi: 10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. A. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267294. doi: 10.1080/13594320701693209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Meyers, R. A., Kauffeld, S., Neininger, A., & Henschel, A. (2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of planning communication. Small Group Research, 42, 639668. doi: 10.1177/1046496411398397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, H. D. (1993). The cultural gap in long-term international work groups: A German-American case study. European Management Journal, 11, 93101. doi: http://dx.doi.org/0263–2373/93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newlund, D. (2012). Make your meetings worth everyone's time. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Business/2012–06–20-PNI0620biz-career-getting-aheadPNIBrd_ST_U.htmGoogle Scholar
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, 8396. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.91.1.83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogelberg, S. G., Shanock, L., & Scott, C. W. (2012). Wasted time and money in meetings: Increasing return on investment. Small Group Research, 43, 236245. doi: 10.1177/1046496411429170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, N. C., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Meetings as networks: Applying social network analysis to team interaction. Communication Methods and Measures,7, 2647. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2012.760729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schell, A. (2010). Meeting-Kultur in europäischen Unternehmen: Ad-hoc-Umfrage unter Mitarbeitern und Führungskräften, die regelmäßig an Business-Meetings teilnehmen [European business meeting culture: An ad-hoc survey of employees and managers who regularly participate in business meetings]. Munich, Germany: Schell Marketing.Google Scholar
Schulte, E.-M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2013). Age, forgiveness, and meeting behavior: A multilevel study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 928949. doi: 10.1108/JMP-06–2013–0193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, H. B. (1986). The meeting as a neglected social form in organizational studies. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 233258.Google Scholar
Schwartzman, H. (1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. New York, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanock, L. R., Allen, J. A., Dunn, A. M., Baran, B., Scott, C. W., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2013). Less acting, more doing: How surface acting relates to perceived meeting effectiveness and other employee outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 457476. doi: 10.1111/joop.12037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 605621. doi: 10.2307/255641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vree, W. (2011). Meetings: The frontline of civilization. Sociological Review, 59, 241262. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–954X.2011.01987.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×