The Impact of Premeeting Talk on Group Performance

Abstract

Interactions that occur prior to a meeting constitute premeeting talk (PMT). Of the different PMT types, research suggests that small talk PMT is especially meaningful. In this study, meeting participants' interactions both prior to and during the meeting were video recorded, coded into sense units, and classified by coding schemes. This study investigated the influence of small talk PMT on both perceived and objective group performances, as well as the potential for positive socioemotional and problem-focused statements to serve as mediators. The results supported the mediating influence of both types of statements for only perceived performance. Our results suggest that a group-level babble effect can take place in meetings, such that groups who engage in more extensive discussion tend to believe that they achieved high performance, but objective ratings do not support this belief. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations of the study, and future research opportunities are discussed.

Observational Research in Face-to-Face Small Groupwork: Capturing Affect as Socio-Dynamic Interpersonal Phenomena

“…The most frequently used term representing affect was socioemotional, cogently combining the targeted focus on the social nature of affect in 11 of 21 studies, applied to seven distinct observable aspects. Specifically, socioemotional climate (Poupore, 2018); socioemotional dynamics (Sohr et al, 2018); socioemotional challenges (Näykki et al, 2014); socioemotional processes (Isohätäläa et al, 2018); socioemotional behaviors (Allen et al, 2018; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al, 2014); socioemotional statements (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014; Yoerger et al, 2018); and socioemotional interactions (Gorse & Emmitt, 2009; Isohätälä et al, 2019; Motta et al, 2017). In both the CL and organizational literature, socioemotional was conceptualized as the relational sphere of groupwork, distinguished from the group task domain.…”

“…Four of the 21 studies that used socioemotional constructs, investigated affect also for its functional role explicitly as social. These included relational development (on construction projects, Gorse & Emmitt, 2009); in group conflict (among professionals in a mandatory CL course, Näykki et al, 2014); in group dynamics (in graduate CL groups, Poupore, 2018); and pre-meeting small talk (in experimental groups, Yoerger et al, 2018).…”

“…To address hypotheses and research questions related to intergroup differences, some longitudinal studies tallied frequencies of coded categories across meetings (e.g., Watzek & Mulder, 2018). To investigate temporal evolution, coded categories over a period of time (e.g., Costa et al, 2017; Yoerger et al, 2018) were examined. Some researchers (e.g., Schneider et al, 2018) identified social affect patterns in interaction, revealed through statistical analyses.…”

“…A similar group-level analytical lens was also employed in five studies to investigate the social nature of affect occurring in everyday behaviors often overlooked as hiding in plain sight. They included the impact of meeting lateness (Allen et al, 2018); relational small talk (Gorse & Emmitt, 2009; Yoerger et al, 2018); the function of humor in teamwork (Lehmann-Willenbrock & Allen, 2014); and intercultural differences in teamwork interaction processes (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al, 2014).…”

“…Although verbal expressions were typically used as the primary data source across the studies, some researchers elaborated on the ways in which nonverbal cues complemented the interpretation of their verbal data. For example, Yoerger et al (2018) noted that coding verbal expression involved not only what was said but sometimes also the tone of its delivery. Given that reading nonverbal cues is typically an innate, automatic process, the inclination for trained observers to also implicitly interpret nonverbal indicators when coding verbal interactions, has been noted by emotion researchers (e.g., Reisenzein et al, 2014).…”