The Staff Meeting … And Beyond … *

Self Cite

As more employees work in different locations, meetings become the primary opportunity for workgroup interactions. We explore how workgroup entitativity develops within successful meetings and grounds positive employee and group outcomes between meetings. Social identity theory and self-categorization processes explain how entitativity develops during meetings and activates workgroup identification between meetings. Further, construal level theory, which establishes that physical and psychological distance are positively related, affects entitativity and social identity for dispersed and hybrid workgroups. We propose that entitativity develops in meetings through interactions, co-presence, leader behavior, and meeting size. Between meetings, the frequency of self-categorization into a workgroup identity maintains and even increases workgroup entitativity. Further, task interdependence, informal interactions, and time between meetings affects frequency of self-categorization and, thus, employees’ workgroup entitativity between meetings. We conclude that meetings serve as the primary formal occasion in which workgroup entitativity can be maintained or repaired for optimal workgroup performance. Plain Language Summary Successful meetings lead to productive workgroups but we do not know why or now. We suggest that entitativity (a person's perception of a “group”) develops during successful meetings and explains productive workgroups. Specifically, when people start to work, they can either think of their group or themselves. If they think about their group, a process follows such that the employee comes under the influence of all of the positive characteristics of their group. Because successful meetings influence how people think about their group, entitativity explains successful groups.

Section: Entitativity Development During Meetingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Entitativity Development During Meetingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The entitativity underlying meetings: Meetings as key in the lifecycle of effective workgroups

Blanchard

Allen

2022

Self Cite

“…Finally, it could well be the case that the MATM occurs more frequently after certain types of formal meetings than others. Most of the existing meeting research refers to the generic staff meeting, which is characterized by participants knowing each other well, the meeting taking place regularly in this constellation, and participants reviewing recent events and updating each other (Kello & Allen, 2020). Such meetings can be seen as routine events (similar to e.g., shift change meetings), which will require little subsequent explanations (i.e., sensemaking) in comparison to other meeting types (e.g., project team meetings).…”

Section: Situational Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and to assume that this is where the important work is done" (Oswick & Richards, 2004, p. 114). As a result, meeting research seems to almost categorically rule out unscheduled and more informal meetings and has thus largely isolated itself from the broader literature on informal communication in organizations (Kello & Allen, 2020; for an exception, see Holmes & Stubbe, 2015). This is unfortunate, as informal interactions appear instrumental to understanding those aspects of organizations that cannot be fully controlled (Stohl, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The meeting after the meeting: A conceptualization and process model

Meinecke

Handke

2022

This article offers initial theorizing on an understudied phenomenon in the workplace: the meeting after the meeting (MATM). As an informal and unscheduled event, the MATM takes place outside managerial control and has potentially far-reaching consequences. However, our current knowledge of the MATM relies primarily on practitioner observations, and conceptual work that integrates the MATM into the larger meeting science literature is missing. This article fills this gap by outlining key defining features of the MATM that can be used to structure future research. Moreover, and based on theorizing concerning the affect-generating nature of meetings, we develop an affect-based process model that focuses on the antecedents and boundary conditions of the MATM at the episodic level and shines light on meetings as a sequential phenomenon. Plain Language Summary This article sheds light on an understudied but rather common phenomenon in the workplace: The meeting after the meeting (MATM). Defined as an unscheduled, informal and confidential communication event, the MATM has the potential to create new structures in everyday organizational life. Yet, our current knowledge of this particular meeting type is very limited and largely based on anecdotal accounts by practitioners. To guide future research, this article first outlines key features of the MATM, focusing on when the MATM occurs, where it takes place, how it takes place, why it takes place, and who is involved in the MATM. Next, this article presents an affect-based process model of the MATM. To this end, antecedents and boundary conditions at the episodic level are outlined, highlighting that meetings should be seen as interconnected, sequential events.

“…In fact, managers report spending more time preparing for and leading meetings than any other workrelated activity (Allen et al, 2015). While meeting science continues to grow, nearly all published meetings research has focused on meetings of three or more people-despite most contemporary studies defining meetings as consisting of two or more individuals (c.f., Kello & Allen, 2020;Lübstorf & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2020;Mroz, Allen, Verhoeven, & Shuffler, 2018;Rogelberg, Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler, 2010;Rogelberg, Leach, Warr, & Burnfield, 2006). This begs the question if current meeting science research findings always translate to meetings between two people (i.e., one-on-one meetings), which have been estimated to make up nearly half (47%) of all meetings (Keith, 2015).…”

Section: Plain Language Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

One-on-one meetings between managers and direct reports: A new opportunity for meeting science

Flinchum

Kreamer

Rogelberg

et al. 2022

Meeting science has advanced significantly in its short history. However, one-on-one (1:1) meetings have not been studied empirically as a focal topic despite making up nearly half of all workplace meetings. While some meeting science insights may apply to 1:1 meetings, others may not (or may function differently) due to conceptual, theoretical, and practical differences between meetings involving dyads and groups. Although 1:1 meetings come in various forms (e.g., peer-to-peer, employee-to-customer), we chose to use manager-direct report 1:1 meetings as an exemplar given their prevalence, theoretical relevance, and practical implications. In this paper, we first review some conceptual differences between dyads and groups. We then discuss how these differences likely manifest in the meeting context (before, during, and after meetings), and outline related propositions. Last, we leverage this conceptual framework and subsequent propositions to provide guidance for future research and theory on 1:1 meetings. In doing so, we hope this paper will act as the impetus for research and theory development on 1:1 meetings. Plain Language Summary Meeting science has flourished over the past two decades, with research and theory exploring best practices for leading and attending workplace meetings. However, a large portion of this research has focused on meetings of three or more people – despite the fact that meetings are often defined as a gathering between two or more people. Ignoring the one-on-one (1:1) meeting is a missed opportunity, as 1:1 meetings have a large presence in industry. It has been estimated that nearly half (47%) of all meetings are 1:1s, and these dyadic meetings often have unique purposes (e.g., performance appraisals) and involve different interactions (e.g., more interpersonal) outside of larger group meetings. Industry and practice have begun to explore these 1:1 meeting-especially meetings between managers and direct reports. For example, internal studies conducted at Microsoft and Cisco found that direct reports who had more frequent and effectively run 1:1 meetings with their managers were more engaged than their counterparts. While companies have seemingly acknowledged the importance of these meetings, research lags behind. Little empirical or theoretical investigations have explored 1:1 meetings. Yet, with the continued growth in the number of meetings worldwide, it is important to obtain empirical insights specific to 1:1 meetings. Doing so will help inform best practices when it comes to leading and attending 1:1 meetings. Thus, in this conceptual review of 1:1 meetings, we provide a future research agenda encouraging researchers (and practitioners) to investigate this unique (and important) meeting type – the one-on-one meeting between a manager and their direct report.