3.8 Article

Meeting effectiveness and task performance: meeting size matters

Journal

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT
Volume 40, Issue 5, Pages 339-351

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/JMD-12-2019-0510

Keywords

Meetings; Employee engagement; Performance; Meeting size

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study shows that effective meetings can influence task performance through employee engagement when the meeting size is small. Meeting design characteristics play a significant role in achieving desired outcomes.
Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate how a key meeting design characteristic, meeting size, affects the relationship between meeting effectiveness and task performance through employee engagement. Design/methodology/approach A three-wave time-lagged survey design was used to gather data concerning meeting experiences from employees for statistical model testing. Findings Using a moderated mediated path analysis, we found that effective meetings only translated into end-of-the-day task performance through engagement when the meeting size was small. Research limitations/implications - Although much research supports the current findings related to group size and meetings, meeting science has not investigated meeting design characteristics as levers to be pulled to enhance or detract from both meeting outcomes and organizationally desired outcomes. The findings, though are limited, due to potential common method bias, which was limited using methodological and statistical processes. Practical implications Managers and meeting attendees should consider how to maintain relatively small meeting size when possible so as to maximize both engagement and performance. Originality/value The current study is one of the few to look at meeting size directly as a moderator and helps demonstrate, once again, the importance of effectively designing meetings for success.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available