Dialogue Orientations in Workplace Meetings

Abstract

This study examined conversation preferences in workplace meetings via a cross-sectional survey of working adults (N = 217). Dialogue orientations from the argumentation literature were employed in conjunction with a typology of meetings proposed by the authors to examine communication and satisfaction in various types of meetings. Results revealed that three dialogue orientations (negotiation, information-giving, and eristic) predicted meeting satisfaction to a moderate degree. In addition, the use of several dialogue orientations differed depending on meeting type and an individual’s supervisory role. We discuss how these results can inform our understanding of dialogue opportunities and constraints during meetings, and recommend ways for improving meetings. These results are discussed in the context of organizational communication, including practical recommendations and theoretical implications.

Keywords

workplace meetings dialogue orientations meeting satisfaction supervisory role

Meetings. The bane of our workplace existence. It is estimated that approximately 11 million meetings are held in the United States each day (Kessler, 2015). Sources argue that executives spend approximately 23 hours a week in meetings (Perlow et al., 2017) with approximately 3.2 meetings per week (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Roughly one third (Jenkins, 2017) to 71% (Baker, 2017) of all meetings are considered unproductive. Thus, many meetings may be wasteful, costly, ineffective, and barriers to productivity (Cameron et al., 2018). According to Hackman (2002), employees who are dissatisfied with meeting procedures also become negative and pessimistic about meetings. Furthermore, the number of meetings employees attend is associated positively with fatigue and stress, and negatively with overall well-being (Jenkins, 2017; Rogelberg et al., 2006). Yet, as Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012) argue, meetings are vital for an organization as members reunite to make decisions and discuss ideas. Thus, research into how workplace meetings can be improved is needed and can have practical applications.

According to Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock (2012), understanding the interaction processes occurring during a meeting is essential for predicting effectiveness and productivity. These interaction processes involve communication practices that promote meeting success or hinder it. According to Leach et al. (2009), the goal of meetings is usually to share information with others, make decisions, or solve problems within an organization. So, a communicative examination incorporating such meeting outcomes is worthwhile. Thus, the current research examines workplace meetings based on the dialogue framework advanced by Walton (1998) and refined by Cionea (2013). This framework treats dialogic situations as the intersection of situational features and goal-oriented behaviors and constitutes a useful approach to understanding communication in workplace meetings. Specifically, this study examines what dialogue orientations are used most frequently in meetings and how such orientations may predict meeting satisfaction. Furthermore, the study explores whether individuals’ dialogue orientations may differ depending on meeting attributes. The next section details the dialogue framework and its applicability to workplace meetings.

Dialogue Orientations

The study of dialogue is by no means new to communication, with research on the topic spanning areas including health communication, organizational communication, and rhetoric. As Ganesh and Zoller (2012) explain, there are multiple conceptualizations of what a dialogue is, ranging from “dialogue as ordinary conversation, featuring turn-taking, etiquette, and immediacy” to “language as inherently dialogic [. . .], wherein dialogue becomes a fundamental way of being in the world” (p. 68). Dialogue is often conceptualized as a type of conversation, a constructive form of communication focused on mutual understanding, openness, and a recognition of the other’s points (Ganesh & Zoller, 2012).

Walton’s conceptualization of dialogue is slightly different from these approaches. Rooted in argumentation theory, informal logic principles, and the concept of a dialectic system (i.e., “a rule-governed structure of organized conversation”; Walton & Krabbe, 1995, p. 5), dialogue represents an umbrella normative framework specifying how reasoned argument ought to occur (Walton, 1989). Walton (1998) explains that a dialogue is “a goal-directed conventional framework” in which individuals “reason together in an orderly way” and respect “the rules of politeness or normal expectations” associated with “the type of exchange they are engaged in” (p. 3). In other words, a dialogue is a framework within which speech actors, in a sequence of turns and moves (or arguments), respond appropriately (based on the dialogue’s goal) to each other. In this sense, a dialogue is a collaborative rational exchange (Walton, 1998).

An examination of dialogue in everyday argumentation involves an analysis of whether individuals’ arguments are appropriate or not for the type of dialogue they have engaged in, of whether individuals have fulfilled the obligations they have based on the normative framework of the dialogue type, and of whether individuals’ moves work together to accomplish their own goals and the goals of the dialogue they are pursuing (Walton, 1998). This type of analysis investigates the produced speech acts of arguers; that is, what was said and how, akin to methods of discourse or conversational analysis.

Walton (1998) explains that there are multiple types of dialogue, each with its own goals and strategies that participants ought to use to achieve these goals. The persuasive dialogue should be used when the interactants are in a conflict situation and are interested in reaching a stable agreement (Walton & Krabbe, 1995). It involves attempts at persuading the other person, genuinely, to change his or her position by using logical arguments supported by evidence or reasons (Cionea, 2013). Walton (1998) offers the example of a critical discussion as the prototypical persuasive dialogue. The negotiation dialogue also stems from a conflict of opinion, but the goal of this dialogue is to reach a settlement and maximize one’s own benefits (Walton & Krabbe, 1995). This dialogue type involves offering and making concessions to reach a deal, often including monetary or tangible items of value, similar to business negotiations (Walton, 1998). The eristic dialogue also occurs when participants are in a conflict situation, but the goal is to reach some sort of provisional accommodation enabling them to move (at least temporarily) past the issue. The situation is also characterized by antagonism and a desire to win the argument (Walton & Krabbe, 1995). A quarrel is a prototypical example of this dialogue. The inquiry dialogue involves participants faced with an open problem they wish to resolve for good (i.e., find a stable agreement about how to address the problem). Inquiry dialogue involves the accumulation and examination of factual evidence so the truth of a conclusion can be demonstrated (Walton & Krabbe, 1995). Examples of this type of dialogue include a scientific inquiry into a phenomenon or a public inquiry to determine the cause of an accident (Walton, 1998). The deliberation dialogue also involves an open problem, but the focus is on determining a course of action. The question of “how” to act in a given situation is at the core of this type of dialogue (Walton, 1998; Walton & Krabbe, 1995). Examples of deliberation include situations of dilemma or legislative debates. Finally, the information seeking dialogue occurs when a situation involves the unsatisfactory spread of information; that is, one party has more information than the other and the goal is to find out this information (Walton & Krabbe, 1995). Walton (1998) discusses the interview as an example of this dialogue. In addition, Cionea and Hample (2014) have proposed the information giving dialogue, which captures the situation in which a person has more information than others, so he or she seeks to share this information with others. An information session about a program or a news conference held to disseminate updates exemplifies this dialogue.

Translating this theoretical work into empirical research, Cionea (2013) operationalized these dialogue types as orientations individuals adopt in their communicative interactions with others. She uses the term dialogue orientations to capture the strategic moves individuals make while engaged in a dialogic, dialectic exchange with others. For instance, a persuasive dialogue orientation would involve using logical arguments, claims, and reasons to try to persuade the other person of one’s point of view. An orientation toward eristic dialogue would involve emotional release, venting and letting one’s feelings out, as well as quarreling with the other person to win the (potentially aggressive) verbal exchange (Cionea, 2013). Essentially, a person adopting a specific dialogue orientation would enact the appropriate argumentative moves for that dialogue and work towards achieving that dialogue’s normative goal.

Cionea’s empirical dialogue orientations concept has been used to measure how individuals enact these dialogues in everyday argumentation. For instance, Cionea and Hample (2014) asked whether people preferred a particular dialogue orientation when arguing with others. They found that individuals tended to use the persuasion dialogue orientation significantly more than others, followed by information giving, then by deliberation, inquiry, negotiation, and information-seeking; the eristic dialogue orientation was the least preferred. In another study, Hample and Cionea (2016) reported husbands’ and wives’ scores on these dialogue orientations in the management of marital disagreements. Their findings revealed that information giving and information seeking were the highest scores for men, whereas information giving and persuasion were the highest scores for women.

This research note proposes that dialogue orientations can also be studied in meetings as useful indicators of communication patterns in the workplace. In the following section, workplace meetings are discussed in more detail.

Workplace Meetings

Meetings are a chief communicative practice companies, teams, and groups use to achieve important organizational directives (Tracy & Dimock, 2004). The boundaries of what constitutes a meeting are broad. Svennevig (2012), for instance, conceptualized meetings as specific organizational activities focusing on “how organizations were ‘talked into being’ in the day-to-day practices of their members” (p. 3). By other conceptualizations, meetings are considered communicative events involving at least three individuals that are scheduled in advance (Boden, 1994; Schwartzman, 1989). Thus, meetings unite a group of individuals who gather and engage in formal activities relevant to the workplace, such as distributing information, developing policies, and making decisions. Workplace meetings take up time and energy and are a major organizational symbol. However, with increasing job pressure and competition, employees tend to complain about meetings, affecting other areas of their job. Rogelberg et al. (2010) argue that an organization’s meeting practices could influence retention and turnover.

Due to the positive and negative feelings generated during work tasks, meeting satisfaction, defined as “employees’ affective reactions to meetings at work” (Rogelberg et al., 2010, p. 151), is important to examine (Allen et al., 2016). Briggs and colleagues conceptualized meeting satisfaction as involving both satisfaction with meeting process and satisfaction with meeting outcome. The focus of the former is on “the tools and procedures used during the meeting,” whereas the latter focuses on “what was created or achieved in a meeting” (Briggs et al., 2006, p. 588).

This research proposes that both aspects of satisfaction could be affected by the dialogues individuals rely on during a meeting. For example, individuals’ roles within teams and managerial styles become apparent during meetings (Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001). According to Svennevig (2012), meetings follow a specific speech exchange system, including norms and customs, such as turn-taking and topical progression (Asmuß & Svennevig, 2009). Depending on the degree of formality in a meeting, leaders and participants will self-select, follow, and utilize defined turns for sharing their perspectives (Boden, 1994). Thus, the style of communication individuals adopt in a meeting (as captured in this research by dialogue orientations) could affect satisfaction with the meeting. The following question is posed:

RQ1: Which dialogue orientations that individuals report using during a meeting predict satisfaction with a) the meeting process and b) the meeting’s outcome?

Furthermore, organizations conduct various types of meetings. A survey of current scholarship on meetings and organizational practices led us to develop a classification of six major meeting types, detailed below.

Feed-forward or information sharing meetings focus on speakers informing attendees about a specific issue or distributing material, data, and knowledge. Meetings focused on reports and updates also fall into this category. A second type, decision-making and problem-solving meetings, focuses on resolving challenges and engaging in decision making. Typical activities at such meetings include gathering information and examining possible solutions. Organizational managers or leaders are often expected to lead these meetings (Svennevig, 2012). The third type of meetings is innovation meetings, in which the goals are thinking outside the box, brainstorming, and sharing new ideas. These meetings are primarily constructed around creative activities and are loosely structured, allowing for digressions (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015). A fourth type, training and skill development meetings, focuses on team building, strengthening relationships, and promoting organizational culture. Activities during such meetings include efforts to enhance employee engagement, job satisfaction, and overall well-being. The fifth type of meetings, feedback meetings, focuses on providing a forum for organizational members to react and evaluate occurrences and changes within the organization. Finally, combination meetings typically function as a mixture of the first five kinds of meetings.

These different meeting types suggest that meetings may unfold differently, depending on their goals. As such, how individuals are expected to engage in a meeting and what kind of participation they are likely to have can also differ. Therefore, we ask the following:

RQ2: What differences (if any) are there in the dialogue orientations individuals use during a meeting depending on meeting type?

In addition, the different roles participants have during a meeting may render some dialogue orientations more appropriate than others. For example, Bakar and McCann (2015) explained that a leader’s communication can affect employees’ satisfaction. Thus, leaders and employee communication may differ in the same type of meeting due to their specific responsibilities. Similarly, the presence or absence of a supervisor or manager could affect the dialogue orientation a person chooses to rely on during a meeting. Thus, we ask the following research question:

RQ3: What differences (if any) are there in the dialogue orientations individuals use during a meeting depending on their supervisory role?

Method

Participants

A total of 263 participants consented to participate in the study. Following data cleaning (i.e., eliminating incomplete answers and participants who failed attention verification questions or completed the study significantly faster than the average completion time), 217 responses were retained. Participants ranged in age from 21 to 69 years old (M = 34.59, SD = 9.63). There were 122 men and 95 women in the sample. Most participants identified as White (n = 160), with some identifying as Black or African-American (n = 21) and Asian or Hispanic/Latino/a (n = 15 each). Most participants reported earning a four-year degree (n = 97) or some college education (n = 40). Participants lived across the United States, with most indicating South Atlantic (n = 53) and Middle Atlantic and Pacific regions (n = 30 each).

Participants reported a wide variety of job titles including customer service representative, travel agent, IT clerk, nurse, engineer, sales agent, waiter, project manager, and warehouse supervisor. Most worked in for-profit industries (n = 160), in small to medium size businesses (less than 10,000 employees, n = 183) and had worked in their current position between 6 months and 9 years (M = 4.3 years, SD = 3 years). One hundred and twenty-four participants indicated their job involved supervisory responsibilities, whereas 93 indicated it did not.

Procedures

Participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Only those who had completed at least 1,000 tasks before, had a 95% approval for their work on MTurk, and were located in the United States could view the recruitment post. Participants who read the study description on MTurk were redirected to an online survey hosted on Qualtrics if they were interested in participating. At the beginning of the survey, participants had to complete a captcha verification and answer eligibility questions. Only individuals who were at least 18 years old, worked at least 40 hours a week, and attended a meeting regularly in their workplace were eligible for the study. Those who met these requirement continued to a consent form. Consenting participants then advanced in the study and completed brief open-ended questions about the last meeting they had attended in the workplace (time elapsed since the meeting ranged from 0 to 425 days, M = 25 days, SD = 65 days) as well as scale items measuring the variables in the study. Attention verification questions (e.g., “Attention verification question: Please enter ‘agree’ as your response”) were also included throughout the survey. Each participant who completed the survey received $1 compensation through MTurk. The research was approved by the IRB at the first author’s institution.

Measures

Meeting type

Participants were provided with a description of meeting types from our developed classification and asked to think about the most recent meeting they had attended in their workplace. They selected the description that characterized the meeting best from the answer choices provided. Most participants reported the meeting was a feed-forward one (n = 56), followed by decision making and problem solving (n = 54), training and skill development (n = 43), feedback (n = 33), a combination of meeting types (n = 15), and innovation (n = 14). Two participants marked “other.”

Dialogue orientations

Participants’ dialogue orientations were measured with 42 items developed by Cionea (2013) and Cionea and Hample (2014). Participants indicated their agreement with the statements presented by using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Example items included, “I reached a compromise with the other people present at the meeting” (negotiation dialogue orientation) and “I made a case for my position” (persuasion dialogue orientation). Table 1 shows the number of items used for measuring each dialogue orientation, reliability estimates (all scales were reliable), and descriptive statistics.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Scores for Dependent Variables.

Variable	No. of items	Cronbach’s alpha	M	SD
Persuasive dialogue orientation (PDO)	6	0.81	4.75	1.16
Negotiation dialogue orientation (NDO)	6	0.81	4.44	1.17
Information seeking dialogue orientation (ISDO)	4	0.77	5.08	1.21
Information giving dialogue orientation (IGDO)	4	0.82	5.28	1.19
Eristic dialogue orientation (EDO)	6	0.79	2.45	1.11
Inquiry dialogue orientation (IDO)	6	0.86	4.93	1.20
Deliberation dialogue orientation (DDO)	6	0.87	5.12	1.19
Satisfaction with meeting process	4	0.93	5.81	1.09
Satisfaction with meeting outcome	4	0.94	5.77	1.05

Meeting satisfaction

Two types of meeting satisfaction were measured: satisfaction with the meeting process (e.g., “I was satisfied with how the meeting was conducted”) and satisfaction with the meeting outcome (e.g., “I was happy with the results of the meeting”). Scales were adapted from Briggs et al. (2006). In both cases, four items were used, and participants indicated their agreement with the statements presented based on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree (see Table 1).

Results

RQ1 asked which dialogue orientations used during a workplace meeting would predict satisfaction with the meeting process and meeting outcome. Satisfaction with the meeting process was significantly predicted positively by one’s negotiation dialogue orientation (NDO; standardized β = .25, p = .022), information giving dialogue orientation (IGDO; standardized β = .26, p = .002), and inquiry dialogue orientation (IDO; standardized β = .23, p = .043), and negatively by eristic dialogue orientation (EDO; standardized β = −.36, p = .000), F(7, 209) = 17.35, p = .000, adjusted R² = .35. Satisfaction with the meeting outcome was predicted positively by one’s use of NDO (standardized β = .29, p = .008) and IGDO (standardized β = .33, p = .000), and negatively by one’s use of EDO (standardized β = −.33, p = .000), F(7, 209) = 15.92, p = .000, adjusted R² = .33.

RQ2 asked about possible differences in the dialogue orientations individuals used depending on the type of meeting they attended. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed a significant difference, Wilks’ lambda = 0.68, F(7, 204) = 1.95, p = .000, partial $η^{2}$ = .06. Specifically, PDO, F(6, 210) = 3.55, p = .002, partial $η^{2}$ = .09; NDO, F(6, 210) = 2.50, p = .024, partial $η^{2}$ = .07; and EDO, F(6, 210) = 4.76, p = .000, partial $η^{2}$ = .12 differed depending on meeting type.

Post-hoc multiple comparisons based on Tukey’s HSD revealed that PDO was significantly higher in decision-making and problem-solving meetings than in feed-forward meetings, and also significantly higher in innovation meetings compared to feed-forward meetings. Similarly, NDO was higher in decision-making and problem solving meetings than in feed-forward meetings. Finally, EDO was significantly higher in decision-making and problem-solving meetings than in feed-forward meetings, in innovation than in feed-forward meetings, and in feedback than in feed-forward meetings (see Table 2).

Table 2.

RQ2 MANOVA Means and Standard Deviations.

Dialogue orientations	Meeting type
	Feed-forward		Decision-making		Innovation		Training and development		Feedback		Combination
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
PDO	4.34^a,b	0.15	5.14^a	0.15	5.35^b	0.30	4.50	0.17	4.82	0.20	4.72	0.29
NDO	4.10	0.15	4.79	0.16	4.91	0.31	4.23	0.17	4.54	0.20	4.31	0.30
ISDO	5.01	0.16	5.19	0.32	5.29	0.32	4.97	0.19	4.86	0.21	5.40	0.31
IGDO	5.08	0.16	5.31	0.16	5.77	0.32	5.22	0.18	5.24	0.21	5.53	0.31
EDO	1.94^c,d,e	0.14	2.74^c	0.14	2.93^d	0.28	2.35	0.16	2.92^e	0.18	2.11	0.27
DDO	4.80	0.16	5.36	0.16	5.67	0.31	4.94	0.18	5.07	0.20	5.52	0.30
IDO	4.71	0.16	5.12	0.16	5.50	0.32	4.82	0.18	4.93	0.21	4.50	0.31

Note. Means with the same superscript are significantly different at p < .05.

RQ3 asked about possible differences in dialogue orientations used depending on whether individuals had a supervisory role in the meeting or not. An independent samples t-test was conducted for all six dialogue orientations in the same analysis (adjusting the confidence interval to 99.17 to avoid a Type I error). Significant differences emerged for all dialogue orientations except EDO (see Table 3). Those with supervisory positions reported higher use of these dialogue orientations than those who did not have a supervisory role.

Table 3.

RQ3 t-Test Results.

Dialogue orientations	Supervisory role
	Yes		No
	M	SD	M	SD	t-test	df	p-value	Cohen’s d
PDO	5.07	0.96	4.31	1.26	4.86	167	.000	0.68
NDO	4.66	1.06	4.15	1.25	3.23	215	.001	0.44
ISDO	5.26	1.11	4.84	1.30	2.58	215	.002	0.35
IGDO	5.53	0.96	4.93	1.36	3.82	157	.000	0.51
EDO	2.56	1.20	2.29	0.97	1.78	215	.076	0.25
DDO	5.35	0.98	4.80	1.37	3.27	159	.001	0.46
IDO	5.15	1.12	4.64	1.25	3.17	215	.002	0.43

Note. The reported t-test value and degrees of freedom take into account the significance of Levene’s test for equality of variances.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine communication patterns in workplace meetings. Specifically, we integrated argumentation literature with organizational communication literature to examine dialogue orientations, their variability, and possible outcomes in a prevalent area of organizational life: workplace meetings. Results of this investigation revealed several ways in which dialogue orientations manifest themselves in workplace meetings.

Findings from our first research question suggest that dialogue orientations are a useful element to consider for improving meeting satisfaction. For both satisfaction with the meeting process and its outcome information giving and negotiation increased satisfaction. The result regarding negotiation replicates previous findings reported by Cionea (2013): In the aftermath of a relational transgression in a romantic relationship, negotiating with the other person increased individuals’ satisfaction with the discussion. A possible explanation is that negotiation makes individuals feel more invested in a meeting or more empowered to influence the issues on the meeting agenda, which could contribute to satisfaction. In addition, regardless of which type of satisfaction (i.e., process or outcome) was examined, using an eristic dialogue orientation reduced individuals’ satisfaction with the meeting. Thus, individuals should be wary and stay clear of this orientation if they wish to enhance meeting satisfaction. Finally, the inquiry dialogue orientation also predicted satisfaction with the meeting process. This result suggests that individuals appreciate meetings that dissect issues carefully and in which facts, conclusions, and courses of action are scrutinized with input from meeting attendees. Overall, these dialogues predicted roughly one third of the variance in each of the two meeting satisfaction variables, suggesting that how individuals talk during meetings is important for their satisfaction with that meeting.

These results yield several conclusions. Giving individuals the opportunity to negotiate throughout meetings (e.g., engage in a give and take on items of interest) increases satisfaction as participants take an active role in reaching a practical settlement of the situation. Thus, making meeting attendees active, involved participants in meetings is beneficial. Furthermore, meeting satisfaction can also be increased by sharing information with attendees so everyone believes they have the details about a potential problem or conflict. These results may reflect the low power distance culture of the United States in which decision-making in the workplace is perceived as a collaborative endeavor, with employees expecting to be involved in the process and leaders being expected to share information with subordinates (Hofstede, 2002). A meeting may be more satisfactory if it conforms to these cultural expectations. Finally, satisfaction with a meeting declines if emotional outbursts or quarrels occur, so such behaviors should be discouraged. Eristic orientations may be perceived as inappropriate in the workplace context, as individuals may recognize the potentially damaging effects an eristic dialogue has for their (usually) long-term organizational relationships.

Results from the second research question revealed that some of the dialogue orientations individuals reported using during their meetings differed based on the type of meeting they attended. Specifically, several dialogue orientations (e.g., persuasion and eristic orientations) were at work significantly more in decision-making and problem-solving meetings as well as in innovation meetings as compared to feed-forward meetings. Thus, different types of meetings may elicit different types of conversational approaches. It is reasonable to expect that decision-making meetings would involve more controversy and potential for debates (entailing attempts at persuasion or the expression of frustration) as compared to feed-forward meetings, in which the transmission of information is the key goal. Similarly, innovation meetings involve more brainstorming and sharing new ideas for critique, engendering more potential for persuasion or eristic dialogues than feed-forward meetings. Thus, the situational features of a meeting may create normative expectations about appropriate dialogue orientations, distinctions individuals need to learn via organizational socialization. Given the cross-sectional nature of our data, we can only speculate that organizational rules and norms about meetings elicit specific dialogue behaviors. Future research could investigate how individuals form expectations and perform appropriate communicative behaviors in workplace meetings.

Furthermore, as found in answer to the third research question, use of all dialogue orientations except the eristic one differed based on individuals’ supervisory role in the workplace. It is likely that supervisory positions involve more communication than non-supervisory ones, thus providing more opportunities to engage in various dialogues. As supervisory roles are often more nuanced and multifaceted, supervisors may need to learn an array of dialogic orientations and be able to choose accordingly, depending on the situational constraints and opportunities various types of meetings present. This result highlights the importance of ensuring those with supervisory positions have adequate communication skills and preparation to engage in effective communication during workplace meetings. From a theoretical standpoint, this result highlights the need to delineate further contextual and boundary conditions for the everyday enactment of dialogues. In other words, although the normative framework of dialogues suggests the necessary components for a specific dialogue type to occur, how individuals enact dialogue orientations may be a function of additional considerations yet to be examined and specified in empirical research.

These results provide empirical support that individuals likely match their dialogue orientation to the main goal and situational considerations of a meeting. Thus, the good news is that people seem to argue the way they ought to when attending workplace meetings. However, not all dialogue orientations differed based on meeting type. In fact, multiple dialogue orientations had relatively similar scores for the same meeting type, suggesting that a combination of dialogues (instead of a prevalent one) may be used in workplace meetings. This aligns with Walton’s (1998) contention that a combination of dialogue types often occurs in everyday exchanges. Research ought to elucidate further the communicative characteristics of various meeting types and delineate the appropriate conversational strategies to be used in each to maximize meeting efficiency. Future research could also examine how the situational characteristics of various meeting types trigger individual dialogue orientations, and potentially model these processes with causal data via structural equation models or discourse analysis of actual meeting interactions.

This study has several limitations. Although the sample was composed of working adults from varying industries and with diverse job titles, most of them worked in the for-profit sector, restricting the types of meetings and conversation opportunities they experienced. In other sectors, such as government or other public hierarchical structures, meetings and dialogues may have different features that should be explored in future research. In addition, the data we collected consisted of self-reports participants gave about their own dialogue orientations, satisfaction, and meeting characteristics. Not only are these subjective, they may also be affected by recall issues, as some of the meetings had occurred several months ago. In future studies, restricting the time elapsed since the meeting participants are reporting on may be a way to bypass recall issues. Better yet, actual text or video feed of live workplace meetings would be a stronger way to examine actual discourse and communication patterns in workplace meetings.

Despite these limitations, the current study has contributed important knowledge of workplace meetings. First, the study proposed a classification of meeting types based on a synthesis of existing literature. This classification can be used in future studies seeking to understand the dynamics of meetings in organizations. Second, our study results provide empirical evidence of how conversational choices differ in various types of meetings, paving the road for further exploration of how individuals select certain conversational strategies and the effects of such dialogic choices on meetings and communication in the workplace.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ioana A. Cionea

Mizuki H. Wyant

Author Biographies

Ioana A. Cionea (PhD, University of Maryland, 2013) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma. Her research rests at the intersection of interpersonal and intercultural communication, with a specific emphasis on the way people argue in their interpersonal relationships.

Pavitra Kavya (PhD, University of Oklahoma, 2020) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Her research interests include leadership communication, training and development, and positive communication.

Mizuki H. Wyant (MA, Ball State University, 2015) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests include the intersection of intercultural and organizational communication, with a special focus on the relationship between business expatriates and local employees.

References

Allen

J. A.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Sands

S. J.

(2016). Meetings as a positive boost? How and when meeting satisfaction impacts employee empowerment. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4340–4347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.011

Asmuß

Svennevig

(2009). Meeting talk: An introduction. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 46(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608326761

Bakar

H. A.

McCann

R. M.

(2015). The mediating effect of leader-member dyadic communication style agreement on the relationship between servant leadership and group-level organizational citizenship behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 30(1), 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318915601162

Baker

(2017, October 25). Meetings—a culture of excess that hurts our productivity and morale. Hackernoon. https://hackernoon.com/meetings-a-culture-of-excess-that-hurts-our-productivity-and-morale-464a5797c799

Boden

(1994). Agendas and arrangements: Everyday negotiations in meetings. In Firth

(Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace (pp. 83–99). Pergamon.

Briggs

R. O.

Reinig

B. A.

de Vreede

G.- J.

(2006). Meeting satisfaction for technology-supported groups: An empirical validation of a goal-attainment model. Small Group Research, 37(6), 585–611. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496406294320

Cameron

A.-F.

Barki

Ortiz

Guinea

Coulon

Moshki

(2018). Multicommunicating in meetings: Effects of locus, topic relatedness, and meeting medium. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(3), 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318918759437

Cionea

I. A.

(2013). A dual perspective on the management of relational transgressions in romantic relationships. Publication No. 9781303246173 (Doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Cionea

I. A.

Hample

(2014). Dialogue types and argumentative behaviors. In Garssen

B. J.

Godden

Mitchell

Snoeck Henkemans

A. F.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 245–256). Sic Sat.

10.

Ganesh

Zoller

H. M.

(2012). Dialogue, activism, and democratic social change. Communication Theory, 22(1), 66–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01396.x

11.

Hackman

J. R

. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Press.

12.

Hample

Cionea

I. A.

(2016). Couples’ dialogue orientations. In Benacquista

Bondy

(Eds.), Argumentation, objectivity and bias: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/

13.

Hofstede

(2002). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, and institutions across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

14.

Holmes

Stubbe

(2015). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic analysis of talk at work. Routledge.

15.

Jenkins

(2017, September 14). Crushing morale, killing productivity—why do offices put up with meetings? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/14/death-hope-productivity-meeting-organisations

16.

Kauffeld

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599

17.

Kessler

(2015, January 1). Let’s call off the meeting and get back to work. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/andy-kessler-lets-call-off-the-meeting-and-get-back-to-work-1420156148

18.

Leach

D. J.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Warr

P. B.

Burnfield

J. L.

(2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9092-6

19.

Perlow

L. A.

Noonan Hadley

Eun

(2017, July-August). Stop the meeting madness. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/07/stop-the-meeting-madness

20.

Putnam

L. L.

Fairhurst

G. T.

(2001). Discourse analysis in organizations. In Jablin

F. M.

(Ed.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research and methods (pp. 78–136). Sage.

21.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Allen

J. A.

Shanock

Scott

Shuffler

(2010). Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 49(2), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20339

22.

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(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.83

23.

Schwartzman

H. B.

(1989). The meeting: Gatherings in organizations and communities. Plenum.

24.

Svennevig

(2012). Interaction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427203

25.

Tracy

Dimock

(2004). Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. Annals of the International Communication Association, 28(1), 127–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2004.11679034

26.

Walton

D. N.

(1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128147

27.

Walton

D. N.

(1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press.

28.

Walton

D. N.

Krabbe

E. C. W.

(1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press.