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.

Keywords

premeeting talk perceived group performance babble effect meetings

Think back to your last meeting. What did you and your fellow meeting attendees do while you were sitting in the meeting room, waiting for the meeting to begin? Did you talk to others sitting around you? Do you think your interactions with others during this time affected the meeting? These questions hint at a facet of meetings that has only recently received the attention of researchers. This phenomenon, premeeting talk (PMT), can be best described as the verbal and nonverbal (e.g., nodding or headshaking) interactions that take place in a meeting location prior to the meeting’s start, as soon as at least two attendees have assembled (Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Landowski, 2014; Mirivel & Tracy, 2005). Although one previous study found a positive association between small talk PMT and perceived meeting effectiveness (Allen et al., 2014), research has not yet investigated how and the degree to which PMT affects within-meeting behaviors and processes. To understand the importance of improving meetings and collaborative processes in group contexts, it may be insightful to examine the cost of poor group performance and unproductive meetings in organizations. For example, ineffective meetings cost American organizations approximately US$37 billion every year (Cohen, Rogelberg, Allen, & Luong, 2011), and this cost has likely increased with the rise in the number of meetings in general.

The reason meetings have begun to garner interest in recent years may be partly due to the dynamics of the changing work environment. The work environment has become increasingly team oriented in recent years (Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001), and teams are, therefore, even more important to organizational functioning than in the past. As evidence of this trend, there are now approximately 25 million meetings per year in the United States (Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Rogelberg, 2015). This means that the outcomes of these meetings are more important today than ever before.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate how the conversations that occur just before the meeting begins affect within-meeting behavior and group performance. More specifically, this is the first controlled setting investigation of small talk PMT. First, we provide a look into theoretical mechanisms in the existing literature that bear relevance to understanding small talk PMT. We primarily draw these mechanisms from the input–process–output (IPO) model (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Second, we also examine nuances of the relationship between small talk PMT and perceived group performance, such as the possibility that problem-focused and positive socioemotional statements act as mediators in this relationship.

The Context of Workplace Meetings

Specific purposes of a given meeting vary considerably, and can include information sharing, employee development, decision making, completing specific tasks, and/or recognition and celebration (Leach, Rogelberg, Warr, & Burnfield, 2009). A meeting may also serve to highlight an organization’s mission, priorities, or purpose (Tracy & Dimock, 2003). Of course, advice for how to design meetings can depend greatly on the specifics of a meeting’s purpose and a consideration of the larger context of organizational needs. Some meetings may be used to facilitate rapport building and foster a sense of community (Tracy & Dimock, 2003). In other situations, meeting leaders may view the reinforcement of the organizational structure, including differences in status and making the organizational hierarchy more salient, as more important than rapport building (Rogelberg, Leach, Warr, & Burnfield, 2006).

Although the aforementioned findings illustrate some of the roles that meetings can serve, the meeting context remains understudied. One of the first real attempts to study meetings as an independent phenomenon was made by Schwartzman (1986), who developed a framework to consider the roles, purposes, and importance of meetings. Researchers have subsequently examined a variety of aspects of meetings, including the information sharing that occurs within them (McComas, 2003) and factors contributing to the effectiveness of meetings (Luong & Rogelberg, 2005). Only in recent years have studies begun to examine the impact of meeting events on postmeeting outcomes, such as employee engagement and job satisfaction (Allen & Rogelberg, 2013). Therefore, we seek to further explore the influences of these types of events and how they are shaped by the interaction that occurs immediately prior to meetings.

PMT

The specific types of PMT in which employees engage can vary greatly. Premeeting interactions may be as simple and mundane as discussions about television shows or as complex as detailing the long-term financial forecast of a company. To qualify as PMT, the interactions must take place between two or more meeting attendees who have assembled virtually, through conference call, or in person in the meeting location before the meeting’s official start (Allen et al., 2014; Mirivel & Tracy, 2005). Even the absence of verbal communication is still likely a form of premeeting interaction that may affect a meeting and its outcomes, as silence has been suggested to convey information (Dhulipala, Fragouli, & Orlitsky, 2010). As soon as the leader or mediator of a meeting indicates that a meeting has officially begun, the PMT period has ended.

PMT consists of four basic types: small talk, meeting preparatory talk, work talk, and shop talk (Mirivel & Tracy, 2005). Small talk is defined as interactions that are relatively unconstrained and that seemingly have no clear goal or purpose (Coupland, 2000). Meeting preparatory talk consists of interactions that pertain to the meeting itself, such as what will be covered, a review of the agenda, the structure of the meeting, or even the refreshments served (Mirivel & Tracy, 2005). Work talk refers to employee interactions that are focused on the specific work environment in which employees fulfill their responsibilities. Shop talk is often gossip-like in nature, and refers to interactions related to issues, events, and people directly related to the organization (Mirivel & Tracy, 2005). Unlike work talk, shop talk is not focused on the work itself but rather ongoing matters in the particular organization.

Due to the findings of past research (e.g., Allen et al., 2014), we suspect that small talk PMT holds the most potential for affecting interaction during a subsequent meeting. Specifically, implicit goals of small talk may include networking or putting others at ease. Discussing the weather, television shows, and sports are all common topics in small talk. Despite its seemingly trivial and unimportant nature, researchers have found that small talk can play a crucial role in creating, developing, and maintaining relationships (McCarthy, 2003). One reason that small talk may lead to such outcomes in the work environment is that it allows employees an opportunity to connect with one another on a more personal and equal level than may be possible in most other conversations. Employees who engage in small talk and develop higher quality relationships with their coworkers will likely have greater trust and feel more able to seek out support, feedback, and advice when they are in need, which could improve the smooth functioning of the organization. We believe that such an influence is particularly likely in groups that have been newly formed, as in the present study. Therefore, we focus primarily on small talk PMT.

Mirivel and Tracy (2005) were the first researchers to study PMT. Their initial study took place in a single organization and examined a half dozen weekly staff meetings. The observed meetings were focused on information sharing. The PMT period generally exceeded 15 min for each of these meetings. Interestingly, this study revealed that different variants of PMT tend to be fleeting under naturalistic conditions. One implication of the fleeting nature of PMT in naturalistic settings is that it is difficult to ascertain the influence that any one variant has on a given meeting’s processes and outcomes (Mirivel & Tracy, 2005). For example, a conversation that begins with discussing the weather, shifts to focusing on the questionable statements made by a supervisor, and finally moves to considering how long the upcoming meeting will last contains three PMT variants in a fairly short time frame.

Unlike Mirivel and Tracey (2005), who examined the phenomenon of PMT in a single organization, Allen and colleagues (2014) surveyed individuals from a variety of different organizations. The main contribution of Allen and colleagues (2014) was their finding that engaging in small talk in the PMT period predicted perceived meeting effectiveness, above and beyond good meeting practices. Allen and colleagues (2014) also found that the positive relationship between the use of PMT and perceived meeting effectiveness was stronger for more introverted meeting attendees. One possible explanation for this finding is that PMT can be especially encouraging for introverts to verbally express themselves in meetings, and as a result these introverts may perceive the meeting to be more effective. It is also possible that the greater inclusion of introverts could lead to an increase in some aspects of meeting effectiveness, such as enhanced decision making. Together with past research, these results raise the possibility that a combination of introverted and extraverted meeting attendees can be an advantage in the meeting setting, and utilizing small talk PMT is one simple way in which greater participation of introverted participants may be effectively encouraged. Overall, there is substantial evidence to indicate that PMT, especially small talk PMT, will affect the meeting process, as this assertion is supported by a variety of existing theories.

Theoretical Foundation for the Impact of PMT on Meeting Processes and Outcomes

The dominant theoretical perspectives on group performance consist of IPO models (Guzzo & Shea, 1992). Although various models exist (Hackman, 1987; Hackman & Morris, 1975), they all suggest that input and process variables have a major impact on outcomes such as group performance. Therefore, we focus here on the IPO model’s theoretical framework for this manuscript.

Research suggests that the initial communicative input event in a group setting tends to have a large impact in establishing a tone and creating a foundation for all interactions that follow (Feldman, 1984). Eriksen and Dyer (2004) suggested that conversation is considered in relation to initial statements made by group members, and group outcomes are significantly affected by what occurs in the time prior to the official start of the group work. Even conversation lasting a matter of seconds has been found to set the stage for the long-term process of conversation (Gersick & Hackman, 1990; Guzzo & Shea, 1992).

According to Zellmer-Bruhn, Waller, and Ancona (2004), an interaction pattern may be described by the trends in usage of speech and the way ideas are verbally conveyed, as well as how these trends and the attentional focus of the dialogue shift over the course of a conversation. While group performance tends to improve over time, patterns of interaction are usually established during the input stages of the interactive process and are somewhat more resistant to output change over time (Gersick & Hackman, 1990). What occurs during the PMT period may influence participants’ perceptions of socioemotional aspects of the meeting environment. Greater amounts of communication in the premeeting period can increase feelings of comfort and familiarity among meeting attendees, which may allow the individuals to communicate more effectively during the meeting period. The ability of group members to engage in productive interactive processes from the start of their time together until their goals have been achieved is a major determinant of the quality of a group’s performance (Eriksen & Dyer, 2004). As a whole, this area of research suggests that what occurs in the input stages of interaction holds a great deal of potential to facilitate group cohesion and optimal teamwork output, but if used ineffectively the full potential of the group and the opportunities presented by the meeting setting will not come to fruition.

Based on previous research (e.g., Allen et al., 2014), small talk PMT appears to be the type most likely to influence subsequent meeting interaction. On the surface, such talk may appear to be somewhat trivial and unimportant; yet, its potential to create, develop, or otherwise influence relationships could be quite significant. Premeeting small talk may be able to foster a sense of familiarity, connectedness, and trust among a diverse group of employees, which could enhance aspects of communication and organizational functioning. Ultimately, the ability of group members to engage in high-quality interaction from the beginning of an interactive event can enhance their ability to achieve performance outcomes (Eriksen & Dyer, 2004). We suspect that this influence may be especially likely in newly created groups, as in the current study. Taken together, the forgoing rationale and theories support the following general hypothesis concerning PMT and perceived group performance:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Small talk PMT is positively related to (a) perceived group performance, as well as objective group performance, indicated by the (b) average quality, (c) average originality, (d) average creativity, and (e) number of solutions.

Premeeting Talk and Meeting Processes

Research indicates that the initial communication within a group has a large impact on the progression of a conversation (Feldman, 1984). Studies have also revealed that this phenomenon can operate through either positive relational or negative complaining cycles in the interaction process (Lehmann-Willenbrock, Allen, & Kauffeld, 2013). Based on existing research on sequences of interaction processes within meetings, we believe that the amount of small talk PMT is positively related to positive socioemotional statements and problem-focused statements, both of which are described below.

Socioemotional statements are defined as statements that pertain to creating, maintaining, and enhancing relationships with others in the meeting, as well as fulfilling emotional needs of those in the meeting (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). We believe the influence of socioemotional meeting statements will be especially consequential in the meeting setting, as relational communication has been considered to be the basic fabric of any group (Keyton, 1999). Although these types of statements may be negative or positive in nature, our focus in this study is only on positive socioemotional statements. Positive socioemotional statements may be directed toward encouraging participants to speak, focusing attention on others, providing support for others’ ideas when possible, voicing disagreements by using objective facts, causing laughter by making jokes that are not at the expense of any individuals, separating facts from opinions, identifying if certain information is new or already known, expressing feelings, and offering praise of others (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013).

According to Baran, Shanock, and Miller (2012), employees have socioemotional needs, and the fulfillment of these needs, such as the presence of a rewarding and enriching environment, can result in a variety of positive outcomes, such as increased effort among employees and improved performance. As individuals receive greater amounts of compensation or socioemotional support, they may be motivated to work harder and provide greater contributions to show their appreciation. We believe that such an atmosphere will allow employees to feel more secure and be more resilient, as well as be better able to cope with any difficulties, challenges, and obstacles that may be presented. Past researchers have examined how small talk can help develop familiarity and trusting relationships, which can influence aspects of subsequent conversation, including social and relational dialogue (McCarthy & O’Keeffe, 2004). Thus, to the degree that small talk PMT helps develop a sense of trust and familiarity among attendees prior to a meeting, we believe that it becomes more likely that these attendees will engage in positive socioemotional communication during the meeting.

Given the complexity of many issues that are considered in meetings and uncertainty in knowing how to approach such issues, problem-focused statements help clarify problems and promote common understandings. Unlike socioemotional statements, every statement in this category is considered to be useful, regardless of whether it is positive or negative in nature. Problem-focused statements may identify, describe, or make connections with a problem, as well as define a problem’s objective, identify a solution, describe a solution, respectfully object to a solution, provide connections with a solution, refer to specialists, or involve questions (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). According to Wittenbaum et al. (2004), groups must spend sufficient time defining a problem and analyzing it to be most successful. Therefore, it seems likely that meeting groups that fail to verbalize these statements as much will not work together as effectively as those groups that do.

Overall, the IPO model perspective and research relating to setting the tone in group contexts indicate that there is a relationship between positive moods, emotion, and affect and effort in complex cognitive tasks, increased cooperative behavior, and improved performance in certain types of job positions (Barsade, 2002). A possible explanation for this relationship is that individuals who become more familiar with, and fond of, one another feel more invested in the activities they engage in with others in the group, such as a meeting. These individuals may also tend to become more motivated to achieve high performance to perpetuate positive feelings in the group. Whether a group has a positive or negative collective mood has far-reaching implications. In considering reasons for these findings, one possibility is that a positive tone can lead employees to feel that they are being supported, nurtured, and encouraged in a safe environment, and higher performance and favorable outcomes can result.

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Small talk PMT is positively related to positive socioemotional statements in group meetings.

Because of the impact of more extensive communication being linked to a better ability for a group to share ideas effectively, we believe that the overall amount of PMT may be related to the amount of problem-focused statements.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Small talk PMT is positively related to problem-focused statements in group meetings.

Meeting Processes and Perceived Group Performance

Prior studies indicate that the type of communication utilized in meetings can exert a marked impact on meeting outcomes, such as group performance. For example, the use of procedural communication has been found to encourage proactive communication in meetings (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013), which may be considered the taking on of responsibility by attendees. According to Wittenbaum and colleagues (2004), the processes in meetings that facilitate coordination among members are of critical importance in maximizing the performance of groups.

However, the impact of meeting processes is not limited to merely procedural or exclusively task-focused communication. For example, research suggests that positive affect leads to the building of rapport, cohesiveness, and cooperation in a group (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005), which can ultimately allow that group to communicate their ideas and understand each other more effectively (Seligman & Schulman, 1986). It is also thought that verbal statements that reinforce positive mood can have the effect of promoting task-related behaviors (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013), which may facilitate perceived group performance.

Therefore, the forgoing rationale and theories support the following hypothesis concerning meeting processes and meeting outcomes:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Positive socioemotional statements in group meetings are positively related to (a) perceived group performance, as well as objective group performance, indicated by the (b) average quality, (c) average originality, (d) average creativity, and (e) number of solutions.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Problem-focused statements in group meetings are positively related to (a) perceived group performance, as well as objective group performance, indicated by the (b) average quality, (c) average originality, (d) average creativity, and (e) number of solutions.

In sum, the forgoing theoretical framework and process rationale suggest that small talk PMT relates to meeting processes, which will in turn affect perceived group performance. By enhancing the effectiveness of communicative process and facilitating the development of cohesiveness and rapport, we argue that perceived group performance will tend to improve as a result of small talk PMT. Given that interactive patterns established early on in a group setting tend to be followed throughout the rest of the conversation, we believe that the amount of small talk PMT will be related to the number of positive socioemotional and problem-focused statements made in meetings.

We expect that the greater number of positive socioemotional statements will be positively related to perceived group performance due to the development of greater cohesiveness and rapport, leading to greater efforts in achieving group goals. We expect that a greater number of problem-focused statements will be positively related to group performance due to these statements helping to promote a common understanding of the problem and clarifying the complexities of the tasks.

As such, the following full-mediation hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): The amount of small talk PMT positively indirectly relates to (a) perceived group performance, as well as objective group performance, indicated by the (b) average quality, (c) average originality, (d) average creativity, and (e) number of solutions, through the amount of positive socioemotional statements in group meetings.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): The amount of small talk PMT positively indirectly relates to (a) perceived group performance, as well as objective group performance, indicated by the (b) average quality, (c) average originality, (d) average creativity, and (e) number of solutions, through the amount of problem-focused statements in group meetings.

Method

Sample and Procedure

We recruited 243 students who were enrolled in a psychology or communication course at a Midwestern university for 68 groups, each consisting of between three and six individuals (M = 3.62, SD = 0.85). The participants were 63% female. The mean age of the participants was 22.4 years old (SD = 5.40) and primarily White (73%). Participants received course credit in exchange for their participation. Upon arriving at the session, participants were instructed to enter the meeting room, seated at a table, told that the study was about meetings, asked to sign the consent form, and then informed that the meeting time would begin in approximately 5 min but were not given a reason for the delay. After starting a video recorder to capture both the PMT and regular meeting periods, the researcher left the room and allowed participants to freely engage in open-ended discussion for 5 min prior to the official start of the meeting. Upon reentering the room, the researchers distributed a meeting agenda to participants, indicating that the group meeting time was to be spent discussing the general education curriculum requirements and ideas for how those requirements might be revised. Participants were told that the group with the highest performance would receive a reward. Each group was told to write their ideas down on a list. After 25 min, the researcher collected the meeting agendas and asked participants to complete a postmeeting survey. Because all of the group interactions were video recorded, researchers were able to analyze these data using a coding scheme designed for workplace meetings.

Coding of PMT and Meeting Talk

The first author and an independent coder, who was blind to the hypotheses, were trained to code both premeeting and meeting discussions, using the coding schemes described below. We used the INTERACT software (Mangold, 2010) to code all verbal interactions. Difficulty sometimes arose when a given message could reasonably be considered as being part of more than one of the established categories. The fleeting nature of PMT and the occurrence of side conversations further complicated the process. Therefore, coders were taught basic concepts of qualitative research methodology and provided detailed background knowledge concerning the primary constructs of interest. Part of the coders’ training involved a consideration of contextual factors that could influence interpretations and meanings of dialogue. Certain phrases could have much different meanings depending on the tone in which they are uttered and the progression of the conversation leading up to the utterance.

To assess the number of small talk PMT statements prior to the meeting and the number of both problem-focused and positive socioemotional statements during the meeting, we first cut the premeeting and meeting videos into sense units, which may best be described as segments in which a single thought or idea is expressed (cf. Bales, 1950). Upon completion of unitization, a subset of these videos were classified by sense units by two independent raters. These raters independently classified each sense unit in the PMT period as belonging to one of the four categories of PMT, and then used the same process to code the meeting period according to the act4teams coding scheme. The PMT coding scheme was developed by the research team, and the act4teams coding scheme, which classifies verbal meeting behavior into four facets (i.e., problem-focused, procedural, socioemotional, and action-oriented statements), has been established by previous research (e.g., Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012).

The results of the coding were used to establish interrater reliability per the process outlined by Cohen (1960). Following the first five independently coded premeeting videos, the kappa agreement for the premeeting period interactions was χ = .74, and the kappa agreement for the meeting interactions was χ = .75. Following each coder independently completing 15 additional, separate videos, another subset of videos were independently coded by each rater, resulting in an acceptable level of agreement for the premeeting period, χ = .81, and for the meeting period, χ = .73. Once all videos were coded, the number of small talk PMT sense units in the premeeting period and the number of positive socioemotional and problem-focused statements in the meeting period were assessed.

Rating of Group Performance

As previously mentioned, we developed multiple indicators of objective performance. We assessed each group’s quality, originality, and creativity (the multiplicative product of quality and originality ratings) scores, and calculated the total number of solutions generated. According to Guzzo and Shea (1992), performance of a group may include the degree to which meeting goals are achieved and the usefulness of proposed solutions. Three research assistants independently rated each solution on quality and originality using a 5-point Likert-type scale, and this approach utilized a modified version of the consensual assessment technique (Amabile, 1996). If a solution was not applicable to the meeting purpose, then raters indicated that the solution was invalid and should be excluded from the analysis. The most common reason that a solution was excluded was because it was an answer to a discussion question instead of a recommendation. Multiple solutions were generated by each group, and each individual solution was rated independently. Raters were instructed to think of quality as the completeness of the solution and how well it addresses a problem. Interrater agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979); following the rating of the first 100 solutions, the ICC value was .713. Once all solutions were rated, the ICC value was .705, which is considered to be an acceptable reliability for such ratings.

Measures

A variety of measures were included in the survey to assess participant perceptions of outcomes, such as meeting quality, and characteristics of the participants, such as their levels of positive affectivity. All participants completed the measures in the same order.

Small talk PMT

Small talk PMT was assessed using the INTERACT software program to divide meeting interactions into sense units and calculating the total number of these sense units in each group’s premeeting period. This approach is in line with the past research that uses the INTERACT software to identify the frequencies of statements (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Based on the past research, we expected that there would be substantial variability in the amount of PMT observed, with some groups engaging in frequent communication and other groups being more reserved (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). Interactions were coded as “small talk” if they discussed topics unrelated to their university, such as the weather, their family and friends, or their personal problems.

Positive socioemotional statements

The act4teams coding scheme includes the encouragement of others to speak, conveying support for others’ ideas, voicing disagreements using objective facts, expressing feelings, and offering praise of others all as types of positive socioemotional statements (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). To minimize the impact of interactive “noise,” we did not include simple active listening statements, such as “mmhm,” as part of this variable.

Problem-focused statements

The act4teams coding scheme includes the identification of a problem, an illustration of a problem, causes and effects of a problem, definition of an objective, and problems with solutions as problem-focused statements (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Similar to our approach with positive socioemotional statements, we made an effort to reduce the impact of noise by excluding “organizational knowledge” statements that occurred often yet were distinctly different from the rest of the problem-focused statements as a whole.

Perceived group performance

Perceived group performance was assessed using a four-item measure from Reiter-Palmon (2013) that was created specifically for this study. Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with a series of statements concerning their meeting. Sample items included, “Our team came up with some well thought out ideas to the problem” and “Our meeting group came up with some creative ideas.” Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 being strongly disagree to 5 being strongly agree. The ICC(1) value for this variable was .85, and the ICC(2) value was .57 (Bliese, 2000; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Furthermore, the r_WG value for this variable was found to be .92, which exceeds the minimum threshold of .70 (Meyer, Mumford, Burrus, Campion, & James, 2014) and provides further justification for aggregation.

Average quality, average originality, average creativity, and number of solutions

The objective indicators of group performance were assessed using a modified version of Amabile’s (1996) consensual assessment technique. These group performance ratings considered the quality, originality, creativity, and quantity of solutions generated by each group. The average rating for each recommendation was used in the final analyses.

Potential control variables

Various demographic and control variables were included in the survey. These included gender, age, race, and year in college. Previous meetings research has incorporated similar control variables, such as age and tenure (Rogelberg, Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler, 2010). These measures were completed by participants at the conclusion of the questionnaire. This approach is in line with that of Maruyama and Ryan (2014) who argue that placing demographic questions at the end of a survey tends to increase the likelihood that respondents will answer such questions and mitigate the risk that the inclusion of these questions will influence the responses to other questions.

Other potential control variables for group-level analyses included the length of the PMT period, the length of the meeting period, group size, and collector ID. Although an effort was made to keep the PMT and meeting periods constant across all groups, some variation occurred. However, the length of the PMT period was not significantly associated with the amount of small talk PMT, and therefore was not controlled for in the analyses.

Results

Table 1 contains the means, standard deviations, and alpha reliability coefficients for all scales in the study. To test H1a to H1e, regression analyses were conducted (see Table 2). The number of small talk PMT sense units was included and found to significantly relate to perceived group performance (ΔR² = .13; β = .36, p < .001) but not significantly related to the average quality (ΔR² = .21; β = –.05, p = .69), average originality (ΔR² = .15; β = –.07, p = .56), average creativity (ΔR² = .13; β = .01, p = .93), or number of solutions (ΔR² = .18; β = –.02, p = .87). Therefore, H1a was supported and H1b to H1e were not supported.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. Length of premeeting talk	5.26	0.60	—
2. Length of meeting talk	24.69	1.68	−.23	—
3. Size of meeting group	3.62	0.85	−.03	−.19	—
4. Number of small talk PMT sense units	45.58	40.03	.08	.04	−.12	—
5. Number of problem-focused talk sense units	75.12	29.87	−.03	.24	.07	.24*	(.51)
6. Number of positive socioemotional sense units	51.16	26.00	.15	.08	.19	.40*	.61*	(.50)
7. Perceived group performance	3.74	0.55	−.09	−.00	.18	.36*	.45*	.43*	(.86)
8. Average quality of solutions	2.38	0.45	−.25*	.43*	.04	−.04	.04	−.15	.21	—
9. Average originality of solutions	2.84	0.53	.21	.36*	.04	−.07	.08	−.15	.28*	.89*	—
10. Average creativity of solutions	7.00	2.00	−.25*	.34*	.07	.01	.10	−.08	.30*	.93*	.92	—
11. Number of solutions	8.36	5.13	−.33*	−.18	.24	−.06	−.12	−.28*	.10	.09	.10	.00	—

Note. N = 67 teams. Alpha coefficients are reported on the diagonal in parentheses. PMT = premeeting talk.

p < .05.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Number of Small Talk Premeeting Talk Sense Units on Performance.

	R ²	ΔR²	b	SE_B	β
Model: Perceived group performance
Step 1	.13*	.13*
Constant			3.77	0.06
Number of small talk PMT sense units			0.01	0.00	.36*
Model: Average quality
Step 1	.21*	.21*
Constant			0.43	0.96
PMTlength			−0.11	0.09	−.15
MTGlength			0.10	0.03	.39*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			0.00	0.00	−.05
Model: Average originality
Step 1	.15*	.15*
Constant			0.92	1.19
PMTlength			−0.11	0.11	−.13
MTGlength			0.10	0.04	.33*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			0.00	0.00	−.07
Model: Average creativity
Step 1	.13*	.13*
Constant			1.52	4.51
PMTlength			−0.58	0.40	−.18
MTGlength			0.34	0.14	.30*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			0.00	0.01	.01
Model: Number of solutions
Step 1	.18*	.18*
Constant			45.94	11.29
PMTlength			−3.34	1.00	−.40*
MTGlength			−0.81	0.36	−.27*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			−0.00	0.02	−.02

Note. n = 65 teams. PMTlength = length of premeeting talk; MTGlength = length of meeting.

p < .05.

For H2a and H2b (see Table 3), the number of PMT sense units was included, and found to significantly relate to both the number of positive socioemotional statements (ΔR² = .16; β = .40, p < .001) and the number of problem-focused statements (ΔR² = .06; β = .24, p = .046). Therefore, H2a and H2b were supported.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Number of Small Talk Premeeting Talk Sense Units on Number of Positive Socioemotional Statements and Number of Problem-Focused Statements.

Model	R ²	ΔR²	b	SE_B	β
DV: Number of positive socioemotional statements
Step 1	.16*	.16*
Constant			52.22	2.97
NumPMTSMTSU			0.26	0.07	.40*
DV: Number of problem-focused statements
Step 1	.06*	.06*
Constant			75.25	3.61
NumPMTSMTSU			0.18	0.09	.24*

Note. n = 65 teams. DV = dependent variable; NumPMTSMTSU = number of small talk premeeting talk sense units. DV = dependent variable.

p < .05.

For H3a to H3e (see Table 4), the number of positive socioemotional statements was included and found to significantly relate to perceived group performance (ΔR² = .18; β = .43, p < .001), but not significantly related to the average quality (ΔR² = .23; β = –.16, p = .16), average originality (ΔR² = .17; β = –.16, p = .18), average creativity (ΔR² = .15; β = –.08, p = .53), or number of positive socioemotional statements (ΔR² = .08; β = –.20, p = .08). Therefore, H3a was supported and H3b to H3e were not supported.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Number of Positive Socioemotional Statements on Perceived Group Performance, Average Quality, Average Originality, Average Creativity, and Number of Solutions.

	R ²	ΔR²	b	SE_B	β
Model: Perceived group performance
Step 1	.18*	.18*
Constant			3.45	0.10
Number of small talk PMT sense units			0.01	0.00	.43*
Model: Average quality
Step 1	.23*	.23*
Constant			0.35	0.95
PMTlength			−0.10	0.09	−.13
MTGlength			0.11	0.03	.41*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			−0.00	0.00	−.16
Model: Average originality
Step 1	.17	.17
Constant			0.82	1.17
PMTlength			−0.10	0.10	−.11
MTGlength			0.11	0.04	.34*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			−0.00	0.00	−.16
Model: Average creativity
Step 1	.15	.15
Constant			1.28	4.50
PMTlength			−0.55	0.40	−.17
MTGlength			0.36	0.14	.30*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			−0.01	0.01	−.08
Model: Number of solutions
Step 1	.08*	.08*
Constant			43.80	11.01
PMTlength			−3.01	0.98	−.36*
MTGlength			−0.74	0.35	−.25*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			−0.04	0.02	−.20

Note. n = 65 teams. PMTlength = length of premeeting talk; MTGlength = length of meeting.

p < .05.

For H4a to H4e (see Table 5), the number of problem-focused statements was included and found to significantly relate to perceived group performance (ΔR² = .20; β = .45, p < .001) but not average quality (ΔR² = .21; β = −.06, p = .64), average originality (ΔR² = .14; β = .00, p = .99), average creativity (ΔR² = .15; β = .03, p = .79), or number of solutions (ΔR² = −.18; β = –.07, p = .58). Therefore, H4a was supported and H4b to H4e were not supported.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Number of Problem-Focused Statements on Perceived Group Performance, Average Quality, Average Originality, Average Creativity, and Number of Solutions.

	R ²	ΔR²	b	SE_B	β
Model: Perceived group performance
Step 1	.20*	.20*
Constant			3.75	0.06
Number of small talk PMT sense units			0.01	0.00	.45*
Model: Average quality
Step 1	.21*	.21*
Constant			0.40	0.98
PMTlength			−0.12	0.09	−.16
MTGlength			0.11	0.03	.40*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			0.00	0.00	−.06
Model: Average originality
Step 1	.14*	.14*
Constant			0.99	1.20
PMTlength			−0.12	0.10	−.14
MTGlength			0.10	0.04	.32*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			0.00	0.00	.00
Model: Average creativity
Step 1	.15*	.15*
Constant			1.80	4.57
PMTlength			−0.59	0.40	−.18
MTGlength			0.34	0.15	.29
Number of small talk PMT sense units			0.00	0.01	.03
Model: Number of solutions
Step 1	.18*	.18*
Constant			44.60	11.42
PMTlength			−3.29	0.99	−.39*
MTGlength			−0.77	0.37	−.25*
Number of small talk PMT sense units			−0.01	0.02	−.07

Note. n = 65 teams. PMTlength = length of premeeting talk; MTGlength = length of meeting.

p < .05.

H5a to H5e and H6a to H6e were to be tested using mediation analyses following the steps outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2008). These analyses allowed us to determine the extent to which the relationship between the amount of small talk PMT and measures of perceived and objective performance is mediated by the number of positive socioemotional statements or the number of problem-focused statements. However, the previous nonsignificant findings related to the objective indicators of performance in H3b to H3e and H4b to H4e preclude further mediation analyses for H5b to H5e and H6b to H6e. To test H5a and H6a the variables were entered into a SPSS macro (Hayes, 2013) to test the direct and indirect effects using a bootstrap resampling technique with a maximum number of samples set at 5,000 and a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval to determine the significance of the mediator.

For H5a, mediation analysis revealed a significant effect of small talk PMT on the amount of positive socioemotional statements (b = 0.268, p < .001) and a significant effect of the number of positive socioemotional statements on perceived group performance (b = 0.006, p = .02). The direct effect of small talk PMT on perceived group performance was nonsignificant, b = 0.003, p = .06, and the total effect of small talk PMT on perceived group performance was significant, b = 0.005, p < .001. The unstandardized indirect effect of PMT on perceived group performance through the mediator positive socioemotional statements was .0002 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from .0004 to .0039, revealing that the number of positive socioemotional statements fully mediates the relationship between amount of small talk PMT and perceived group performance (see Table 6). Thus, H5a was supported.

Table 6.

Mediation Analyses for Number of Small Talk Premeeting Talk Sense Units on Performance Through Number of Positive Socioemotional Statements.

	b	SE	t	R ²
Hypothesis 5a: Perceived group performance				.20*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PSES)	0.268*	0.08	3.52
Mediator (PSES) → dependent	0.006*	0.00	2.40
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	0.005*	0.00	3.01
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	0.003	0.00	1.87
Hypothesis 5b: Quality				.22*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PSES)	0.418*	0.11	3.67
Mediator (PSES) → dependent	−0.001	0.00	−0.95
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	−0.001	0.00	−0.40
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	0.000	0.00	0.04
Covariates
PMTlength	−0.101	0.09	−1.17
MTGlength	0.110*	0.03	3.49
Hypothesis 5c: Originality				.16*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PSES)	0.418*	0.11	3.67
Mediator (PSES) → dependent	−0.001	0.00	−0.79
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	−0.001	0.00	−0.58
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	−0.000	0.00	−0.19
Covariates
PMTlength	−0.102	0.11	−0.95
MTGlength	0.110*	0.04	2.80
Hypothesis 5d: Creativity				.15*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PSES)	0.423*	0.12	3.66
Mediator (PSES) → dependent	−0.004	0.01	−0.57
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	0.001	0.01	0.09
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	0.002	0.01	0.33
Covariates
PMTlength	−0.55	0.40	−1.36
MTGlength	0.37	0.15	2.46
Hypothesis 5e: Number of solutions				.22*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PSES)	0.418*	0.11	3.67
Mediator (PSES) → dependent	−0.027	0.02	−1.65
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	−0.003	0.01	−0.17
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	0.009	0.02	0.55
Covariates
PMTlength	−3.13*	0.99	−3.15
MTGlength	−0.65	0.36	1.79

Note. n = 64 teams. NumPSES = number of positive socioemotional statements; NumPFS = number of problem-focused statements; PMTlength = length of the premeeting period; MTGlength = length of the meeting period.

p < .05.

For H6a, mediation analysis revealed a significant effect of small talk PMT on the amount of problem-focused statements (b = 0.182, p = .049) and a significant effect of the number of problem-focused statements on perceived group performance (b = 0.006, p < .001). The direct effect of small talk PMT on perceived group performance was significant, b = 0.004, p = .02, and the total effect of small talk PMT on perceived group performance was also significant, b = 0.005, p < .001. The unstandardized indirect effect of PMT on perceived group performance through the mediator problem-focused statements was .001 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from .0002 to .0027, revealing that the number of problem-focused statements partially mediates the relationship between PMT and perceived group performance (see Table 7). Thus, H6a was partially supported.

Table 7.

Mediation Analyses for Number of Small Talk Premeeting Talk Sense Units on Performance Through Number of Problem-Focused Statements.

	b	SE	t	R ²
Hypothesis 6a: Perceived group performance				.25*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PFS)	0.182*	0.09	1.96
Mediator (PFS) → dependent	0.006*	0.00	3.14
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	0.005*	0.00	3.01
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	0.004*	0.00	2.36
Hypothesis 6b: Average quality				.21*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PFS)	0.173	0.09	1.93
Mediator (PFS) → dependent	0.000	0.00	−0.20
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	0.001	0.00	−0.40
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	0.000	0.00	−0.34
Covariates
PMTlength	−0.111	0.09	−1.29
MTGlength	−0.103*	0.03	3.29
Hypothesis 6c: Average originality				.15*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PFS)	0.173	0.09	1.93
Mediator (PFS) → dependent	0.000	0.00	0.19
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	−0.001	0.00	−0.58
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	−0.001	0.00	−0.61
Covariates
PMTlength	−0.112	0.11	−1.05
MTGlength	−0.100*	0.04	2.56
Hypothesis 6d: Creativity				.15*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PFS)	0.166	0.09	1.83
Mediator (PFS) → dependent	0.004	0.01	0.41
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	0.001	0.01	0.09
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	0.000	0.01	−0.01
Covariates
PMTlength	−0.578	0.40	−1.44
MTGlength	0.331*	0.15	2.24
Hypothesis 6e: Number of solutions				.19*
Indirect path
Independent → mediator (PFS)	0.173	0.09	1.93
Mediator (PFS) → dependent	−0.015	0.02	−0.70
Total effect (c path)
NumPMTSU	−0.003	0.01	−0.17
Direct effect (c′ path)
Independent → dependent	0.000	0.02	0.01
Covariates
PMTlength	−3.34*	1.00	−3.32
MTGlength	−0.75*	0.37	−2.03

p < .05.

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship between small talk PMT, the number of particular types of meeting behaviors (problem-focused and positive socioemotional), and perceived, as well as objective, group performance. Regarding past research, the only prior study to examine the relationship between PMT and meeting outcomes (Allen et al., 2014) suggested that the use of small talk PMT predicted perceived meeting effectiveness. Furthermore, past studies have suggested that what occurs in workplace meetings is related to performance outcomes at the organizational level (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). In the present study, a main focus of our efforts was to determine if more small talk PMT might predict perceived group performance in a lab setting. Interestingly, small talk PMT related to key interaction behaviors (e.g., problem-focused statements) and to perceived meeting outcomes but did not relate to the objective group performance indicators. We review all the hypotheses and findings here with emphasis on why this particular result was not manifested in the data.

H1a, in which we posited that small talk PMT is positively related to perceived group performance, was supported. There are a variety of reasons to suggest that PMT may positively influence the frequency and quality of subsequent meeting communication. Meetings are often perceived negatively, and empirical research suggests that higher frequencies of meetings exert a negative impact on the well-being of employees, regardless of whether meeting goals are achieved (Rogelberg et al., 2006). Although engaging in small talk PMT would do little to alleviate the lost time due to meetings, it seems logical that a higher amount of interaction (particularly positive, social interaction) would mitigate some of the negative perceptions of the meeting experience, and in doing so result in attendees feeling that they are better able to focus on their tasks at hand.

However, it must also be noted that neither small talk PMT nor positive socioemotional statements and problem-focused statements were found to be related to any of the objectively rated performance outcomes. The lack of an association between problem-focused statements and objective performance measures challenges the conventional wisdom that the elaboration of task-relevant information increases a group’s performance. One potential reason for this surprising relationship may be, at least partly, due to the nature of the group task. As suggested by Watson and Michaelsen (1988), the type of task and complexity of the issue discussed largely influence which strategy will bring about the most desirable outcomes. Given that many of the meeting attendees were not extremely familiar with the current general education requirements, their problem-focused statements may not have developed greater complexity over the course of meeting, which could limit the ability of such discussion to bring about enhanced objective performance (see Hirokawa, 1982), even when they engaged in a greater number of them. In addition, our results may suggest that a group-level babble effect can take place in meetings, such that groups who engage in more extensive discussion tend to believe they achieved high performance, while objective ratings may actually contradict the teams’ perceptions. The “babble effect” refers to a phenomenon in which the amount that an individual speaks is more influential in shaping others’ perceptions of that individual as a leader than the quality of the individual’s contributions (Jones & Kelly, 2007). Numerous studies have supported the general finding that quantity of talk tends to be more influential than quality of talk (e.g., Hayes & Meltzer, 1972; Regula & Julian, 1973). Yet, to our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the existence of a group-level babble effect in the meeting context, in which meeting attendees’ perceptions of a meeting’s success may be more influenced by the quantity, rather than quality, of meeting contributions.

H2a suggested that the amount of small talk PMT is positively related to positive socioemotional statements in group meetings, which was supported. Thus, it seems that initially establishing strong communication in the premeeting period may exert a positive influence on certain types of discussions throughout the meeting period. The impact on positive socioemotional meeting statements is of particular importance, given the degree to which relational communication is considered to be critically important in binding a group together (Keyton, 1999) and fulfilling the emotional needs of meeting attendees (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). H2b suggested that the amount of PMT is positively related to problem-focused statements in group meetings, which was supported. Engaging in more extensive communication prior to the meeting also appears to lead to a more robust discussion of topics relevant to the meeting, such as statements that define a problem or propose a solution to a problem. One possibility is that communication before a meeting can lead to a shared mind-set and a stronger degree of understanding among members of the meeting group. This increase in understanding may develop in the form of considering how other meeting attendees are conceptualizing particular problems, as well as the internal motivations underlying the decision making of other attendees.

H3a posited that the number of positive socioemotional statements in group meetings is positively related to perceived group performance, which was supported. Based on this finding, it seems that such relational communication may have a beneficial impact on perceptions of group performance due to the emotional needs of members being met, and the meeting environment providing an enriching and rewarding atmosphere that leads meeting attendees to develop a stronger desire to help and an increased inclination to make high-quality contributions in the meeting. H4a posited that the number of problem-focused statements in group meetings is positively related to perceived group performance, which was supported. This finding indicates that placing an emphasis on aspects of specific issues relevant to the meeting tended to result in a perception of enhanced performance. By keeping much of the meeting discussion focused on the task at hand, meeting attendees are perhaps better able to discuss complexities of problems and proposed solutions more in depth, resulting in the perception of higher quality ideas.

H5a suggested that the number of positive socioemotional statements in a meeting would mediate the relationship between the amount of small talk PMT and perceived group performance. The reasoning behind this hypothesis is that engaging in small talk PMT may result in less restrained, higher quality and more productive discussion as a result of ameliorating anxiousness among meeting attendees. These findings suggest that greater amounts of small talk PMT do not lead to increased perceptions of group performance when increased positive socioemotional communication does not also occur. Therefore, if the interaction during the PMT period does not allow people to foster a meeting environment conveying security and support, then the perception of discussion quality, and perhaps other meeting outcomes, will not be enhanced.

H6a suggested that the number of problem-focused statements in a meeting would mediate the relationship between the amount of small talk PMT and perceived group performance. This finding suggests that a condition of PMT exerting a positive impact on perceived group performance is that the PMT must be followed by a thorough consideration of the focal topic. In other words, a given group must spend time developing a common understanding of the problems they face, especially if the problem being presented has many possible solutions. When meeting attendees do not first develop a common understanding of definitions and the nature of the issue at hand, such a group is more likely to produce lower quality outcomes (Mitroff & Featheringham, 1974). Similarly, meeting attendees seem to be more likely to consider their group meeting to have been effective if there is an extensive consideration of the issues at hand.

Research and Theoretical Contributions

The forgoing study provides several research and theoretical contributions to our understanding of meetings through the IPO model framework. Of particular importance is the finding that small talk PMT is positively associated with both problem-focused and positive socioemotional statements. Given the research indicating the importance of particular communicative behaviors, including these two types of statements, for performance outcomes, this research is a significant step forward in identifying predictors of these functional forms of communication. In addition to the instrumental value of these meeting statements in achieving meeting outcomes, organizations may desire a greater frequency of these statements due to organizational leaders seeking to boost camaraderie through fostering supportive statements within group settings, or to ensure that group members achieve a greater understanding of each other’s perspectives to affect outcomes beyond the meeting. As a whole, these findings fit well with prior studies that have found the initial communicative events in an interaction to be very influential on subsequent communication and the progression of conversation for the duration of an event. By engaging in PMT prior to a meeting, attendees are provided with an opportunity to set the path of a conversation in a positive and meaningful direction that allows attendees’ collective potential to reach fruition.

In terms of methodological contributions, this project marks a significant first step in the study of meeting interaction. To our knowledge, it is the very first study to examine PMT in an in-person research setting. It was less than a decade ago when meetings research began to pick up pace. In 2006, Rogelberg and colleagues began to examine particular aspects of workplace meetings and outcomes, such as employee well-being. Since then, meetings research has grown considerably; however, a large portion of this research has been cross-sectional in nature. The approach to coding and analyzing meeting interactions with software capable of extensive analysis of conversations has become possible only recently. Considerable challenges to this approach remain, however. In addition to the process being incredibly time-intensive, there is a certain amount of subjectivity within the coding process, although subjectivity is mitigated by establishing interrater agreement. A variety of technical challenges are also present within the process. Malfunctioning cameras, software glitches, and differences in the way in which different computers play coded files are all a part of this process, but these problems will likely be increasingly addressed over time. Despite the challenges faced, this study represents an important progression in meetings research to investigate meeting processes before, during, and as a result of the meeting.

Implications for Practice

One of the main implications of this study is that the findings suggest that meeting leaders who aim to increase the focus on a problem or to encourage attendees to provide others with socioemotional support may benefit from promoting premeeting communication. The relatively brief time preceding a meeting may be thought of as critical in setting the stage for certain aspects of the meeting, and there may be a variety of other benefits of utilizing the PMT period in addition to those investigated in this study. As one example, it seems logical to expect that the PMT can foster the building or maintenance of relationships among coworkers, and allow them to be more comfortable and participative in the meeting, which may ultimately prove beneficial to attendee performance or other meeting outcomes.

Practitioners may also find value in this research when considering how best to use video recording along with advanced coding software to achieve a stronger ability to analyze their meeting processes in their quest for improvements in meeting processes, efficiency, or a host of other outcomes. Evaluating organizational meetings with the INTERACT software and the act4Teams coding scheme can do much to enhance the awareness of organizational leaders in their efforts to discourage negative meeting behaviors, and determine what specific types of meeting interactions may be most desirable for their particular organization’s meetings.

With further study and examination, it is likely that more specific uses of PMT, as a tool to manipulate a meeting and work environment, will be discovered. Due to Allen and colleagues’ (2014) previous finding that small talk PMT is positively related to perceptions of meeting effectiveness, meeting leaders may be able to use this knowledge as a means of manipulating meeting perceptions. As future research examines even more outcomes of PMT, meeting leaders will be increasingly able to use PMT to transform their meetings, and guide attendees toward specific types of meeting interactions and influence desired meeting perceptions.

Given the lack of a positive relationship between small talk PMT and objective performance outcomes or between positive socioemotional statements/problem-focused statements and objective performance outcomes, it seems that a group-level babble effect may be taking place. Meeting attendees may believe that engaging in greater amounts of certain types of discussion results in stronger performance, yet objective ratings indicate otherwise. To avoid equating amount of meeting discussion with meeting effectiveness, meeting leaders may be able to facilitate the meeting to elicit the strongest contributions and deter counterproductive discussion that may simply waste time. The threat of such behaviors is very real. For example, Henningsen and Henningsen (2015) examined individual contributions in group discussions, and found that while the individual who talked the most tended to influence group decision making the most, the group member with the most expertise influenced the group relatively less. Furthermore, these authors suggest that introverted experts are routinely at risk of being overwhelmed by “nattering nabobs” that choose to dominate discussions regardless of their actual expertise (Henningsen & Henningsen, 2015). Meeting leaders may attempt to address this through implementing changes in meeting design, such as turn taking.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations must be considered: First, there are a variety of differences between PMT studied as it naturally occurs and PMT studied in a laboratory environment. For example, Mirivel and Tracy (2005) indicated that most of the naturally occurring PMT they observed took place over the course of 15 min, and this period took place prior to the scheduled start time of the meeting. Due to the constraints of the laboratory environment, the participants in the present study were only able to be recorded following their written consent to participate in the study, which did not take place prior to the scheduled meeting start time. The delay of the meeting’s start to provide a PMT period may elicit a fundamentally different interpretation of the interaction period than if the PMT had started prior to the meeting. Also, the present analyses did not consider the degree to which PMT conversation was of a positive or negative nature. Data regarding group composition, such as whether any participants in a given group knew each other, were not collected; therefore, it is not known to what degree the extent of PMT may reflect familiarity or comfort due to preexisting connections.

Also, the artificiality of the meeting setting presents an additional constraint; many participants mentioned the presence of the camera in the premeeting period, and indicated that they believed the interaction before the meeting was a focus of the study. Participants being aware of being recorded can influence the mental processes of a group (Wicklund, 1975). That being said, the mentally challenging task of generating recommendations to revise the core curriculum did seem to effectively take the participants’ minds off the camera for the majority of time. A number of students openly engaged in criticism of aspects of particular professors, which seemed to indicate lower levels of reactivity to the camera. However, this limitation should not necessarily be thought of as being negative. Rather, research lab studies often provide a way to test initial hypotheses and set the stage for future research.

There are also a variety of future research directions that merit further consideration: First, research may examine the role of personality in the impact of PMT. For example, research can explore what personality characteristics, or combinations of personality characteristics, may make individuals more or less likely to either engage in PMT or be influenced by PMT. Personality theories enable researchers to understand associations between thoughts and actions (McCrae, 1994). It may be useful to consider “The Big Five” major personality traits, which include Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Extraversion/Introversion, Openness to Experience, and Conscientiousness (McCrae, 1994). It also seems possible that specific PMT variants may differentially exert influences on individual behavior depending on personality factors.

Second, greater attention may be given to the nature of PMT through Social Interaction Analyses. According to Sauer and Kauffeld (2013), social network analyses (SNAs) integrate theory with tools for achieving a greater understanding of how people interact with certain others in a group. In the context of a meeting, all members are connected within a web, and the relationships between any two sets of individuals within the web vary considerably. A key advantage of SNA is that it may allow for a much greater exploration of the nature of PMT. For example, SNA may allow investigation of how the impact of PMT differs depending on its use by meeting leaders or regular attendees.

In addition, it seems that if significant effects are observed in relatively short-lived research sessions involving undergraduate students, then the effect may be more pronounced in long-term work groups. At the same time, it is important not to overlook the potential importance of PMT for newly formed, or temporary, meeting groups. That is, for such meeting groups the PMT period is a crucial time in which participants get to know each other for the first time, meaning that PMT could potentially have more influence on particular outcomes in such situations. It may be wise for future studies to assess whether the attendees in the meeting groups being studied are all meeting each other for the first time.

Finally, it is possible that a common third factor, such as highly social-oriented group members, may have influenced the amount of discussion in both the PMT and meeting periods. Although we did not focus on such individual differences in this study, it may be of interest to explore in future research.

Conclusion

Considering the rise in meeting frequency over the past few decades, it seems surprising that more research has not previously been conducted on PMT (Allen et al., 2014; Mirivel & Tracy, 2005). This research presents a significant step forward in understanding how PMT may influence meeting interactions, which ultimately influence perceptions of meeting outcomes.

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 iD

Michael Yoerger

Author Biographies

Michael Yoerger is a doctoral student in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, United States. His primary research interests include teamwork, leadership, and meeting effectiveness in the context of health care.

Joseph A. Allen is an associate professor in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, United States. His main areas of research include the study of workplace meetings, emotion management, and volunteer management. He has consulted for more than 200 nonprofit and for-profit organizations.

John Crowe is a Navy veteran and doctoral candidate in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, United States. He has worked on several projects applying principles of organizational science, collaboration, and leadership to the study of both conventional and nonconventional organizations.

References

Allen

J. A.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Landowski

(2014). Linking pre-meeting communication to meeting effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 1064-1081. doi:10.1108/JMP-09-2012-0265

Allen

J. A.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Rogelberg

(2015). An introduction to the Cambridge handbook of meeting science. In Allen

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Rogelberg

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of meeting science (pp. 3-11). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Allen

J. A.

Rogelberg

S. G.

(2013). Manager-led group meetings: A context for promoting employee engagement. Group & Organization Management, 38, 543-569. doi:10.1177/1059601113503040

Amabile

T. M.

(1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Amabile

T. M.

Barsade

S. G.

Mueller

J. S.

Staw

B. M.

(2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367-403. doi:10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367

Bales

R. F.

(1950). A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. American Sociological Review, 15, 257-263.

Baran

B. E.

Shanock

L. R.

Miller

(2012). Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 123-147. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9236-3

Barsade

S. G.

(2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675. doi:10.2307/3094912

Bliese

P. D.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

10.

Cohen

(1960). Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104

11.

Cohen

M. A.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Allen

J. A.

Luong

(2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 15, 90-104. doi:10.1037/a0021549

12.

Coupland

(2000). Introduction: Social perspectives on small talk. In Coupland

(Ed.), Small talk (pp. 1-25). Harlow, UK: Longman.

13.

Dhulipala

A. K.

Fragouli

Orlitsky

(2010). Silence-based communication. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 56, 350-366. doi:10.1109/TIT.2009.2034813

14.

Eriksen

Dyer

(2004). Right from the start: Exploring the effects of early team events on subsequent project team development and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 438-471. doi:10.2307/4131442

15.

Feldman

D. C.

(1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47-53. doi:10.5465/AMR.1984.4277934

16.

Gersick

C. J.

Hackman

R. J.

(1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 65-97. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-d

17.

Guzzo

R. A.

Shea

G. P.

(1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In Dunnette

M. D.

Hough

L. M.

Dunnette

M. D.

Hough

L. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3 (2nd ed., pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

18.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch

J. W.

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behaviour (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

19.

Hackman

J. R.

Morris

C. G.

(1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 45-99). New York, NY: Academic Press.

20.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

21.

Hayes

D. P.

Meltzer

(1972). Interpersonal judgments based on talkativeness: Fact or artifact? Sociometry, 35, 538-561.

22.

Henningsen

D. D.

Henningsen

M. M.

(2015). A preliminary examination of perceptions of social influence in group decision making in the workplace. International Journal of Business Communication, 52, 188-204. doi:10.1177/2329488414525448

23.

Hirokawa

R. Y.

(1982). Group communication and problem-solving effectiveness: A critical review of inconsistent findings. Communication Quarterly, 30, 134-141. doi:10.1080/01463378209369440

24.

Jones

E. E.

Kelly

J. R.

(2007). Contributions to a group discussion and perceptions of leadership: Does quantity always count more than quality? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 15-30. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.11.1.15

25.

Kauffeld

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2012). Meetings matter: Effects of work group communication on organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 128-156. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599

26.

Keyton

(1999). Relational communication in groups. In Frey

L. R.

Gouran

D. S.

Poole

M. S.

(Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory and research (pp. 192-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Klein

Kozlowski

(2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211-236. doi:10.1177/109442810033001

28.

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. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9092-6

29.

Lehmann-Willenbrock

Allen

J. A.

Kauffeld

(2013). A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 365-388. doi:10.1080/00909882.2013.844847

30.

Lovelace

Shapiro

D. L.

Weingart

L. R.

(2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-793. doi:10.2307/3069415

31.

Luong

Rogelberg

S. G.

(2005). Meetings and more meetings: The relationship between meeting load and the daily well-being of employees. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 58-67. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.9.1.58

32.

Mangold. (2010). INTERACT V2.4. Available from www.mangold-international.com

33.

Maruyama

Ryan

C. S.

(2014). Research methods in social relations (8th ed.). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

34.

McCarthy

(2003). Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36, 33-63. doi:10.0.4.183/S15327973RLSI3601_3

35.

McCarthy

O’Keeffe

(2004). Research on the teaching of speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 26-43.

36.

McComas

K. A.

(2003). Citizen satisfaction with public meetings used for risk communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 164-184. doi:10.1080/0090988032000064605

37.

McCrae

(1994). Openness to experience: Expanding the boundaries of factor v. European Journal of Personality, 8, 251-272. doi:10.1002/per.2410080404

38.

Meyer

R. D.

Mumford

T. V.

Burrus

C. J.

Campion

M. A.

James

L. R.

(2014). Selecting null distributions when calculating r_WG: A tutorial and review. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 324-345. doi:10.1177/1094428114526927

39.

Mirivel

J. C.

Tracy

(2005). Premeeting talk: An organizationally crucial form of talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 1-34. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_1

40.

Mitroff

I. I.

Featheringham

T. R.

(1974). On systemic problem solving and the error of the third kind. Behavioral Science, 19, 383-393. doi:10.1002/bs.3830190605

41.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In Hayes

A. F.

Slater

M. D.

Snyder

L. B.

(Eds.), The SAGE sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Regula

C. R.

Julian

J. W.

(1973). The impact of quality and frequency of task contributions on perceived ability. Journal of Social Psychology, 89, 115-122. doi:10.1080/00224545.1973.9922575

43.

Reiter-Palmon

(2013). Perceived Group Performance. Unpublished scale.

44.

Rogelberg

S. G.

Allen

J. A.

Shanock

Scott

Shuffler

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

45.

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, 83-97. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.83

46.

Sauer

N. C.

Kauffeld

(2013). Meetings as networks: Applying social network analysis to team interaction. Communication Methods & Measures, 7, 26-47. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.760729

47.

Schwartzman

H. B.

(1986). The meeting as a neglected social form in organizational studies. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 233-258.

48.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Schulman

(1986). Explanatory style as a predictor of productivity and quitting among life insurance sales agents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 832-838. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.832

49.

Shrout

P. E.

Fleiss

J. L.

(1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater Reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420

50.

Tracy

Dimock

(2003). Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. In Kabfleish

P. J.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 127-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

51.

Watson

Michaelsen

(1988). Group interaction behaviors that affect group performance on an intellective Task. Group & Organization Management, 13, 495-516. doi:10.1177/105960118801300406

52.

Wicklund

R. A.

(1975). Objective self-awareness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 233-275. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60252-X

53.

Wittenbaum

G. M.

Hollingshead

A. B.

Paulus

P. B.

Hirokawa

R. Y.

Ancona

D. G.

Peterson

R. S.

. . . Yoon

(2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35, 17-43. doi:10.1177/1046496403259459

54.

Zellmer-Bruhn

Waller

M. J.

Ancona

D. G.

(2004). The effect of temporal entrainment on the ability of teams to change their routines. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 6, 135-158. doi:10.1016/s1534-0856(03)06007-9