1. 1 Meeting Performance and Group Dynamics ETM5361/MSIS5600 Managing Virtual Project Teams Nicholas C. Romano, Jr., Ph.D. Nicholas-Romano@mstm.okstate.edu Paul E. Rossler, Ph.D., P.E. prossle@okstate.edu

2. 2 Overview How efficient and effective are most meetings?How efficient and effective are most meetings? Has meeting performance improved over time with the availability of technology?Has meeting performance improved over time with the availability of technology? What are the causes of poor meetings?What are the causes of poor meetings? What tendencies do groups exhibit?What tendencies do groups exhibit?

3. 3 Are these tendencies exacerbated in virtual team settings?Are these tendencies exacerbated in virtual team settings? What are the processes and structures associated with effective meetings?What are the processes and structures associated with effective meetings?

4. 4 Meeting analysis: Findings from research and practice Why consider meetings in virtual teaming?Why consider meetings in virtual teaming? Defining meetingsDefining meetings Meeting productivity metricsMeeting productivity metrics Romano, N. C., & Nunamaker, J. F. 2001. Meeting analysis: Findings from research and practice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

5. 5 Why consider meetings in virtual teaming? Are essential for accomplishing workAre essential for accomplishing work Dominate employees’ and managers’ timeDominate employees’ and managers’ time Are considered costly, unproductive, dissatisfyingAre considered costly, unproductive, dissatisfying Are steadily increasing in number and lengthAre steadily increasing in number and length Research and practice illustrate that meetings:

6. 6 "Almost every time there is a genuinely important decision to be made in an organization, a group is assigned to make it -- or at least to counsel and advise the individual who must make it." -Hackman

7. 7 "We meet because people holding different jobs have to cooperate to get a specific task done. We meet because the knowledge and experience needed in a specific situation are not available in one head, but have to be pieced together out of the knowledge and experience of several people.” - Peter Drucker (1967)

8. 8 Meetings do not go away in virtual teaming We need to understand today’s meetings as thoroughly as possible in order to move toward collaborating in a virtual world One way to do this is through Meeting Productivity Metrics

9. 9 Existing meeting productivity metrics TypesTypes PurposesPurposes TimeTime NumberNumber CostCost EfficiencyEfficiency ProblemsProblems

10. 10 Types of meetings in Corporate America 45% Staff 22% Task 21% Information Sharing 5% Brainstorming 5% Brainstorming 2% Ceremonial 2% Ceremonial 5% Other 5% Other Based on 903 meetings (Monge, P. R., McSween, C., & Wyer, J. 1989)

11. 11 Meeting purposes: 66% involve complex group processes (Monge, P. R., McSween, C., & Wyer, J. 1989)

12. 12 Time spent in meetings shows an upward trend 1960’s: Average Exec. 3 1/2 hrs/wk (~3- 4 Meetings) Additional time in informal meetings (Tillman, 1960)

13. 13 1970’s: Average Exec. 6-7/wk (~2x 1960’s Study - Rice, 1973) Managers up to 60% of their time. (Mintzberg, 1973) Program managers up to 80% of their time. Middle managers 3 or 4 full days a week. Some 8 straight hours in one meeting. (Van de Ven, 1973)

14. 14 1980’s: Typical middle managers ~35% of their work week. Top mangers 50% of their time. (Doyle, 1982) Typical managers up to 80% of their time. (Monge, 1989) Average technical professional/manager 1/4 work week. Top and middle managers 2 days/week. Executive managers 4 days/week. (Mosvick, 1987)

15. 15 Mosvick (1982, 1986) in 2 studies over a 5 year period of 950 junior-senior managers and technical professionals in large-scale technology-intensive industries U.S. and abroad Major finding: "a notable shift toward an increase in the number and length of meetings with an increasingly high level of dissatisfaction with meetings."

16. 16 Reported length of meetings: 51% between 30 and 90 minutes (Monge, P. R., McSween, C., & Wyer, J. 1989)

17. 17 Time spent in meetings shows an upward trend (cont’d.) Up to 20% of a manager’s work day is spent in conference room meetings. (Panko, 1992) Managers spend ~ 20% of their work day in 5 person or larger formal meetings and as much as 85% of their time communicating. (Panko, 1994)

18. 18 Meeting frequency is increasing Fortune 500 companies hold between 11 to 15 million formal meetings/day and 3 to 4 billion meetings/year (Doyle, 1982; Monge, 1989) A 1997 survey found that 24% of respondents expect to hold more meetings in 1998 and 85% predict the same length or longer meetings

19. 19 Meeting costs 11-15 Million formal meetings / day11-15 Million formal meetings / day ? Million informal meetings / day? Million informal meetings / day 3-4 Billion meetings / year3-4 Billion meetings / year 30-80% Manager’s time in teamwork30-80% Manager’s time in teamwork 7-15% of personnel budgets on teamwork7-15% of personnel budgets on teamwork $ billions of spent each year$ billions of spent each year The 3M Meeting Productivity Study and Harrison Hofstra Study found that…

20. 20 Meeting efficiency On average, by managerial function, 33% of meeting time is unproductive (Sheridan, 1989)

21. 21

22. 22 Meeting problems: Agenda (or lack thereof) No goals or agenda – 2nd most commonly reported problem (Mosvick, 1987) ~ 50% had no written agenda; However 73% of respondents felt an agenda is "essential" for a productive meeting. (Burleson, 1990; Sheridan, 1989 - Harrison- Hofstra Survey)

23. 23 32% No stated agenda 17% Prior Verbal agendas 9% Written agendas distributed at start 29% Prior written agendas (Monge, 1989)

24. 24 Workers express the desire to work in groups 3 year survey of 10,277 U.S. workers from all levels of employment that 97% reported they needed conditions that encourage collaboration to do their best work. (Hall, 1994)

25. 25 A recent survey of executives found that… 43% of them admitted dozing off at least once during a meeting The majority concluded that 20-30% of meetings were unnecessary (Erickson, 1998)

26. 26 Findings Decades of study show that meetings dominate workers’ and managers’ time and yet are considered to be costly, unproductive and dissatisfying. Yet meetings are essential, because no one person has the knowledge, insight, skills and experience to do the job alone. (Erickson, 1998)

27. Look who’s talking Traditional TeamworkTraditional Teamwork – Boss talked 33% of time – Next person 22% Technology Supported TeamworkTechnology Supported Teamwork – Boss talked 5 % – Next person 8% Source: Romano

28. 28 A quick review of difficulties with groups Some tasks are simply not well suited for group methods or processesSome tasks are simply not well suited for group methods or processes Often develop preferred ways of looking at problems that can inhibit innovationOften develop preferred ways of looking at problems that can inhibit innovation Synergistic effect can be absentSynergistic effect can be absent –For example, brainstorming doesn’t exceed performance of individually produced and combined results

29. 29 Politics, power, and position can dominate methods or resultsPolitics, power, and position can dominate methods or results –Or can suppress contributions of others A group fulfills social needs, but group seldom has ways of regulating amountA group fulfills social needs, but group seldom has ways of regulating amount Fairly reliable characteristic of groups to get off track and get stuck thereFairly reliable characteristic of groups to get off track and get stuck there

30. 30 Groups tend to have relatively low aspiration levels with respect to quality of solutions acceptedGroups tend to have relatively low aspiration levels with respect to quality of solutions accepted –Once some level of acceptance is inferred, little further search happens Often lack concern and method for dealing with way to best utilize and communicate members’ knowledgeOften lack concern and method for dealing with way to best utilize and communicate members’ knowledge

31. 31 Strongly influenced by cultural normsStrongly influenced by cultural norms –In natural groups, members tend to be conservative, circumspect If the group’s efforts do not appear reinforced, effort is reducedIf the group’s efforts do not appear reinforced, effort is reduced As group size increases, effort contributed by each individual member tends to decreaseAs group size increases, effort contributed by each individual member tends to decrease

32. 32 Reliably exhibit norms against devoting time to planning their methodsReliably exhibit norms against devoting time to planning their methods –Move immediately to attacking problem, relying on implicitly shared methods –Considerable likelihood that method is poorly adapted to task and only modestly effective –Seldom have ability to change the method when things not going well

33. 33 Effective use of roles and process help direct dynamics Group process management rolesGroup process management roles Group process member rolesGroup process member roles –Task –Maintenance –Non-productive Group process communication patternsGroup process communication patterns Team member rolesTeam member roles

34. 34 An input-process-output model of teamwork Group Task Context Technology Process Outcome (Source: Doug Vogel)

35. 35 Process gains More informationMore information SynergySynergy More objective evaluationMore objective evaluation Stimulation (encouragement)Stimulation (encouragement) LearningLearning Source: Nunamaker, J.F., R.O. Briggs, and D.D. Mittleman, Electronic meeting systems: Ten years of lessons learned, in Groupware: Technology and applications, D. Coleman and R. Khanna, Editors. 1995, Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ. p. 149-193.

36. 36 Process losses Air time fragmentationAir time fragmentation Attenuation blockingAttenuation blocking Concentration blockingConcentration blocking Attention blockingAttention blocking Failure to rememberFailure to remember Conformance pressureConformance pressure Evaluation apprehensionEvaluation apprehension Free ridingFree riding Cognitive inertia Socializing Domination Information overload Coordination problems Incomplete use of information Incomplete task analysis Source: Nunamaker, J.F., R.O. Briggs, and D.D. Mittleman

37. 37 Common process losses Air time fragmentation Attenuation blocking Members who are prevented from contributing comments as they occur to them, forget or suppress them later in the meeting Concentration blocking Fewer comments are made because members concentrate on remembering comments until they can contribute them

38. 38 Process losses (cont’d.) Attention blocking New comments are not generated because members must constantly listen to others speak and cannot pause to think Failure to remember Members lack focus on communication, missing or forgetting the contributions of others Conformance pressure Reluctance to criticize others’ comments due to politeness or fear of reprisals

39. 39 Process losses (cont’d.) Evaluation apprehension Withholding ideas due to fear of negative evaluation Free riding Relying on others to accomplish goals due to mental loafing, competing for air time, or perceiving input not needed

40. 40 Process losses (cont’d.) Cognitive inertia Discussion moves along one train-of- thought because others refrain from contributing comments Socializing Domination Information overload

41. 41 Process losses (cont’d.) Coordination problems Difficulty integrating members’ contributions because the group does not have an appropriate strategy for doing so Incomplete use of information Incomplete task analysis Incomplete analysis and understanding of task resulting in superficial discussions

42. 42 Process oriented model of virtual teamwork GSSStructures Social Interactions and Dynamics Meeting Outcomes Time Reinig, B. A., & Shin, B. 2002. The dynamic effects of group support systems on group meetings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(2): 303-325.

43. 43 Hypothesized relationships GSS Production Blocking Free Riding Sucker Effect Group Cohesion Self-Reported Learning Affective Reward Time Period - - - - - - + + + Source: Reinig, B. A., & Shin, B. 2002. Evaluation Apprehension (?)

44. 44 Some (preliminary) findings GSS Production Blocking Free Riding Sucker Effect Group Cohesion Self-Reported Learning Affective Reward Time Period - - - - - + + + Source: Reinig, B. A., & Shin, B. 2002. + - - + -

45. 45 Summary Most meetings are not efficient or effectiveMost meetings are not efficient or effective –And the increased availability of technology hasn’t helped reverse this trend Unmanaged group dynamics seem to contribute to this inefficiency and ineffectivenessUnmanaged group dynamics seem to contribute to this inefficiency and ineffectiveness Structure and process play important role in virtual team meeting performanceStructure and process play important role in virtual team meeting performance Group support systems help to mitigate or reduce the negative affect of process losses on performanceGroup support systems help to mitigate or reduce the negative affect of process losses on performance