A Sequential Analysis of Procedural Meeting Communication

How Teams Facilitate Their Meetings

Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, Joseph A Allen, Simone Kauffeld

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

How do teams facilitate their own meetings? Unmanaged (or free) social interaction often leads to poor decision-making, unnecessary conformity, social loafing, and ineffective communication processes, practices, and products. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential benefits of procedural communication in team meetings. The role of procedural communication, defined as verbal behaviors that structure group discussion to facilitate goal accomplishment, was examined in 59 team meetings from 19 organizations. Meeting behaviors were videotaped and coded. Lag sequential analysis revealed that procedural meeting behaviors are sustained by supporting statements within the team interaction process. They promote proactive communication (e.g., who will do what and when) and significantly inhibit dysfunctional meeting behaviors (e.g., losing the train of thought, criticizing others, and complaining). These patterns were found both at lag1 and lag2. Furthermore, the more evenly distributed procedural meeting behaviors were across team members, the more team members were satisfied with their discussion processes and outcomes. For practice, these findings suggest that managers should encourage procedural communication to enhance meeting effectiveness, and team members should share the responsibility of procedurally facilitating their meetings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)365-388
Number of pages24
JournalJournal of Applied Communication Research
Volume41
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2013

Fingerprint

communication
Communication
Managers
Decision making
sequential analysis
Procedural
Sequential Analysis
language behavior
interaction
conformity
group discussion
manager
decision making
responsibility

Keywords

  • Facilitation
  • Interaction Analysis
  • Lag Sequential Analysis
  • Meeting Effectiveness

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Language and Linguistics

Cite this

A Sequential Analysis of Procedural Meeting Communication : How Teams Facilitate Their Meetings. / Lehmann-Willenbrock, Nale; Allen, Joseph A; Kauffeld, Simone.

In: Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, 01.11.2013, p. 365-388.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{48848de811324bb59ab67faf405fea3e,
title = "A Sequential Analysis of Procedural Meeting Communication: How Teams Facilitate Their Meetings",
abstract = "How do teams facilitate their own meetings? Unmanaged (or free) social interaction often leads to poor decision-making, unnecessary conformity, social loafing, and ineffective communication processes, practices, and products. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential benefits of procedural communication in team meetings. The role of procedural communication, defined as verbal behaviors that structure group discussion to facilitate goal accomplishment, was examined in 59 team meetings from 19 organizations. Meeting behaviors were videotaped and coded. Lag sequential analysis revealed that procedural meeting behaviors are sustained by supporting statements within the team interaction process. They promote proactive communication (e.g., who will do what and when) and significantly inhibit dysfunctional meeting behaviors (e.g., losing the train of thought, criticizing others, and complaining). These patterns were found both at lag1 and lag2. Furthermore, the more evenly distributed procedural meeting behaviors were across team members, the more team members were satisfied with their discussion processes and outcomes. For practice, these findings suggest that managers should encourage procedural communication to enhance meeting effectiveness, and team members should share the responsibility of procedurally facilitating their meetings.",
keywords = "Facilitation, Interaction Analysis, Lag Sequential Analysis, Meeting Effectiveness",
author = "Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock and Allen, {Joseph A} and Simone Kauffeld",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/00909882.2013.844847",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "365--388",
journal = "Journal of Applied Communication Research",
issn = "0090-9882",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Sequential Analysis of Procedural Meeting Communication

T2 - How Teams Facilitate Their Meetings

AU - Lehmann-Willenbrock, Nale

AU - Allen, Joseph A

AU - Kauffeld, Simone

PY - 2013/11/1

Y1 - 2013/11/1

N2 - How do teams facilitate their own meetings? Unmanaged (or free) social interaction often leads to poor decision-making, unnecessary conformity, social loafing, and ineffective communication processes, practices, and products. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential benefits of procedural communication in team meetings. The role of procedural communication, defined as verbal behaviors that structure group discussion to facilitate goal accomplishment, was examined in 59 team meetings from 19 organizations. Meeting behaviors were videotaped and coded. Lag sequential analysis revealed that procedural meeting behaviors are sustained by supporting statements within the team interaction process. They promote proactive communication (e.g., who will do what and when) and significantly inhibit dysfunctional meeting behaviors (e.g., losing the train of thought, criticizing others, and complaining). These patterns were found both at lag1 and lag2. Furthermore, the more evenly distributed procedural meeting behaviors were across team members, the more team members were satisfied with their discussion processes and outcomes. For practice, these findings suggest that managers should encourage procedural communication to enhance meeting effectiveness, and team members should share the responsibility of procedurally facilitating their meetings.

AB - How do teams facilitate their own meetings? Unmanaged (or free) social interaction often leads to poor decision-making, unnecessary conformity, social loafing, and ineffective communication processes, practices, and products. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential benefits of procedural communication in team meetings. The role of procedural communication, defined as verbal behaviors that structure group discussion to facilitate goal accomplishment, was examined in 59 team meetings from 19 organizations. Meeting behaviors were videotaped and coded. Lag sequential analysis revealed that procedural meeting behaviors are sustained by supporting statements within the team interaction process. They promote proactive communication (e.g., who will do what and when) and significantly inhibit dysfunctional meeting behaviors (e.g., losing the train of thought, criticizing others, and complaining). These patterns were found both at lag1 and lag2. Furthermore, the more evenly distributed procedural meeting behaviors were across team members, the more team members were satisfied with their discussion processes and outcomes. For practice, these findings suggest that managers should encourage procedural communication to enhance meeting effectiveness, and team members should share the responsibility of procedurally facilitating their meetings.

KW - Facilitation

KW - Interaction Analysis

KW - Lag Sequential Analysis

KW - Meeting Effectiveness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886433409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886433409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00909882.2013.844847

DO - 10.1080/00909882.2013.844847

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 365

EP - 388

JO - Journal of Applied Communication Research

JF - Journal of Applied Communication Research

SN - 0090-9882

IS - 4

ER -