Abstract
Abstract. Which factors contribute to effective meetings? The interaction among participants plays a key role. Interaction is a relational, interdependent process that constitutes social structure. Applying a network perspective to meeting interactions allows us to take account of the social structure. The aim of this study was to use social network analysis to distinguish functional and dysfunctional interaction structures and gain insight into the facilitation of meetings by analyzing antecedents and consequences of functional interaction structures. Data were based on a field study in which 51 regular meetings were videotaped and coded with act4teams. Analyses revealed that compared with dysfunctional networks, functional interaction is less centralized and has a positive effect on team performance. Social similarity has a crucial effect on functional interaction because participants significantly interact with others who are similar in personal initiative and self-efficacy. Our results provide important information about how to assist the interaction process and promote team success.
Zusammenfassung. In modernen Unternehmen sind Meetings allgegenwärtig. Trotz ihrer Häufigkeit werden sie jedoch selten den Ansprüchen gerecht (z. B. Leach, Rogelberg, Warr, & Burnfield, 2009; Rogelberg, Allen, Shanock, Scott, & Shuffler, 2010). Daher ist die Erforschung von Faktoren, die zu effektiven Meetings beitragen, elementar. Eine entscheidende Rolle spielt die Struktur von Meetings. Sie können sich durch eine dezentralisierte Struktur, bei der alle Teilnehmer gleichmäßig in die Interaktion eingebunden sind, oder durch eine zentralisierte Struktur, bei der sich die Interaktion um einen Hauptakteur dreht, auszeichnen. Dabei beeinflusst die Interaktionsstruktur die Teamleistung. So sind Teams mit dezentralisierten Interaktionsstrukturen effektiver bei der Bearbeitung komplexer Aufgaben (z. B. Bavelas, 1950; Cummings & Cross, 2003; Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). Interaktion wird als relationaler und interdependenter Austauschprozess gesehen, der Beziehungen zwischen den Austauschpartnern darstellt. Diese Beziehungen lassen sich als soziales Netzwerk abbilden (z. B. Cook, Cheshire, Rice, & Nagakawa, 2013). Dabei weisen Austauschprozesse positive und negative Aspekte auf. Diese Polarität zeigt sich auch in der Interaktion in Meetings (Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Funktionale Interaktion unterstützt das Erreichen vorgegebener Ziele. Dysfunktionale Interaktion dagegen reduziert die Zufriedenheit mit Meeting und Teamleistung. Das Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist es daher, mithilfe sozialer Netzwerkanalyse funktionale und dysfunktionale Interaktionsstrukturen in Meetings zu unterscheiden und zur Förderung der Teamleistung Antezedenzien und Konsequenzen funktionaler Interaktionsstrukturen aufzudecken. Hierfür wurden 51 reguläre Meetings per Video aufgezeichnet und mit act4teams kodiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass funktionale Netzwerke dezentralisierter sind als dysfunktionale. Zusätzlich hat eine dezentralisierte Struktur funktionaler Interaktion einen positiven Einfluss auf die Teamleistung. Die Entstehung von funktionalen Interaktionsstrukturen in Meetings wird signifikant von sozialer Ähnlichkeit beeinflusst. Personen tendieren dazu, häufig mit anderen Teilnehmern zu kooperieren, die ihnen in Eigeninitiative und Selbstwirksamkeit ähnlich sind. Die Ergebnisse liefern Ansatzpunkte für die Gestaltung von Meetings, mithilfe derer Interaktionsprozesse in Meetings unterstützt und die Teamleistung über Meetings hinaus gefördert werden kann.
References
(1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321 – 341.
(2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
(1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
(1994).
Self‐efficacy . In R. J. CorsiniEd., Encyclopedia of psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 368 – 369). John Wiley & Sons.(1948). A mathematical model for group structures. Human Organization, 7(3), 16 – 30.
(1950). Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 725 – 730.
(1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
(2000). The effect of contributing substantively on perceptions of participation. Small Group Research, 31, 528 – 553.
(2002). The analysis of participation in small groups methodological and conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33, 412 – 438.
(2011). The existential center of small groups: Member′s conduct and interation. Small Group Research, 42, 343 – 358.
(2006). Identifying sets of key players in a social network. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(1), 21 – 34.
(2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
(2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29, 991 – 1013.
(1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
(1991). Measuring age as a structural concept. Social Networks, 13(1), 1 – 34.
(1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339 – 365.
(2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345 – 423.
(2002). Simulating society: The tension between transparency and veridicality. Proceedings of Agents 2002. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
(2009). Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion–performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 223 – 246.
(1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 273 – 287.
(1998). Research on corporate governance. Corporate Covernance: An International Review, 6(1), 57 – 66.
(1981). Spatial processes: Models & applications (Vol. 44). London, UK: Pion.
(2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(1), 90 – 104.
(1998).
The psychology of counterproductive job performance . In R. W. GriffinA. O’Leary-KellyJ. M. CollinsEds., Dysfunctional behaviour in organisations: Non-violent dysfunctional behaviour (pp. 219 – 242). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.(2006). Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks: An analytic framework and empirical example. Academy of Management Review, 31, 681 – 703.
(2013).
Social exchange theory . In J. DeLamaterA. WardEds., Handbook of social psychology (pp. 61 – 88). Dordrecht: Springer.(2003).
Social exchange theory . In J. DelematerEd., Handbook of social psychology (pp. 53 – 76). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.(1992). Two approaches to social structure: Exchange theory and network analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 109 – 127.
(1994). The impact of group interaction styles on problem-solving effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 415 – 437.
(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874 – 900.
(2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks, 25(3), 197 – 210.
(1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169 – 193.
(2009). Deep-level similarity and group social capital: Associations with team functioning. Small Group Research, 40, 650 – 669.
(2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175 – 222.
(1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
(1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378 – 382.
(1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215 – 239.
(2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133 – 187.
(2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 409 – 425.
(1989). TEMPO: A time-based system for analysis of group interaction process. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 211 – 232.
(1954). The contiguity ratio and statistical mapping. The Incorporated Statistician, 5(3), 115 – 146.
(2004). It’s about time we align: Meeting deadlines in project teams. Eindhoven: Technische Universität Eindhoven.
(1989). The influence of training method on self‐efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787 – 805.
(1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183 – 211.
(1996).
Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups. An expanded view . In R. Y. HirokawaM. S. PooleEds., Communication and group decision making (pp. 55 – 80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481 – 510.
(1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, 25, 56.
(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360 – 1380.
(2003). Effects of member mood states on creative performance in temporary workgroups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(1), 41.
(1998).
Dysfunctional work behaviours in organizations . In C. L. CooperD. M. RousseauEds., Trends in organizational behaviour (Vol. 5, pp. 65 – 82). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.(1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96 – 107.
(2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029 – 1045.
(2009). A conceptual framework of the effects of positive affect and affective relationships on group knowledge networks. Small Group Research, 40, 323 – 346.
(2011). When critical knowledge is most critical: Centralization in knowledge-intensive teams. Small Group Research, 42, 669 – 699.
(1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422 – 447.
(2008). The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29, 1391 – 1426.
(2006). Self-directed work groups and their impact on team competence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 1 – 21.
(2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 130 – 158.
(2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267 – 294.
(2013). Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviors. Journal of Business Communication. doi:10.1177/0021943612474990
(1996). From communications to interpersonal theory: A personal odyssey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 267 – 282.
(1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58 – 74.
(2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1 – 31.
(2013). Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organization Science, 24, 1316 – 1336.
(2006). Exploring the social ledger: Negative relationships and negative asymmetry in social networks in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 31, 596 – 614.
(1989).
Policy networks of the organizational state: Collective action in the national energy and health domains . In R. PerucciH. R. PotterEds., Networks of power: Organizational actors at the national, corporate, and community levels (pp. 17 – 56). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.(2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness: The role of design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24, 65 – 76.
(2007). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 328 – 363.
(1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46 (1), 38 – 50.
(2013). A sequential analysis of procedural meeting communication: How teams facilitate their meetings. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 365 – 388.
(2011). Verbal interaction sequences and group mood: Exploring the role of planning communication. Small Group Research, 42, 639 – 668.
(2007). Self-efficacy, values, and complementarity in dyadic interactions: Integrating interpersonal and social-cognitive theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 94 – 109.
(2005).
Conflict, power, and status in groups . In M. S. PooleA. B. HollingsheadEds., Theories of small groups: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 139 – 184). London, UK: Sage.(2010). INTERACT quick start manual V2.4. Mangold International GmbH. Retrieved from http://www.mangold-international.com
(2007). Predicting satisfaction and outcome acceptance with advisory committee meetings: The role of procedural justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 905 – 927.
(2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 415 – 444.
(1948). The interpretation of statistical maps. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 10(2), 243 – 251.
(1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403 – 419.
(2000). Meeting sabotage: Met and conquered. Journal of Management Development, 19, 870 – 885.
(2005). Understanding the relative importance of positive and negative social exchanges: Examining specific domains and appraisals. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60(6), P304–P312.
(2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 860 – 875.
(2011). Assessing group-level participation in fluid teams: Testing a new metric. Behavioral Research, 43, 522 – 536.
(2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636 – 352.
(1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829 – 872.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513 – 563.
(2011). Close encounters: Analyzing how social similarity and propinquity contribute to strong network connections. Organization Science, 22, 835 – 849.
(2002). The dynamic effects of group support systems on group meetings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 303 – 323.
(2010). Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 49, 149 – 172.
(2013). Meetings as networks: Applying social network analysis to team interaction. Communication Methods & Measures, 7, 26 – 47.
(2010). Meeting-Kultur in europäischen Unternehmen: Ad-hoc-Umfrage unter Mitarbeitern und Führungskräften, die regelmäßig an Business-Meetings teilnehmen [European business meeting culture: An ad-hoc survey of employees and managers who regularly participate in business meetings]. München: Schell Marketing Consulting.
(2013). Age, forgiveness, and meeting behavior: A multilevel study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 928 – 949.
(2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 219 – 241.
(1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. London, UK: Sage.
(2001). A social capital theory on career success. Academy of Management Journal, 2, 219 – 237.
(1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219.
(1964). Communication networks. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 111 – 147.
(1999). Non-parametric standard errors and tests for network statistics. Connections, 22, 161 – 170.
(2001). High performance and meeting participation: An observational study in software design teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 3 – 18.
(2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316 – 325.
(2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1536 – 1543.
(1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240 – 261.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behavior: Entwicklung und erste Validierung eines Messinstruments [Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Development and validation of a measurement instrument]. Diagnostica, 46, 73 – 83.
(2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329 – 393.
(2012). Interaction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 3 – 10.
(2002). The theory of relational cohesion: Review of a research program research program. Advances in Group Processes, 19, 139 – 166.
(2012). The effect of centralization and cohesion on the social construction of knowledge in discussion forums. Interactive Learning Environments, 23, 293 – 316.
(1990). Bad apples in bad barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 378 – 385.
(1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1089 – 1121.
(2009). Staging a team performance: A linguistic ethnographic analysis of weekly meetings at a British embassy. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 80 – 99.
(1999). Meetings, manners and civilization: The development of modern meeting behaviour. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.
(2011). Meetings: the frontline of civilization. The Sociological Review, 59, 241 – 262.
(2010). Two of a kind? Leader–Member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: The moderating role of Leader–Member similarity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 167 – 181.
(1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
(2004). Network analysis and social dynamics. Cybernetics and Systems, 35, 173 – 192.
(2004). The functional perspective as a lens for understanding groups. Small Group Research, 35, 17 – 43.
(2001). Motivation and information search on complex tasks. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2005).
The relational cohesion model of organizational commitment . In O. KyriakidouM. ÖzbilginEds., Relational perspectives in organizational studies: A research companion (pp. 146 – 162). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.(2007). Exploring knowledge contribution from an OCB perspective. Information & Management, 44, 321 – 331.
(1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353 – 376.
