Chapter 2

Considering Meeting Modalities

With hybrid meetings defined, it's time to consider the current meeting environment. That is, what is the current “state of play” for meetings as the world recovers from the COVID‐19 pandemic? There are a lot of opinions out there about this, but we have something that you won't find anywhere else: actual data to help guide your decisions and actions as you adapt to the hybrid meeting. You should expect nothing less from a book cowritten by a meeting scientist.

Allow us to explain. By the fall of 2019, Joe had been studying meetings for more than a decade. However, he admittedly had not considered modality – virtual, face‐to‐face, hybrid, telephone – to a great degree, and when he did, the focus was on face‐to‐face meetings. After all, the face‐to‐face meeting was king in 2019, and pretty much forever before that. So, in September 2019, he decided to start studying virtual meetings, and a month later, he launched a survey of 1,000 knowledge workers across a broad range of organizations and industries in the United States.

It was terribly good timing, with an emphasis on the “terrible,” considering the things that followed in 2020. The events of that year presented a veritable treasure trove of data‐gathering opportunities to study the first major meeting disruption in modern history, and Joe took advantage of it. He already had the pre‐COVID‐19 data from that sample set of 1,000 people from the fall, so why not learn how they responded to the pandemic? In May 2020, he asked the same questions to the same people from the October 2019 survey, and used the keen insights from that data for our book, Suddenly Virtual: Making Remote Meetings Work (Reed and Allen 2021). Then, in June 2021, as the United States and the world began to recover from the pandemic (note, before the Delta variant of COVID‐19 surged), Joe once again collected more data from mostly the same people. The chance to study the state of meetings before, during, and as we begin to recover from COVID‐19 using the same participants was remarkable. Throughout this book, we will share all sorts of insights from the data collected across those three years.

In this chapter, we will explore:

· Where people are conducting meetings now

· The surprising benefits of hybrid meetings as shown in our data

· Six key insights that can only be found in our multi‐time‐point data from pre‐, during‐, and post(ish)‐COVID‐19

Where Are People Conducting Meetings?

There were many different perceptions and opinions about what common practices would be as organizations figured out how to operate as COVID‐19 began to subside or at least be more effectively managed. Some believed we would return to business as usual, with everyone face‐to‐face and with meetings, in general, returning to that format as well. Others believed that the change would be permanent, that we would never fully return to 2019 “normal,” and that most things would remain virtual. Still others, like us (Karin and Joe), felt that the reality would probably be more complicated and somewhere in between, with some organizations and individuals resuming operations in a face‐to‐face, almost pre‐2020 manner, while others embraced a more hybrid style of work and meetings.

Rather than speculate, we decided to find out what was actually happening on the ground, via the survey data. Let's begin our journey through this data by focusing on the question about what would happen when COVID‐19 subsided: Where are people conducting meetings post‐pandemic, as opposed to pre‐ and mid‐pandemic?

We decided to ask our sample of knowledge workers. Our survey from 2019, 2020, and 2021 included the question, “What was the format of your last meeting?” Response options included “face‐to‐face,” “virtual,” “telephone,” and “hybrid,” with hybrid being defined as some participants in the meeting being co‐located in a conference room with some participants joining remotely. The following graph shows the results compared across all three time‐points.

In October 2019, most people were meeting face‐to‐face. In May 2020 (the first disruption), most people were meeting virtually. In June 2021, another major disruption was well underway. Face‐to‐face was coming back, telephone was fading, video was holding on stronger than some had speculated, and hybrid rose a bit from mid‐pandemic levels (i.e. May 2020). From an egghead scientist's perspective (Joe's words, not Karin's, for himself), these dynamic shifts are exciting and significant, because shifts of this proportion in how people meet just do not happen regularly. Usually it takes a major event, an equilibrium shift like a pandemic, to change people's behavior permanently. For example, think about how air travel was transformed for all of us after 9/11. But when shifts like these do happen, it's both remarkable and worth considering the reasons and implications.

With this data in mind, what does this mean from a practical standpoint? Well, based on these numbers, we'd recommend that people keep their webcams. In fact, our belief is that June 2021 was at the beginning of the transition, and hybrid meetings will actually start absorbing some of the video and telephone meetings moving forward. We'd also recommend that people be prepared for further transition, as neither Karin nor Joe believes this is the “end state.” That is, many companies are continuing to transition from fully remote to some in‐person/hybrid combination situation. The so‐called “Future of Work” is hybrid, and that means hybrid meetings using a virtual meeting platform are not going away. People are now accustomed to more alternative forms of both communicating and working. Working from home is now normalized within a society that was not fully onboard with the idea pre‐2020. Since hybrid meetings are going to be part of our lives, it is useful to study the experiences of the effective hybrid meetings in our sample in order to develop best practices.

Meeting Metrics by Modality – The Promise of Hybrid Meetings

Since hybrid meetings appear to be on the rise, we thought it would be helpful to take a deeper dive into the data we collected on hybrid meetings and to provide some insights that can guide best practices. However, the data also revealed some fascinating takeaways about all of the meeting modalities, which we want to share as well, including substantive differences and changes that have occurred over the three time‐points collected before, during, and as we recover from the pandemic.

Insight 1: Early Users of Hybrid Meetings Are Seeing Substantial Benefits

Given the complexity and potential challenges of hybrid meetings that we mentioned in Chapter 1, we were surprised to see that early users of hybrid meetings are seeing some benefits that were not anticipated.

Meeting satisfaction is one metric that factors into the overall meeting experience. There is plentiful research that backs the assertion that people are reliable in evaluating their overall feeling of satisfaction with meetings (e.g. Rogelberg et al. 2010). According to our data, hybrid meetings appear to be just as satisfying as face‐to‐face meetings, and not far from video meetings. The following table provides the scores by format style for meeting satisfaction. The higher the score (out of 7), the more satisfactory the experience was, on average.

Because hybrid meetings are more complex and challenging than other formats, when Joe first saw this data, his reaction was, “How did this happen?” His initial thoughts? Maybe people are just so excited to be together with even part of their team in a room that they don't recognize the problems yet. Or, perhaps there's something wrong with the sample. But that doesn't make sense, given that the data from these same people from previous years has been extremely predictive of how things were and how they would become.

Then, it dawned on him. Given the time that this sample was taken, the people engaging in hybrid meetings might be best described as “early adopters.” They may be people who have specifically chosen to be the vanguard of this particular format. What's special about early adopters? Early adopters tend to be well‐informed about the new thing that they are trying, and often actually employ best practices, which produce better results and satisfaction.

Despite this encouraging news for those who have yet to dip their toes in the hybrid meeting pool, we cannot automatically assume that these high levels of satisfaction and participation will apply to later adopters of hybrid meetings. For example, we all know people who always have to have the hottest new tech release – they spout off all sorts of specs and know how to take advantage of every feature. In most cases, the rest of us later adopters will end up with the technology ourselves, but we probably won't have the same level of knowledge and enthusiasm. But still, the positive signs from these early adopters of hybrid meetings should not be dismissed.

Insight 2: When It Comes to Participation, Hybrid Meetings Come Out on Top

Now, you may be thinking, “I don't care how happy people are with the meeting so long as it works!” Fair point – so let's now look at meeting participation. This refers to the degree to which the meeting leader and attendees feel as though they were able to adequately contribute their ideas, opinions, and thoughts during the meeting (Yoerger, Crowe, and Allen 2015). The table here provides the scores by format style for participation, with higher scores (out of 7 this time) representing more participation. Yes, the differences may seem relatively small, but put the numbers within this context: they amount to a 15% difference from top to bottom. That is, hybrid meetings have 15% more participation than telephone meetings. In fact, this rate is higher than every other meeting modality's!

On its face, 15% higher participation in one meeting might not seem like it will make a huge difference, but think about how many meetings are on a manager's calendar, or across an organization. That 15% represents a huge opportunity for the exchange of ideas, for the buy‐in of employees, and for the growth and improvement of the company at large. Plus, fostering a participatory and inclusive environment in meetings has a direct impact on the bottom line. Meeting science shows that it leads to better business outcomes, including increases in overall employee engagement and subsequent performance on the job. After all, research shows that a highly engaged team is 21% more profitable and 17% more productive than a more disengaged team (Przystanski 2021). And, good meetings with high participation absolutely engage employees (Allen and Rogelberg 2013).

Insight 3: Teleconferencing Still Stinks

Although Zoom fatigue has been much discussed by thought leaders, journalists, and even among you and your colleagues, our data points to one unmistakable fact: teleconferencing, not videoconferencing, ranks dead last with respect to overall meeting satisfaction and participation. This was true in October 2019, it remained true in May 2020, and it's still true in October 2021. Dare we say it's probably still true today? We do not dispute the truth of the fatigue that people feel after a long day of being on camera. In fact, check out Chapter 4, where we talk about the problems people are having with video meetings. However, the suggestion of opting out of video and proceeding with a meeting using audio alone is counterproductive. The data is clear in terms of overall meeting experiences and behavior in meetings, and that data tells us that teleconferencing is at the bottom of the meeting heap.

Insight 4: We're Seeing Less Bad Behavior in Hybrid Meetings

Counterproductive meeting behaviors are all those annoying behaviors that people do in meetings that really undermine what could be a good meeting (Allen, Yoerger, Lehmann‐Willenbrock, and Jones 2015). For example, complaining, multitasking, running off‐topic, monologuing, and nonessential conflict are all types of counterproductive meeting behaviors. In our data, counterproductive meeting behaviors were not considered individually, but as a composite of bad behavior in meetings. These were assessed on a five‐point scale, with lower values representing less of these bad behaviors in the meeting. Take a look at the following table.

Take note of what receives the highest marks (represented here by the lowest number) yet again: hybrid meetings – which means that they had the least amount of counterproductive meeting behaviors by participants in our sample. This implies there are fewer complaining cycles, monologues, and multitasking on unrelated items in hybrid meetings compared to a similar meeting in any other format. (Not surprisingly, telephone meetings appear to have the most counterproductive meeting behaviors.)

While hybrid meetings seem to already have the potential for less counterproductive meeting behavior, we suggest you check out the list of these meeting roadblocks in our previous book, Suddenly Virtual. Having a heightened awareness of the behaviors will allow you to thwart their eruption in your own hybrid meetings.

Insight 5: In Hybrid Meetings, Participants Are Doing Less “Surface Acting”

One of the most damaging behaviors that undermines meeting effectiveness and satisfaction is surface acting, where employees fake the appropriate emotion required for their job. Think about “service with a smile,” even when you'd rather smack the rude customer. Not smacking the customer is adaptive in the service sector, as pleasing the customer usually means more goods sold or more food purchased, not to mention a larger tip. However, the dissonance between smiling and how you might feel inside is draining and can be a real problem (Shumski, Olien, Allen, Rogelberg, and Kello 2018). Previous research on workplace meetings indicates that people tend to engage in surface acting in meetings, particularly when a high‐ranking member of the organization is present. That is, we fake positivity for the boss, even if we don't feel that positive about whatever we're meeting with them about.

In the survey, surface acting was rated on a five‐point scale, where higher scores indicate more faking of what is believed to be the appropriate emotion for the context.

Once again, hybrid meetings are coming out on top by being at the bottom of the list. Our data shows that people are engaging in less surface acting in hybrid meetings compared to all other types. Top to bottom, we see nearly a 30% reduction in this behavior. Once again, telephone comes in with the most surface acting, adding insult to injury considering that telephone was also ranked the worst in terms of satisfaction and participation. And now, we learn that people are faking what they think is the appropriate emotion when on the phone more than when they are in‐person or on video.

Some might wonder why we should care so much about faking emotions. Good question. The reason this matters is because of the consistent research on surface acting's correlation to burnout (Brotheridge and Grandey 2002). Burnout is the feeling of being used up at the end of the day, being fatigued and emotionally exhausted to one's breaking point. People tend to get sick more frequently when they are burned out and they are more likely to develop serious long‐term illnesses such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, and chronic pain issues; thus, we want to avoid the contributing causes to burnout if we can (Maslach and Leiter 2006). In addition to lessening burnout, authentic emotions enable more appropriate participation, idea generation, and more employee engagement, always a desired outcome across any enterprise.

Insight 6: People Need Less “Meeting Recovery” after Hybrid Meetings

“Meeting recovery” refers to the time needed after a meeting to essentially be human – you know, things like going to the bathroom, grabbing something to eat or drink, or simply taking a moment to decompress cognitively and take a few deep breaths. We all need transition time between meetings in order to attend to our biological needs, but also to reset our brains. Meeting recovery becomes even more important when experiencing back‐to‐back meetings, a phenomenon that jumped in astronomical proportions during the pandemic. When this happened in our pre‐COVID‐19, colocated office world, we at least could walk from one conference room or office to another, find the bathroom on the way, and grab a water. With virtual meetings, this becomes more difficult, because the next meeting is still in the same chair, stool, or couch spot you've been sitting in all day. How can we expect people to come prepared to meetings if they have no time to even take a bathroom break? In short, we need to give them recovery time, but how much recovery time?

Joe delved into this topic with some recent research on meeting recovery (Knowles and Allen 2020). (Perhaps the onset of COVID‐19 and back‐to‐back meetings on his calendar inspired him.) Mid‐pandemic, using a sample of more than 500 working adults in the United States, he compared meetings that were rated as terrible and those that were rated as wonderful. What he found was fascinating and worth considering when you schedule any of your meetings. Looking at the data, he discovered that after a terrible meeting, employees need about 17 minutes to recover and transition. After a wonderful meeting, employees need about 5 minutes to recover and transition. That's right: you still need at least some recovery time after even a good meeting. That's because people still need to use the restroom from time to time and to take stretch breaks. But, more importantly, neuroscience confirms that people need between 5 and 7 minutes to cognitively switch between disparate complex topics.

Now that you understand the purpose and necessity of meeting recovery, let's take a look at our new data concerning recovery in workplace meetings by modality. Once again, we use a five‐point scale, with higher values indicating a need for more meeting recovery.

Are you seeing a trend here? Once again, our data shows that these early adopters of hybrid meetings require the lowest amount of meeting recovery of all the meeting formats assessed. This may be, in part, due to hybrid meetings requiring less surface acting. In fact, those who are participating in hybrid meetings need 23% less meeting recovery time even compared to face‐to‐face, the next best on the list. Don't misinterpret the data here. This is not a green light to schedule less recovery time after a hybrid meeting than when holding other types of meetings; we all need time to switch tasks and to take care of basic biological needs. But this does suggest that perhaps good hybrid meetings just make things a bit easier on employees in general.

Conclusion

Hybrid work appears to be the desirable mode of working for the future, and the early data tells a compelling story. It turns out that the meeting room with both in‐person and remote attendees can allow you to get the job done and yield higher rates of meeting satisfaction and participation. Additionally, the early adopters of hybrid meetings appear to be engaging in less surface acting, fewer counterproductive meeting behaviors, and need less recovery time after the meeting. In other words, the hybrid meeting looks like a very effective option for meetings, and when done well, may be even better than virtual or face‐to‐face. However, the success of hybrid meetings is not a given and requires an intentional approach. In the next chapter, we will start shaping that approach by discussing what we learned from our fully virtual experience and suggesting ways to apply those lessons to your hybrid meeting strategy.

Chapter Takeaways

· Our data suggests that hybrid meetings, when done well, can be very effective.

· Hybrid meetings are the most satisfying and inclusive, from a participation perspective, of all the modalities studied.

· People in hybrid meetings fake positivity less, engage in fewer monologues, complain less, and need to recover less after the meeting.

References

1. Allen, J. A., and S. G. Rogelberg. 2013. “Manager‐led group meetings: A context for promoting employee engagement.” Group & Organization Management 38 (5): 543–569.

2. Allen, J. A., M. A. Yoerger, N. Lehmann‐Willenbrock, and J. Jones. 2015. “Would you please stop that!? The relationship between counterproductive meeting behaviors, employee voice, and trust.” Journal of Management Development (October).

3. Brotheridge, C. M., and A. A. Grandey. 2002. “Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of ‘people work.’” Journal of Vocational Behavior 60 (1): 17–39.

4. Knowles, S., and J. A. Allen. 2020. “Why am I so exhausted?: Exploring the Meeting Recovery Syndrome.” Research accepted for the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research's (INGRoup) 15th Annual Conference, July 30–August 1, 2020, Seattle, WA.

5. Maslach, C., and M. Leiter. 2006. “Burnout.” Stress and Quality of Working Life: Current Perspectives in Occupational Health 37, 42–49.

6. Przystanski, A. 2021. “The ROI of employee engagement: 5 reasons it's worth the cost.” Lattice. Retrieved August 30, 2021 from https://lattice.com/library/the-roi-of-employee-engagement-5-reasons-its-worth-the-cost

7. Reed, K. M., and J. A. Allen. 2021. Suddenly Virtual: Making Remote Meetings Work. Wiley.

8. Rogelberg, S. G., J. A. Allen, L. Shanock, C. Scott, and M. Shuffler. 2010. “Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction.” Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management 49 (2): 149–172.

9. Shumski, T. J., J. L. Olien, J. A. Allen, S. G. Rogelberg, and J. E. Kello. 2018. “Faking it for the higher‐ups: Status and surface acting in workplace meetings.” Group & Organization Management 43 (1): 72–100.

10. Yoerger, M., J. Crowe, and J. A. Allen. 2015. “Participate or else!: The effect of participation in decision‐making in meetings on employee engagement.” Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 67 (1): 65.