Discussion
This study aimed to extend research on the relationship between meeting
lateness and meeting satisfaction to virtual student meetings. In an
online survey conducted in an international sample of German and Italian
students, the prevalence of meeting lateness and meeting satisfaction
were assessed, differentiated into satisfaction with the process, with
the outcome, and with personal goal attainment.
Prevalence of Meeting
Lateness
Every fourth virtual student meeting starts late, even though the
lateness rate is below the 40 % found across analog meetings in the
professional context (cf. Allen et al., 2021). Therefore, we reject
Hypothesis 1. One explanation for the low prevalence of meeting lateness
rate could be that students tend to have fewer meetings during the week
so that each meeting can be scheduled more easily (cf. Rogelberg et al.,
2006). However, no correlation between the surveyed meeting
characteristics (i.e., meeting frequency, duration, and size) and the
occurrence of meeting lateness was found. This contradicts Rogelberg and
colleagues’ (2014) hypothesis of cumulative individual lateness,
according to which the probability of lateness should increase with the
number of participants. Virtual student meetings seem to be typically
larger than in the professional context (DeFilippis et al., 2020) and at
the same time less dependent on the appearance of all participants
(Hambrick et al., 1996). It could be that the operationalization of a
meeting was understood to also include lectures and seminars. Moreover,
due to the online context, the operational definition of meeting
lateness here refers to the timed start of the meeting and not only to
the arrival of individual participants. Socio-contextual factors, such
as type of meeting (e.g., lecture vs. group-project meeting) and
participants status (lecturer vs. student) are therefore subordinated to
temporal factors. The perception of time constructs in this framework
differs from that of traditional work experience, so delays may not be
directly appraised as such (White et al., 2011). For example, a meeting
might start late due to a pre-meeting conversation among the project
group. However, this pre-meeting conversation may also provide a
bridging effect that positively impacts the meeting experience while
additional participants arrive (Yoerger et al., 2018). Therefore, an
objective delay of five minutes need not correspond to a subjective
delay of five minutes (White et al., 2011). The subjective appraisals of
meeting lateness (i.e., “When is a meeting late?”) differed among
participants in this study, even though the average tolerance threshold
is comparable to the tolerance threshold of around ten minutes at the
workplace (Allen et al., 2018).
In the literature on face-to-face meetings, behavior-based lateness
reasons are highlighted (e.g., leaving to late for a meeting; Rogelberg
et al., 2014). In the online context, one out of four surveyed
participants cited environmental factors, such as technical barriers, as
the cause of delay in addition to behavior-based delays. This shows that
the meeting location and its accessibility is as important online as it
is offline for group cohesion (Blanchard & McBride, 2020). While
physical presence in the room is initially sufficient for face-to-face
meetings, other connections such as to the camera and microphone must be
established for online meetings to ensure full participation. This
effort in turn can jeopardize the desired punctuality as a group norm
and shows how essential it is to adequately address meeting design
characteristics.
Meeting Satisfaction
The present results show that participants of delayed meetings are
significantly less satisfied with the individual goal achievement as
well as with the overall process and outcome. Hypotheses 2 to 4 were
accepted accordingly. The small effect of lateness as a design and input
variable on the process and outcome variables of session satisfaction is
consistent with the findings of Allen et al. (2018; 2021). Stress and
satisfaction relate equally to the key dimensions of demands and
decision latitude (Sieverding et al., 2013). These are addressed in the
work demands and resources model (Demerouti et al., 2001): Work and
study situations consist of demands placed on employees and students and
resources drawn upon to meet those demands. If delays occur,
extraordinary demands are placed on participants (e.g., same tasks in
less time) and freedom is restricted (e.g., fewer discussions).
Perceived stress increases and satisfaction decreases. Additional
resources must be activated to complete the work at hand (Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2004). Follow-up deadlines are also jeopardized, creating a
cycle (analogous to feedback loops in the IPOI model; cf. Ilgen et al.,
2005) that can be exacerbated by persistent delays and ongoing
dissatisfaction (Rogelberg et al., 2010). These results emphasize that
even in relatively flexible environments such as college, time criteria
as attention-grabbing features have an influence on meeting experiences.
Country comparison
As expected, no significant differences were found between Germany and
Italy with respect to the experience of delays and satisfaction in
virtual student meetings. The cross-national similarities are consistent
with the findings of Allen and colleagues (2021) and support the
assumption that meetings as well as their design characteristics follow
international standards (Adler & Aycan, 2018). In particular, responses
to the COVID-19 pandemic have contributed to a high increase in the
adoption of new technologies toward “mobile-chronic” temporality
(Chung & Lim, 2005) and increased alignment in meeting design and
participant behavior (Allen & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2022). Students
surveyed at European universities reported both satisfaction and
dissatisfaction with on-time and off-time online meetings. Cultural
attributions such as ”the punctual German” (Hansen, 2008) do not seem to
be supported by our data. On the other hand, the handling or tolerance
of delays might be different between countries. The data suggest that
delays are appraised as such earlier and addressed more frequently by
students studying in Germany, compared to students studying in Italy.
Limitations and future
directions
In this study, virtual student meetings were broadly defined as a
purpose-oriented collaboration among students in virtual space. This
approach has the advantage of capturing a wide spectrum of meetings –
as they occur in practice – and simplifies implementation through fewer
data exclusions. At the same time, different meeting types (e.g.,
lectures and group-project meetings) cannot be differentiated and may be
differently impacted by meeting design characteristics. For example,
assigning a moderator is consistently and strongly recommended in the
literature, but not always the case in practice (Leach et al., 2009). In
the educational context, the moderator may often coincide with the
instructor, resulting in influencing factors such as a hierarchy gap
(Mroz & Allen, 2017) that impact appraisals of meeting lateness and its
effect on meeting satisfaction. For example, one person wrote (original
English): ”Delay was due to a professional duty of the professor
[…]. For this reason, and because he is a very correct and
awesome Professor, I was not disappointed for his delay.” Future
research might investigate how participants’ (hierarchical)
relationships with each other might influence meeting lateness and
satisfaction in virtual student meetings.
Further, it should be noted that a direct comparison with face-to-face
meetings was not conducted in this study due to the dynamic evolution of
the COVID-19 pandemic. Neither does the current study distinguish
between different dimensions of virtuality, which should be considered
in future research (Handke & Kauffeld, 2019; Boos et al., 2017).
Kauffeld and Sauer (2021) suggest understanding virtuality as a
continuum that dynamically feeds into group development. For example,
hybrid forms of collaboration (Hardwig & Boos, in press; Hoch &
Kozlowski, 2014) or differing levels of media literacy of online meeting
participants might be considered in future research. Additionally, a
comparison between students of distance learning universities that were
already designed for virtual learning and other institutions might
provide further insights (Strielkowski, 2020). Participants in this
study varied in their evaluation of virtual student meetings. For
example, one person wrote (original Italian): ”I find online student
meetings, whether they are organized by an institute or by students
among themselves, very useful: there is a lack of opportunity to
practice more freely and also of human contact, but this lack is
compensated by the convenience of studying from home.” Others saw the
disadvantages of virtual communication (original Italian): ”Online
meetings are only useful if you want to take care of your own business
in the meantime. Otherwise, they’re obnoxious, nothing gets decided, and
friction is exacerbated.” Beyond the pandemic, it will be interesting to
see how behavior and satisfaction change when participants engage with
the tools on a voluntary basis rather than being forced to do so due to
environmental constraints.
In the current study, meeting satisfaction was used as a subjective
measure of effectiveness, while other constructs such as entitativity
(Blanchard & McBride, 2020) and group cohesion (Allen et al., 2021)
were not investigated but might be fruitful avenues for future research
on virtual student meetings. Methodologically, the present data is based
on self-reports by study participants in online meetings. This type of
survey has some weaknesses (Chang et al., 2020). As such, findings might
be limited due to the data collection over international networks and
the own communication channels. Laboratory studies, longitudinal
designs, or structured interviews should confirm these initial findings
in future work.
It should be noted that the distinction between process and outcome
levels of meeting satisfaction opens up many possibilities for future
research to investigate measures that might mitigate negative effects of
meeting lateness during all stages of a meeting (before, during, and
after). However, this will require a deeper understanding of the reasons
for delays (e.g., personal vs. environmental) and the reactions of the
participants. For example, it has been shown that procedural
justifications for delays (e.g., “Sorry for the delay. There was an
escalation in production that had to be fixed for today’s deliveries. I
am now looking forward to reviewing the quarterly reports with you.”)
decrease negative socio-emotional behaviors of meeting participants
(Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). The use of these practices could
therefore also have a mitigating effect on the consequences of meeting
lateness and generate greater understanding among participants (Mroz &
Allen, 2020).
This study focuses on virtual student meetings from a Western-style,
monochronistic work environment. Accordingly, time is seen as
economically valuable and treated in linear segments (Chung & Lim,
2005). The continued comparison between two European countries is based
on the research of Allen et al. (2021), whereby geographical and not
cultural boundaries were drawn. Taras et al. (2016) meta-analytically
confirmed that 80% of cultural differences are found within and not
between countries. Lack of differences between Italy and Germany could
therefore equally mean that meeting practices are shaped by more
specific environmental and contextual factors (e.g., group structure;
Kauffeld, 2006) or even individual values and personality traits (e. g.,
Penney & Spector, 2002). Globally, there are some cultural nuances in
meetings and their designs. For example, studies from South America and
Africa show differences in meeting management and perceptions of time
factors compared to North America and Europe (van Eerde & Azar, 2020;
Kemp & Williams, 2013; White et al., 2011; Levine et al., 1980).
Although the aligning globalization tendency is always emphasized (Allen
et al., 2021; Nonis et al., 2005), it could be interesting to see how
cross-cultural meetings, in which different ”time types” meet, are
affected. This research could focus on both the individual and group
level and provide insights into international meeting culture and
best-practices (Rui et al., 2006).
Conclusion
Although lateness in professional meetings is common, its impact on
group processes and outcomes has long been neglected. Given the
importance of educational meetings it is crucial that meetings are
successful from the perspective of both students and universities.
Meetings need to be considered in different contexts and formats. With
the focus on virtual student meetings, this paper expands on traditional
research on analog professional meetings and transfers its findings to
new contexts. The study shows that input variables such as meeting
lateness are similarly relevant for student meeting experiences, such as
satisfaction with process and outcome. Taking these findings into
account, student meeting design and execution should be made both more
efficient and effective through strict adherence to group norms by both
students and lecturers. Agreed-upon sets of rules (e.g., for canceling
or rescheduling appointments) are one possible intervention for
balancing the multitude of meetings in daily business.