What 30 years of meeting science tells global health

Steven Rogelberg, Liana Kreamer, and Jon Gray have published a review of three decades of research on meetings in the Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior.

Anyone who funds or attends convenings in global health should read it, because it settles a number of questions we have been arguing from intuition.

It also does something more uncomfortable.

Read carefully, the evidence shows that the improvements available inside a meeting are real and modest, while the problems that matter most in our sector sit in the format itself.

Start with the scale.

Researchers estimate nearly one billion meetings a day worldwide, with total meeting time rising about 10 percent annually.

Executives spend close to half their working hours in scheduled meetings, and chief executive officers reached 72 percent in 2024.

Managers report spending more time preparing for and leading meetings than on any other activity.

The review organizes the literature into five streams: meetings as stressors, as a communication technology that drives performance, as a platform for voice and inclusion, as a stage for leadership and power, and as an expression of culture and identity.

What the evidence actually shows

The reliable findings are specific and unglamorous.

1. Communicating an agenda, and communicating it in advance rather than distributing it in the room, improves both perceived effectiveness and how attendees manage expectations.
2. Ending on time rather than running over improves perceived quality.
3. Problem-focused talk that defines issues and links solutions predicted higher team productivity and greater long-term organizational success in work by Simone Kauffeld and Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock, while negative procedural talk that fixates on minor detail predicted lower productivity.

Two findings are worth more attention than they usually get.

1. Small talk before a meeting builds relationships and contributes to group cohesion.
2. Humor patterns during meetings predicted team performance immediately afterward and again two years later.

Whatever we tell ourselves about the seriousness of the agenda, the social texture of the gathering carries measurable weight.

The costs are equally well documented.

1. Meeting load, meaning the number and duration of meetings, worsens end-of-day well-being and raises perceived workload.
2. Schedules that scatter meetings across the day depress anticipated affect and productivity before the day even begins.
3. Employees who fake emotions in meetings are more likely to judge those meetings ineffective, which over time raises their intention to quit.
4. Meetings are frequently experienced as interruptions to the work they are supposed to advance.

Then there is a null result the authors treat with admirable honesty.

Decades of effort went into classifying meetings by type and purpose, and published research has still not found substantial differences in behavior, practice, or outcome based on those classifications.

The authors decline to organize their own review by meeting type.

Whatever explains why a gathering works, it is not the label on the invitation.

The work happens before

Preparation is the strongest practical finding in the review.

Meetings go better when participants have reviewed the agenda, considered the goal, and arrived with something to contribute.

The authors put it first in their recommendations to individual attendees.

Hold that finding against a regional workshop in global health.

Participants arrive from airports and taxis, having left a district office for three days, and receive the agenda in a folder at registration.

The design makes the single most important input impossible to supply.

Eleven years ago, I called this workshop culture, and described how the value participants remember comes from coffee breaks and corridors while the formal sessions generate the report.

The evidence on small talk and cohesion suggests we were right about the corridors.

It does not rescue the sessions.

There is a second cost the literature counts and our budgets do not.

Attendance requires absence.

The belief that people must stop working in order to learn survives because it feels like seriousness, when time is the scarcest resource our participants have.

A three-day absence from a district with a measles outbreak is an expenditure that appears on no line item.

Silence is manufactured

The voice and inclusion stream is where the review becomes genuinely important for our sector.

Participation in meetings is unequal, and the inequality tracks hierarchy.

• Sara Kiesler and Lee Sproull found managers and men dominating face-to-face discussion.
• Interrupting and monopolizing reduce both voice and coworker trust.
• Higher perceived power distance between leader and attendees increases emotional labor, pushing attendees into surface acting, which is the performance of agreement they do not hold.

Betina Szkudlarek and Mats Alvesson go further, showing that silence in meetings is produced rather than absent.

Three mechanisms do the producing.

1. Hierarchy and rigid protocol make silence the safer option.
2. Norms that prize consensus make dissent expensive.
3. Beliefs about the futility of speaking up finish the job.

Now place a district health officer in a capital city plenary, alongside the ministry director who writes her performance review and the donor representative who funds her programme.

The agenda was set in Geneva.

Her silence in that room is not reticence, and it is not a cultural trait.

It is the predictable output of a design.

The review’s remedies are sensible and insufficient.

1. Rotate speaking opportunities.
2. Invite quieter voices.
3. Encourage dissent, which strengthens the sense of the group as a coherent unit.
4. Use silent idea generation, which produces more ideas of higher quality than verbal brainstorming because it allows simultaneous input and reduces anchoring on whatever was said first.

Every one of these adjustments operates inside a room whose composition was determined by hierarchy before anyone sat down.

Girija Sankar named this precisely in The Lancet when she described global health conferences as gates.

I have written about why digital bridges cannot cross analog gates, and the mechanism is the one this literature describes: selection by seniority, tokenism when junior colleagues are included, and impact that goes unmeasured.

What the science cannot see

The authors close with two confessions.

Meeting science lacks validated measurement instruments, relying on scales built for individual studies or borrowed from team research.

It has also produced no theory specific to meetings after thirty years, borrowing instead from job demands-resources theory and affective events theory.

Most of the evidence comes from Western corporate settings, and the cross-cultural work is thin enough that a careful German and Spanish comparison found no significant differences in small talk, design, opportunities to speak, or follow-up, despite everyone’s assumptions.

Their final recommendation to organizations is the one that matters most.

1. Embrace asynchronous collaboration as a viable and often preferable alternative to live meetings.
2. Ask before scheduling whether the purpose could be served another way.
3. Recognize that leaders over-invite, and that an invitation signals to staff whether they matter to the organization, which is why exclusion has to be handled with care rather than ignored.

Follow that recommendation seriously and you stop designing a meeting.

An existence proof

I want to be careful here, because the review contains findings that cut against digital alternatives.

• Anita Williams Woolley’s colleagues Melanie Brucks and Jonathan Levav found that remote meetings narrow visual focus to the screen and curb creative idea generation.
• Craig Scott and Jennifer Fontenot found computer-mediated meetings associated with weaker team and organizational identification.
• Face-to-face gatherings produced broader discussion and more knowledge-sharing than chat or virtual environments in Annika Lantz’s comparison.

Anyone claiming that a webinar replaces a workshop is arguing against evidence.

The design question is therefore harder than swapping venues for video.

It is whether the psychological effects of nearness can be engineered rather than assumed, which is what we set out to test with digital propinquity and structured pairing.

The clearest signal came early and by accident.

At the first Teach to Reach in January 2021, we counted 14,000 one-to-one networking meetings across three days, against 56 sessions that were all well attended.

Participants told us through their behavior which format carried the value.

What followed took five years to build.

Participants answer questions about their own experience before the event, so the agenda is assembled from what they bring.

Certification recognizes contribution rather than attendance.

Afterwards we call people back and ask what happened to the project, whether it stalled, and what evidence exists that anything improved.

Working with Gavi and the Ministry of Health in Côte d’Ivoire in November 2021, 501 health workers from 96 districts joined within nine days and contributed to vaccinating an additional 3.5 million people at $0.26 per vaccination delivered, with 82 percent continuing to use the method afterwards without incentives.

Against conventional capacity development, the cost comparison runs at $267 per participant rather than $1,850, with 70 to 80 percent implementing within six months rather than 15 to 20 percent.

I do not offer this as a prescription.

It is one demonstration that the constraint identified by 30 years of meeting research is a constraint of the format rather than of human collaboration.

The measurement problem the authors describe as a barrier to their field is, for us, a solved problem, because a gathering conducted through writing leaves a record of who spoke and what they did afterwards.

Humans gather, as the review’s closing line reminds us, and they will continue to gather.

The interesting work now belongs to those willing to ask what gathering could become once we stop treating the room as the only place it can happen.

References

1. Rogelberg SG, Kreamer LM, Gray J. Thirty years of meeting science: lessons learned and the road ahead. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2026;13:415-42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031925-091223
2. Brucks MS, Levav J. Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation. Nature. 2022;605(7908):108-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04643-y
3. Kauffeld S, Lehmann-Willenbrock N. Meetings matter: effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research. 2012;43(2):130-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599
4. Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Allen JA. How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014;99(6):1278-87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038083
5. Szkudlarek B, Alvesson M. Doing silence: how silence is produced in meetings. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2024;23(2):304-24. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2021.0521
6. Sankar G. Global health conferences: gates or gateways? The Lancet Global Health. 2023;11(1):e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(22)00481-8
7. Kiesler S, Sproull L. Group decision making and communication technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1992;52(1):96-123.
8. Lantz A. Meetings in a distributed group of experts: comparing face-to-face, chat and collaborative virtual environments. Behaviour and Information Technology. 2001;20(2):111-17.
9. Scott CR, Fontenot JC. Multiple identifications during team meetings: a comparison of conventional and computer-supported interactions. Communication Reports. 1999;12(2):91-102.
10. König CJ, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Meinecke AL, Winter J. A comparison of business meeting practices in Germany and Spain. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. 2020;51:353-62.
11. Sadki R. Workshop culture. Reda Sadki: learning to make a difference. 23 March 2015. https://doi.org/10.59350/p0z48-43780
12. Sadki R. Wishful thinking. Reda Sadki: learning to make a difference. 23 March 2015. https://doi.org/10.59350/73t2h-v1c48
13. Sadki R. How do we learn from the network? Reda Sadki: learning to make a difference. 9 April 2015. https://doi.org/10.59350/13fva-08521
14. Sadki R. Digital bridges cannot cross analog gates. Reda Sadki: learning to make a difference. 12 June 2023. https://doi.org/10.59350/srvap-txc24
15. Sadki R. When funding shrinks, impact must grow: the economic case for peer learning networks. Reda Sadki: learning to make a difference. 17 June 2025. https://doi.org/10.59350/redasadki.20995
16. Sadki R. Digital propinquity: how to engineer serendipity and build connection in remote teams. Reda Sadki: learning to make a difference. 20 January 2026. https://www.learning.foundation/2026/01/20/digital-propinquity-how-to-engineer-serendipity-and-build-connection-in-remote-teams/
17. Sadki R. A short history of the first five years of Teach to Reach. Reda Sadki: learning to make a difference. 26 April 2026. https://www.learning.foundation/2026/04/26/a-short-history-of-the-first-five-years-of-teach-to-reach/
18. Watkins KE, Marsick VJ. Learning informally at work: reframing learning and development. In: Rethinking Workplace Learning and Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2023. Excerpted with commentary by Reda Sadki at https://www.learning.foundation/2023/11/04/how-we-reframed-learning-and-development-learning-based-complex-work/
19. Watkins KE, Sadki R, Kim K, Suh B. Changing learning paradigms in a global health agency. In: Evidence-Based Initiatives for Organizational Change and Development. Hershey: IGI Global; 2019. p. 693-703. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.ch050