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.