经理和直接下属之间的一对一会议:科学会议的新机会

IF 3.9 1区 心理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Organizational Psychology Review Pub Date : 2022-05-11 DOI:10.1177/20413866221097570
Jonathan R. Flinchum, Liana M. Kreamer, S. Rogelberg, Janaki Gooty
{"title":"经理和直接下属之间的一对一会议:科学会议的新机会","authors":"Jonathan R. Flinchum, Liana M. Kreamer, S. Rogelberg, Janaki Gooty","doi":"10.1177/20413866221097570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Meeting science has advanced significantly in its short history. However, one-on-one (1:1) meetings have not been studied empirically as a focal topic despite making up nearly half of all workplace meetings. While some meeting science insights may apply to 1:1 meetings, others may not (or may function differently) due to conceptual, theoretical, and practical differences between meetings involving dyads and groups. Although 1:1 meetings come in various forms (e.g., peer-to-peer, employee-to-customer), we chose to use manager-direct report 1:1 meetings as an exemplar given their prevalence, theoretical relevance, and practical implications. In this paper, we first review some conceptual differences between dyads and groups. We then discuss how these differences likely manifest in the meeting context (before, during, and after meetings), and outline related propositions. Last, we leverage this conceptual framework and subsequent propositions to provide guidance for future research and theory on 1:1 meetings. In doing so, we hope this paper will act as the impetus for research and theory development on 1:1 meetings. Meeting science has flourished over the past two decades, with research and theory exploring best practices for leading and attending workplace meetings. However, a large portion of this research has focused on meetings of three or more people – despite the fact that meetings are often defined as a gathering between two or more people. Ignoring the one-on-one (1:1) meeting is a missed opportunity, as 1:1 meetings have a large presence in industry. It has been estimated that nearly half (47%) of all meetings are 1:1s, and these dyadic meetings often have unique purposes (e.g., performance appraisals) and involve different interactions (e.g., more interpersonal) outside of larger group meetings. Industry and practice have begun to explore these 1:1 meeting-especially meetings between managers and direct reports. For example, internal studies conducted at Microsoft and Cisco found that direct reports who had more frequent and effectively run 1:1 meetings with their managers were more engaged than their counterparts. While companies have seemingly acknowledged the importance of these meetings, research lags behind. Little empirical or theoretical investigations have explored 1:1 meetings. Yet, with the continued growth in the number of meetings worldwide, it is important to obtain empirical insights specific to 1:1 meetings. Doing so will help inform best practices when it comes to leading and attending 1:1 meetings. Thus, in this conceptual review of 1:1 meetings, we provide a future research agenda encouraging researchers (and practitioners) to investigate this unique (and important) meeting type – the one-on-one meeting between a manager and their direct report.","PeriodicalId":46914,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One-on-one meetings between managers and direct reports: A new opportunity for meeting science\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan R. Flinchum, Liana M. Kreamer, S. Rogelberg, Janaki Gooty\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20413866221097570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Meeting science has advanced significantly in its short history. However, one-on-one (1:1) meetings have not been studied empirically as a focal topic despite making up nearly half of all workplace meetings. While some meeting science insights may apply to 1:1 meetings, others may not (or may function differently) due to conceptual, theoretical, and practical differences between meetings involving dyads and groups. Although 1:1 meetings come in various forms (e.g., peer-to-peer, employee-to-customer), we chose to use manager-direct report 1:1 meetings as an exemplar given their prevalence, theoretical relevance, and practical implications. In this paper, we first review some conceptual differences between dyads and groups. We then discuss how these differences likely manifest in the meeting context (before, during, and after meetings), and outline related propositions. Last, we leverage this conceptual framework and subsequent propositions to provide guidance for future research and theory on 1:1 meetings. In doing so, we hope this paper will act as the impetus for research and theory development on 1:1 meetings. Meeting science has flourished over the past two decades, with research and theory exploring best practices for leading and attending workplace meetings. However, a large portion of this research has focused on meetings of three or more people – despite the fact that meetings are often defined as a gathering between two or more people. Ignoring the one-on-one (1:1) meeting is a missed opportunity, as 1:1 meetings have a large presence in industry. It has been estimated that nearly half (47%) of all meetings are 1:1s, and these dyadic meetings often have unique purposes (e.g., performance appraisals) and involve different interactions (e.g., more interpersonal) outside of larger group meetings. Industry and practice have begun to explore these 1:1 meeting-especially meetings between managers and direct reports. For example, internal studies conducted at Microsoft and Cisco found that direct reports who had more frequent and effectively run 1:1 meetings with their managers were more engaged than their counterparts. While companies have seemingly acknowledged the importance of these meetings, research lags behind. Little empirical or theoretical investigations have explored 1:1 meetings. Yet, with the continued growth in the number of meetings worldwide, it is important to obtain empirical insights specific to 1:1 meetings. Doing so will help inform best practices when it comes to leading and attending 1:1 meetings. Thus, in this conceptual review of 1:1 meetings, we provide a future research agenda encouraging researchers (and practitioners) to investigate this unique (and important) meeting type – the one-on-one meeting between a manager and their direct report.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46914,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221097570\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221097570","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

会议科学在其短暂的历史中取得了显著的进步。然而,尽管一对一(1:1)会议占所有工作场所会议的近一半,但还没有作为一个焦点话题进行实证研究。虽然一些会议科学的见解可能适用于1:1的会议,但由于涉及二人组和小组的会议之间的概念、理论和实践差异,其他的可能不适用(或可能起不同的作用)。虽然1:1会议有各种形式(例如,点对点,员工对客户),我们选择使用经理直接报告1:1会议作为一个范例,因为它们的普遍性,理论相关性和实际意义。在本文中,我们首先回顾了二对和群之间的一些概念差异。然后,我们讨论这些差异如何在会议环境中(会议之前、会议期间和会议之后)表现出来,并概述相关命题。最后,我们利用这一概念框架和后续命题为未来1:1会议的研究和理论提供指导。因此,我们希望本文能够推动1:1会议的研究和理论发展。会议科学在过去的二十年里蓬勃发展,研究和理论探索了领导和参加工作场所会议的最佳实践。然而,这项研究的很大一部分集中在三人或三人以上的会议上——尽管会议通常被定义为两人或两人以上的聚会。忽略一对一(1:1)会议是一个错失的机会,因为1:1会议在行业中有很大的存在。据估计,所有会议中有近一半(47%)是1:1的,这些二元会议通常有独特的目的(例如,绩效评估),并且在较大的小组会议之外涉及不同的互动(例如,更多的人际交往)。行业和实践已经开始探索这种1:1的会议,尤其是经理和直接下属之间的会议。例如,在微软和思科进行的内部研究发现,与经理进行更频繁、更有效的一对一会议的直接下属比他们的同行更投入。虽然企业似乎已经认识到这些会议的重要性,但研究却落后了。很少有实证或理论研究探讨1:1会议。然而,随着全球会议数量的持续增长,获得针对1:1会议的经验见解非常重要。这样做将有助于在领导和参加1:1会议时了解最佳实践。因此,在对1:1会议的概念性回顾中,我们提供了一个未来的研究议程,鼓励研究人员(和实践者)调查这种独特(且重要)的会议类型——经理与其直接下属之间的一对一会议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
One-on-one meetings between managers and direct reports: A new opportunity for meeting science
Meeting science has advanced significantly in its short history. However, one-on-one (1:1) meetings have not been studied empirically as a focal topic despite making up nearly half of all workplace meetings. While some meeting science insights may apply to 1:1 meetings, others may not (or may function differently) due to conceptual, theoretical, and practical differences between meetings involving dyads and groups. Although 1:1 meetings come in various forms (e.g., peer-to-peer, employee-to-customer), we chose to use manager-direct report 1:1 meetings as an exemplar given their prevalence, theoretical relevance, and practical implications. In this paper, we first review some conceptual differences between dyads and groups. We then discuss how these differences likely manifest in the meeting context (before, during, and after meetings), and outline related propositions. Last, we leverage this conceptual framework and subsequent propositions to provide guidance for future research and theory on 1:1 meetings. In doing so, we hope this paper will act as the impetus for research and theory development on 1:1 meetings. Meeting science has flourished over the past two decades, with research and theory exploring best practices for leading and attending workplace meetings. However, a large portion of this research has focused on meetings of three or more people – despite the fact that meetings are often defined as a gathering between two or more people. Ignoring the one-on-one (1:1) meeting is a missed opportunity, as 1:1 meetings have a large presence in industry. It has been estimated that nearly half (47%) of all meetings are 1:1s, and these dyadic meetings often have unique purposes (e.g., performance appraisals) and involve different interactions (e.g., more interpersonal) outside of larger group meetings. Industry and practice have begun to explore these 1:1 meeting-especially meetings between managers and direct reports. For example, internal studies conducted at Microsoft and Cisco found that direct reports who had more frequent and effectively run 1:1 meetings with their managers were more engaged than their counterparts. While companies have seemingly acknowledged the importance of these meetings, research lags behind. Little empirical or theoretical investigations have explored 1:1 meetings. Yet, with the continued growth in the number of meetings worldwide, it is important to obtain empirical insights specific to 1:1 meetings. Doing so will help inform best practices when it comes to leading and attending 1:1 meetings. Thus, in this conceptual review of 1:1 meetings, we provide a future research agenda encouraging researchers (and practitioners) to investigate this unique (and important) meeting type – the one-on-one meeting between a manager and their direct report.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
1.60%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Organizational Psychology Review is a quarterly, peer-reviewed scholarly journal published by SAGE in partnership with the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology. Organizational Psychology Review’s unique aim is to publish original conceptual work and meta-analyses in the field of organizational psychology (broadly defined to include applied psychology, industrial psychology, occupational psychology, organizational behavior, personnel psychology, and work psychology).Articles accepted for publication in Organizational Psychology Review will have the potential to have a major impact on research and practice in organizational psychology. They will offer analyses worth citing, worth following up on in primary research, and worth considering as a basis for applied managerial practice. As such, these should be contributions that move beyond straight forward reviews of the existing literature by developing new theory and insights. At the same time, however, they should be well-grounded in the state of the art and the empirical knowledge base, providing a good mix of a firm empirical and theoretical basis and exciting new ideas.
期刊最新文献
Sustainability champions: A proactive perspective on the inter-organizational job design dynamics of sustainability implementation Multiple Pathways to Leadership: A Revision and Extension of the CIP Leadership Framework The development of blended friendship in high leader-member exchange relationships: Mechanisms and consequences of a relational shift More Teams, More Meetings? Toward an Understanding of Multiteam System Meeting Design, Facilitation, and Effectiveness Trust in Human-Agent Teams: A Multilevel Perspective and Future Research Agenda
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1