UEF//eRepository
DSpace https://erepo.uef.fi
Rinnakkaistallenteet Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
2020
Building trust in workplace meetings:
Intangible factors contributing to intellectual capital enhancement
Lopez-Fresno, Palmira
Artikkelit ja abstraktit tieteellisissä konferenssijulkaisuissa
© Academic Conferences International All rights reserved
http://dx.doi.org/10.34190/IKM.20.088
https://erepo.uef.fi/handle/123456789/25858
Downloaded from University of Eastern Finland's eRepository
BUILDING TRUST IN WORKPLACE MEETINGS
Intangible Factors Contributing to Intellectual Capital Enhancement
Dr Palmira Lopez-Fresno 1 Prof. Taina Savolainen 2
1 Quality, Management & Business (QmB), Madrid, Spain
2 Business School, University of Eastern Finland, Finland correo@palmiralopezfresno.com
taina.savolainen@uef.fi
Abstract: Workplace meetings are a common tool in organisational life and an integral part of employees’
everyday experiences. They are “focused” interactions among people used for a variety of purposes. Meetings play an important role in information sharing, knowledge creation, coordination, decision making, problem solving, employee involvement and socialisation, among others, both inside and outside the organisation. As a vehicle for communication and collaboration, workplace meetings may contribute to intellectual capital or hinder its development, depending partly on trust. Trust is a social catalyst that develops through interactions and acts as a foundation for collaborative actions within and between organisations. This paper examines and discusses the role of trust in workplace meetings for knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and intellectual capital (IC) enhancement. More specifically, by responding the research question - what factors may contribute to trust-building in workplace meetings? - this paper focuses on intangible factors that may contribute to build trust in meetings and how they may influence IC enhancement. Within the framework of a larger mixed-methods research to explore the meanings that participants attribute to workplace meetings, the present study applied the Repertory Grid Technique to 16 adult professionals from several countries in Central America, which elicited 123 factors (constructs) related to the planning, development-interaction and results stages of a meeting. Of them, 60 (49%) correspond to the interaction phase, directly affecting trust building.
The implications of these findings for academics and practitioners are discussed.
Keywords: intellectual capital, knowledge, knowledge sharing, meetings, trust, workplace meetings 1. Introduction
Workplace meetings are an integral part of employees’ everyday workplace experience and an important tool in organisational life (Allen, Lehmann- Willenbrock and Rogelberg, 2015). Much of the workday, especially for managers, is taken up by meetings, and this trend is increasing (Rogelberg et al., 2010; Romano and Nunamaker, 2001). People meet because they need to work together. During meetings, people engage in
“focused” and discursive interactions (Boden, 1994) that allow plans to be made, problems to be solved, and important organisational processes to take place (Cohen et al, 2011; López-Fresno and Portocarrero, 2009;
Scott et al., 2015). Meetings induce people to take action, they reinforce group cohesion and cooperation, and they allow knowledge sharing and creation (López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014). The knowledge and experience needed for a specific situation reside not within a single person, but instead must be pieced together from the knowledge and experience of several individuals (Drucker, 1967). Belief in the adage "two heads are better than one" may be found in the widespread employ of meetings in many societies (Cortina, 2013; Schwartzman, 1989).
Although necessary, meetings are often unproductive, in which case they waste valuable resources, whether financial (Monge, McSween and Wyer, 1989; Romano and Nunamaker, 2001) or emotional (López-Fresno and Portocarrero, 2009; López-Fresno and Grandes-Carci, 2010; Rogelberg et al, 2010). In this case, meetings can harm organisational performance, culture, innovativeness and competitiveness (Allen et al., 2012).
Furthermore, the theory of affective events holds that unproductive meetings can be enduring sources of frustration and dissatisfaction that can blacken employees’ attitudes toward their job (Basch and Fisher, 2000;
Rogelberg et al., 2010). Indeed, counterproductive behaviours during meetings can affect attitudes and behaviours (Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock and Jones, 2015).
Trust among employees is something that effective meetings can strengthen and that unproductive meetings can weaken (López-Fresno and Grandes-Carci, 2010; López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014). Trust is an intangible, relational asset for collaboration and cooperation among people (Burke et al, 2007), and it is a managerial resource or knowledge sharing and creation in order to develop an organisation’s intellectual capital (López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014; Savolainen, 2019). In defining human capital Wright and McMahan (2011) refer to Becker’s early definition of the concept (1964) consisting of knowledge, information,
ideas, skills, and health of individuals. Human intellectual capital includes competences, motivations, communication, sharing of knowledge and cooperation skills, among others. The communication, cooperation and knowledge sharing that occur in meetings engender trust (López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014). However, trust is not only the consequence of a productive meeting: it may also be a precondition. Thus, it is important to understand what factors contribute to the building or destruction of trust during meetings.
Despite extensive research conducted in the last decade on workplace meetings and their role in organisational life (Scott et al., 2015), the relationship between workplace meetings and trust has scarcely been examined. To begin to fill this gap, we have embarked on an exploratory study of workplace meetings, viewing them as personally and socially constructed processes that can have diverse meanings for participants.
As part of this larger study, the present work examined what factors may contribute to trust building in workplace meetings. Data were collected from 16 professional adults using the Repertory Grid Technique.
This article is divided into five sections. Section 2 reviews the literature on the role of trust in knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and intellectual capital enhancement through workplace meetings. Section 3 explains the research methodology. Section 4 describes the empirical results, and section 5 discusses their implications for theory and practice, and it recommends future lines of investigation.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Workplace Meetings and Trust
Meetings play an important role in achieving explicit goals, such as making decisions and solving problems (Leach et al., 2009; Monge, McSween and Wyer, 1989; Rogelberg, Shanock and Scott, 2012), sharing information and knowledge (Ipsen and Nøhr, 2009; Leach et al, 2009; López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014;
Rogelberg, Shanock and Scott, 2012), exploring new ideas and concepts (Monge et al., 1989) and setting agendas (Adams, 2004). Beyond these explicit purposes, in which meetings can be conceptualised as interventions and collaborative techniques (Scott et al., 2015), meetings can also have tacit purposes:
facilitating organisational commitment and sensemaking (Weick, 1995; Matejka and Julian, 1994; Scott et al., 2015), contributing to organisational memory (Ballard and Gomez, 2006), strengthening group relationships within the organisation (Horan, 2002; Rogelberg, Scott and Kello, 2007; Schwartzman, 1989) and outside it (Stray, Moe and Dyba, 2012; López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014), socially legitimising the current order and power structure of the organisation and reinforcing organisational values (Schwartzman, 1986; Scott et al., 2015), coordinating organisational perspectives and agendas (Boden, 1995), shaping stability and change in organisations (Jarzabkowski and Seidl, 2008; Scott et al., 2015), and building or destroying trust (Allen et al., 2015b; López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014). In fulfilling these tacit purposes, meetings can be conceptualised as rituals and sensemaking episodes (Scott et al., 2015). How meetings are conducted and the results that they yield reflect the organisational culture, because they express how the organisation leads and manages people, how it manages time and to what extent it is results-oriented (López-Fresno and Portocarrero, 2009). Whether meetings are effective has an impact on each individual in the organisation, in the group to which each individual belongs, and in the organisation as a whole.
The effectiveness of meetings depends on trust among the participants, and meetings can strengthen or weaken trust (López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014). Though trust still lacks a generally accepted definition (McEvily, Perrone and Zaheer, 2003), it is recognised as an increasingly important intangible resource and asset for enabling organisations to change and achieve strategic goals (Savolainen, 2011). Focusing on the formation of trust between actors in a relational context, Mayer, Davis and Shoorman (1995, p. 712) defined trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party, based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party”. This means that trust is created, built and sustained by and between people and it evolves over time, based on repeated interactions and information available and shared between parties.
Trust develops through a dynamic process of interaction among intra- and inter-organisational actors and it is an integral part of relationships (Lewicki, Tomlinson and Gillespie, 2006; Savolainen and Ikonen, 2016;
Savolainen, Ikonen and Laitinen, 2018). Trust in work relationships is built primarily through communication, knowledge sharing and collaborative learning (Savolainen, 2019; Savolainen and Ikonen, 2016). Trust is manifested in commitment, open communication, ethical behaviour, predictability and a desire to do one’s best in any activity. These processes and characteristics should be promoted through so-called trustful leadership (Savolainen, 2011).
Most research so far on the relationship between trust and workplace meetings has been conceptual (López- Fresno and Savolainen, 2014) or has focused on how counterproductive behaviours during meetings can affect
attitudes and behaviours in the workplace more generally, as well as damage trust between co-workers (Allen et al., 2015b). That work has shown, for example, that “an employee who fails to show up on time could potentially be considered to possess low ability, among other negative attributes, and an attendee who demonstrates a clear lack of interest in the contributions of others may be perceived as low in benevolence”
(Allen et al., 2015b, p. 1276). Trust comprises several rational, cognitive and affective components (McAllister, 1995), and which are the specific factors that contribute to ensuring that workplace meetings build trust have yet to be identified.
2.2. Knowledge Sharing, Intellectual Capital and Meetings Based on Trust
Unless shared, tacit knowledge cannot be converted to explicit knowledge and be utilized for IC development, one of the most valuable resources of organisations to gain competitive advantage in the global economy (López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2019). Knowledge sharing and creation occurs as an interactive process between actors. Group dynamics and workplace climate are the most critical factors for sharing of tacit knowledge (Savolainen and López-Fresno, 2013). People need tools, motives and supporting atmosphere for sharing. Trust is a prerequisite for effective knowledge sharing and creation (Savolainen, 2008). Trust creates openness, freedom and willingness to collaborate. Trust also influences whether individuals internalise new knowledge: they must feel the need to integrate the knowledge into their existing knowledge base, and trustful leadership can promote such willingness (Savolainen, 2011). Essential to leadership by trust is enabling environments that nurture knowledge sharing and knowledge creation, and hence IC.
Meetings, whether formal or informal, specific or general, are an important tool and vehicle for knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. They allow the sharing of implicit (tacit) knowledge, which can thereby become explicit knowledge and enhance an organisation’s intellectual capital (López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2019). To allow knowledge sharing and creation, meetings must provide an appropriate atmosphere for interaction among actors.
3. Methodology 3.1. Data Collection
This study is part of a broader mixed-methods research to explore the meanings that participants attribute to workplace meetings (López-Fresno, 2018). The data in the present study came from a cross-sectional survey of 16 adult professionals (13 women) performing similar functions in their respective public organisations (Patton, 1990) in six countries of Central America. Three participants came from each of four countries, while two participants came from each of the remaining two countries.
The participants were surveyed by the first author using the Repertory Grid Technique in Spanish. This is a semi-structured procedure based on the theory of personal constructs (Kelly, 1955) that assesses an individual’s personal constructs and how he or she applies them to aspects of the world, termed “elements”.
The technique is useful for evaluating the dimensions and structure of personal meaning (Easterby-Smith et al., 1996b; Feixas and Cornejo, 1996; Feixas et al., 2003); an appropriate method to elucidate individuals’
sense-making activities (Bannister and Fransella, 1977).
Kelly (1955) defined personal constructs as meanings used to make sense of the world, and he conceived the individual as "a scientist who develops hypotheses about himself, his environment, others and, ultimately, about the world in which he lives, and constantly tests them in the cycle of his experience" (Feixas, De la Fuente and Soldevila, 2003, p. 154). These hypotheses are based on dimensions of meaning, named constructs, which consist of the capture of a difference or contrast in an individual’s experience. Thus, personal constructs are meanings used to make sense of the world (Kelly, 1955). The meaning of an experience always implies a contrast, an opposite (Feixas et al., 2003). Therefore, a construct is a contrast between two poles; the way in which two or more elements, be objects, people or events (in this study, meetings) are similar and, therefore, different from a third or more. When applied, it serves to distinguish between elements and group them (Kelly, 1955).
The ‘classic’ repertory grid consists of: (1) elicited elements (columns); (2) bipolar constructs (rows) that are applied to the elicited elements, and are elicited by comparison of pairs of elements; and (3) a matrix of values assigned to each element according to the different constructs (Cascón-Pereira, 2017). One axis of this matrix are the constructs; the other axis, the elements.
Participants began with a blank repertory grid, so that they themselves would identify the elements and constructs. Each participant was asked to identify what types of meetings existed, in his or her view. To these elements were added two more: “worst meeting” and “best meeting”, which could be real or imaginary. These
elements were presented to each participant in pairs, and he or she was asked to describe how the elements in each pair were similar and different. These responses became the constructs. Then the person was asked to provide the opposite of the elicited construct, in his or her own words. This process was repeated for consecutive pairs until no new constructs were elicited.
3.1. Data Analysis
Constructs were codified inductively into three categories: objective/planning, comprising eight subcategories;
development/interaction (the meeting process), six subcategories; and results, four subcategories. The present study focused on qualitative analysis of the participation/development category.
4. Results
A total of 123 constructs were expressed by the 16 participants, reflecting the meanings they attribute to meetings and what criteria they consider when deciding whether a meeting has been effective or unproductive. Of the 123 constructs, 60 corresponded to the development/interaction category and were distributed among the subcategories as follows (Table 1, Appendix): attendance and attention, 4 constructs;
respect and trust, 13; emotions, 7; meeting environment/atmosphere 10; interaction, 17; and coordination, 9.
The subcategory “attendance and attention” included constructs related to attendance by meeting invitees, punctuality, and focused attention. The subcategory of “respect and trust” included respect for others, integrity, tolerance, confidence, equality, proper language/tone, and a group of constructs that participants on their own denominated ‘trust’, without prompting from the researchers. The subcategory “emotions” included affection, emotions, empathy and affinity. The subcategory of “environment/atmosphere” included whether language was formal and whether the atmosphere was formal or conducive to discussion and results. The subcategory “interaction” included whether there was interaction/participation and whether it generated pleasure, freedom to speak, open attitude and willingness to propose solutions or actions, debate, opinions supported by argument, affinity and common objectives. Finally, “coordination” included whether someone coordinated or guided the meeting and whether there was leadership, focus on objectives and a formal dynamic.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical and Practical Contributions
Apparently the first study to apply the Repertory Grid Technique to the research on workplace meetings, the present work identifies trust as one of the constructs that participants use to decide whether a workplace meeting has been effective and satisfactory. It also appears to be the first exploratory study, from the participants’ perspectives, of factors that contribute to the building or destruction of trust in workplace meetings, which in turn affects the development of intellectual capital. These insights have practical implications for those who organise, manage or participate in workplace meetings.
5.1.1. Theoretical contributions
One contribution is that we identified “trust” as a construct that meeting participants use when deciding whether a meeting was productive and, therefore, when creating meaning for their workplace meetings. Five of the 16 participants (31%) mentioned trust. A second contribution is that we investigated intangible factors that contribute to trust development in workplace meetings: of the 123 constructs elicited from the participants, 60 (49%) corresponded to attendance and attention, respect and trust, emotions, meeting environment/atmosphere, as well as interaction and coordination within the participation/development category (Table 1, Appendix). This category reflects interactions during the meeting. These constructs align with McAllister’s (1995) rational components of trust (e.g. constructs of meeting attendance and punctuality, presence of someone guiding the meeting), cognitive components (e.g. focused attention on the meeting, open attitude, opinions supported by argument, language/tone) and affective components (affection, emotions, respect, integrity, confidence).
The present work confirms a previous study (López-Fresno and Savolainen, 2014) showing that participants consider open communication and commitment to shared goals as prerequisites for creating an environment of trust in workplace meetings. Our study also helps explain the origins of counterproductive meeting behaviours (Allen et al., 2015b) as more likely to occur in the absence of such constructs as punctuality, focused attention and interaction/debate.
5.1.2. Practical Contributions
Our findings suggest that because constructs are specific to each individual, organisations should identify what meanings their employees attribute to workplace meetings, and then take them into consideration when organising and coordinating meetings. Our findings lead us to suggest that among the options mentioned by Allen et al. (2015b) to prevent counterproductive meeting behaviours, organisations should focus their efforts on the proper planning and conduct of meetings. Managers and meeting coordinators should take a leading role in creating an environment of trust that encourages positive meeting behaviours.
5.2. Limitations and Future Research
This exploratory study involving an innovative method begins to shed light on the factors that can help build trust in workplace meetings, but its findings should be interpreted with caution. We cannot exclude bias in data collection or analysis, even though the Repertory Grid Technique is semi-structured and the authors were careful to ensure psychological separation from the participants. We cannot guarantee that our results, obtained in certain countries of Central America, generalise to other cultural or professional contexts. Future work should validate and confirm our findings in other contexts, and it should examine in which extent the constructs identified here affect meeting effectiveness, participant satisfaction with meetings and intellectual capital in the organisation. Such work should help clarify how intangible factors contribute to trust in workplace meetings, helping maximise the effectiveness of interactions that take up an increasing amount of the workday and yet can bring negligible benefit, or even harm, to employees and the organisation if poorly conducted.
References
Adams, B. (2004) “Public meetings and democratic process”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 64, pp. 43-54.
Allen, J. A., Yoerger, M. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Jones, J. (2015b) “Would you please stop that!? The relationship between counterproductive meeting behaviors, employee voice and trust” Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 1272-1287.
Allen, J. A., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Rogelberg, S. G. (2015a) “An Introduction to the Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science”, In Josep A. Allen, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock and Steven G. Rogelberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science (pp. 3-11), Cambridge University Press, New York.
Allen, J. A., Sands, S. J., Mueller, S. L., Frear, K. A., Mudd, M. and Rogelberg, S. G. (2012) “Employees’ feelings about more meetings: an overt analysis and recommendations for improving meetings”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 405-418.
Ballard, D. and Gómez, F. (2006) “Time to meet: Meetings as sites of organisational memory”, In J. Parker, M.
Crawford y P. Harris (Eds.), Study of time XII: Time and memory (pp. 301-312). Boston, MA: Brill.
Bannister, D. and Fransella, F. (1977) A manual for repertory grid technique, Academic Press, London.
Basch, J. and Fisher, C.D. (2000) “Affective events-emotion matrix: a classification of work events and association emotions”, In N.M. Ashkanasy, C.E.J. Härtel and Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace:
Research, e business of talk: organisations in action, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Boden, D. (1994) The business of talk: Organisations in actions, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
Boden, D. (1995) “Agendas and arrangements: Everyday negotiations in meetings”, In A. Firth (Ed.), The discourse of negotiation: Studies of language in the workplace (pp. 83-100), Pergamon, Oxford.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H. and Salas, E. (2007) “Trust in leadership: a multi-level review and integration”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 606-632.
Cascón-Pereira, R. (2017) "Repertory Grid Technique as a useful tool for assessing identity and identity change in HRD", In K. Black, R. Warhurst and S. Corlett (Eds.), Identity as a Foundation for Human Resource Development (pp. 129-144), Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, UK.
Cohen, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A. and Luong, A. (2011) “Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 15, No.
1, pp. 90-104.
Cortina, A. (2013) Para qué sirve realmente la Ética, Espasa libros, Barcelona.
Drucker, P. (1967) The effective executive, Harper and Row, New York.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Holman, D. (1996) “Using repertory grids in management”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20, pp. 3–30.
Feixas, G. and Cornejo, J. M. (1996) Manual de la técnica de la rejilla mediante el programa RECORD v. 2.0.
Paidós, Barcelona.
Feixas, G., De la Fuente, M. and Soldevila, J. M. (2003) “La técnica de la rejilla como instrumento de evaluación y formulación de hipótesis clínicas”, Revista Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 153-172.
Horan, A. P. (2002), “An effective workplace stress management intervention: Chicken Soup for the Soul at work employee groups”, Work, Vol. 18, pp. 3-13.
Ipsen, M. and Nøhr, S. B. (2009) “The three-hour meeting: A socio-cultural approach to engage junior doctors”, Education Medical Teacher, Vol. 31, pp. 933-937.
Jarzabkowski, P. and Seidl, D. (2008) “The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy” Organisation Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1391-1426.
Kelly, G. A. (1955) The psychology of personal constructs, Routledge, New York:
Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B. and Burnfield, J. L. (2009) “Perceived Meeting Effectiveness: The Role of Design Characteristics”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 65-76.
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, C. and Gillespie, N. (2006) “Models of Interpersonal Trust Development: Theoretical Approaches, Empirical Evidence and Future Directions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp. 991- 1022.
López-Fresno, P. (2018) Estudio exploratorio sobre el concepto, tipología y significados de las reuniones de trabajo, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona.
López-Fresno, P. and Grandes-Carci, M. (2010) Cómo organizar la mejor reunión y optimizar sus resultados, Ediciones AENOR, Madrid.
López-Fresno, P. and Portocarrero, F. (2009) Reuniones Productivas, Editorial Netbiblo, La Coruña.
López-Fresno, P. and Savolainen, T. (2019) “Training Meetings: Not Mere Knowledge Sharing Perceived Socialising Function and Trust”, Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Lisbon, 8-9 September 2019, Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd., Reading, UK.
López-Fresno, P. and Savolainen, T. (2014) “Working Meetings - a Tool for Building or Destroying Trust in knowledge Creation and Sharing”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 137- 143.
Matejka, K. and Julian, R. (1994) “Meeting is such sweet sorrow”, Management Decision, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 62- 64.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995) “An Integrative Model of Organisational Trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 709‐734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995) Affect -and cognition- based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organisations, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 24-59.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V. and Zaheer, A. (2003) “Trust as an Organizing Principle”, Organisation Science, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 91–103.
Monge, P. R., McSween, C. and Wyer, J. A. (1989) A profile of meetings in corporate America: results of the 3M meeting effectiveness study, Annenberg School of Communications, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Patton, M. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L., Scott, C. and Shuffler, M. (2010) “Employee satisfaction with meetings: a contemporary facet of job satisfaction”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp.
149-172.
Rogelberg, S. G., Scott, C. and Kello, J. (2007) “The science and fiction of meetings”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 48, No. 29, pp. 18-21.
Rogelberg, S. G., Shanock, L. R. and Scott, C. (2012) “Wasted Time and Money in Meetings: Increasing Return on Investment”, Small Group Research, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 236-245.
Romano, N. C. and Nunamaker, J. F. (2001) “Meeting analysis: findings from research and practice”, Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Washington.
Savolainen T. (2019) “Trust and Knowledge Sharing in Service Business Management”, In Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conference on Tourism Research, C. Sousa, I. Vaz de Freitas and J. Marques (Eds.), pp. 282-288, University Porto, Portucalense, Portugal.
Savolainen, T. (2011) “Leadership by trust in renewing human intellectual capital”, In Puusa, A. and Reijonen, H. (ed), Aineeton pääoma organisaation voimavarana, UNIpress, EU.
Savolainen, T. (2008) “Sharing Tacit Knowledge in a Project-based Organisation: Perspective of Trust”, in Kujala, J. and Iskanius, J. (Ed.), Resarch Reports in Industrial Engineering and Management, University of Oululu, Finland. Electronic Publication, pp. 676-688.
Savolainen, T., Ikonen, M. and Laitinen, M. (2018) “Trust restoration and knowledge processes – A qualitative study within leader-follower relationships”, In Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2018), Bolisani, E., Di Maria, E., Scarso, E. (Eds.), Vol 2, pp. 765-772, Academic Conferences and Publishing International Ltd., Reading, UK.
Savolainen, T. and Ikonen, M. (2016) “Process dynamics of trust development: exploring and illustrating emergence in the team context”, In S. Jagd and L. Fuglsang (Eds), Trust, Organisations and Social Interaction. Studying trust as process within and between organisations, pp. 231-258, Edward Elgar, Northampton.
Savolainen, T. and Lopez‐Fresno, P. (2014) “Trust as Intangible Asset ‐ Enabling Intellectual Capital Development by Leadership for Vitality and Innovativeness”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 244‐255.
Savolainen, T. and López-Fresno, P. (2013) “Trust as Intangible Asset – Enabling Intellectual Capital Development by Leadership for Vitality and Innovativeness”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 244-255.
Scott, C., Allen, J. A., Rogelberg, S. G. and Kello, A. (2015) “Five Theoretical Lenses for Conceptualizing the Role of Meetings in Organisational Life”, In Josep A. Allen, Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock and Steven G. Rogelberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science (pp. 20-46), Cambridge University Press, New York.
Schwartzman, H. B. (1989) The meeting, Plenum Press, New York.
Schwartzman, H. B. (1986) “The meeting as a neglected social form in organisational studies”, In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organisational behaviour (pp. 233-258), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Stray, V. G., Moe, N. B. and Dyba, T. (2012) “Escalation of Commitment: A Longitudinal Case Study of Daily Meetings”, Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 153-167.
Tracy, K.; Dimock, A. (2004) “Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community”, In P.J.
Kabfleish (Ed.), Communication yearbook, Vol. 28, pp. 127-16, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in organisations, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wright, P. and McMahan, G. (2011) ‘Exploring human capital: putting ‘human’ back into strategic human resource management’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 93‐104.
Appendix
Table 1. Constructs (60) elicited from the 16 participants in the “Development/interaction” category*
Subcategory (no. constructs) Construct
Attendance and attention
(4) Participants attend - Participants do not arrive.
Punctuality - Tardiness.
Attention at the meeting (focused) - Dispersion/neglect.
High degree of attention - Neglect/dispersion.
Respect and trust (13) Respect for others - Disrespect.
Respect - Disrespect.
Attitude of respect/humility – arrogance.
Integrity - Lack of integrity.
Tolerance of opinions - Intolerance.
Atmosphere of trust - Mistrust.
Trust – Mistrust.
Trust – Mistrust.
Confidence to expose one’s ideas – Measured words.
Trusting environment – Reserved environment.
Full trust – Trust limited to work.
Distance/status – Equality.
Proper language/tone – Bad attitude.
Emotions (7) Affection – Lack of affection.
Emotions/feelings – Impartial/rational.
Like people – Low empathy.
Emotional bond – No bond.
Affective environment (emotions) – Indifference.
Affinity with participants (emotional) – Distant.
Keeps bonds open – No affection.
Environment/atmosphere (10)
Formal atmosphere – Relaxed.
Formal – Relaxed.
Formal atmosphere – Relaxed atmosphere.
Formal atmosphere – Relaxed atmosphere.
Formal atmosphere – Relaxed atmosphere.
Relaxed atmosphere – Tense atmosphere.
Relaxed atmosphere – Composure.
Nice/conducive atmosphere – Unpleasant atmosphere.
Formal atmosphere (vocabulary) – Informal atmosphere.
Colloquial language – Formal language.
Interaction (16) There is interaction – There is emptiness.
There is participation – No participation.
There is participation – There is passivity.
High capacity to interact – Low capacity to interact.
Fixed interaction – Fluid interaction.
Greater freedom to talk – Focused on objectives.
Propositive attitude (referred to willingness to propose actions or decisions) – Opaque/passive attitude.
Open attitude – Closure.
High degree (quality) of debate – Low grade.
High technical input – Distortion/manipulation.
Objective/argumented opinions – Subjective opinions.
Pleasure social interaction – No pleasure.
Participatory atmosphere – Closed/stressful environment.
Aligned opinions/criteria – Divergent opinions.
Divergent opinions – Consensus (technical).
Seek a shared goal – Different objectives.
Reflect affinity – Reflect spontaneity.
Coordination (10) One person guides – No one guides.
Leadership in coordination – Absence of leadership.
Focused on the targets – Scattered.
Controlled – Out of control.
Good handling of the meeting – No handling.
Focus on time – No time control.
Try to be executive (referred to: try to be focused)– Do not measure time.
Formal dynamics – Jovial dynamics.
Scheduled process – Improvised.
*All responses are listed, so multiple listings of the same response reflect the number of participants giving that response.
