Meetings as a Social Practice

There are two prominent definitions of meetings, which highlight slightly different aspects. The first one is by Reference BodenBoden (1994: 84), who describes the meeting as:

The second definition is by Reference SchwartzmanSchwartzman (1989: 7) who defines the meeting as:

Combining these two definitions leads to the following characterization of the meeting: The meeting can be characterized as:

1. (1) planned; an informal encounter on the corridor, for example, does not constitute a meeting;

2. (2) episodic, which implies that it has a beginning, a conduct and an end;

3. (3) focused on talk, though it may also involve other forms of interaction;

4. (4) a gathering: for Reference SchwartzmanSchwarzman (1989) there have to be at least three people, but this seems an unnecessary restriction; for Reference BodenBoden (1994) a meeting may involve only two people;

5. (5) an event that presupposes the co-location of people in the same actual or virtual space; and

6. (6) an event that has an official purpose: formally, the purpose of meetings relates to the functioning of an organization or group.

Accordingly, we can define meetings as follows:

While this definition is specific enough to distinguish the meeting from other social practices, it is also broad enough to capture the many different forms that meetings can take. For example, meetings may be on- or off-site, open or closed, regular or irregular, strategic, operational or administrative, organizational or interorganizational, in-person or online.

Largely, meetings rely on talk; they are also the site of text production, however. For example, in many meetings one person is assigned the task of taking down the minutes; moreover, people who attend a meeting often take personal notes (Reference Bothin and CloughBothin and Clough 2012), on the basis of which the minutes of the meeting may be modified (Reference FearFear 2012). Considering that writing is necessarily a selective process, the production of text in meetings is not trivial. On the contrary, it is likely to influence the way in which various issues will be addressed in subsequent meetings.

Generally, meetings are held so that participants can talk about and reflect on certain topics, which are usually announced before the meeting and constitute the meeting agenda (Reference Angouri and MarraAngouri and Marra 2010). Because the meeting agenda includes some topics but excludes others, it too has a ‘bracketing’ effect, in the sense that it determines what will be discussed in the meeting (Reference BodenBoden 1994). Of course, as the meeting unfolds, the conversation may drift away from the topic under discussion. This may force the chairperson to intervene in order to bring the discussion back to the agenda (Reference Holmes and StubbeHolmes and Stubbe 2003). A formal meeting may often be preceded by informal talk; typically, participants tend to gather in a room before – and after – the meeting and chat informally (Reference Mirivel and TracyMirivel and Tracy 2005), often about trivial matters not necessarily connected to the meeting agenda (Reference BodenBoden 1994).

Meetings have a clearly defined beginning and end, and are thus temporally delimited, either in terms of a specific time or an objective that has to be achieved, or a combination of both (Reference Hendry and SeidlHendry and Seidl 2003). Thus, the end of the meeting is itself part of the meeting, and many of the activities within the meeting are undertaken in view of its end. Drawing on Luhmann’s systems theory (Reference Luhmann1995), and particularly on his concept of episodes, Reference Hendry and SeidlHendry and Seidl (2003) have proposed a framework for studying meetings. This framework focuses on three critical structural aspects of meetings: Initiation refers to how a meeting is set up, including which people and topics are ‘bracketed in’ and which are ‘bracketed out’. It also refers to the process that determines the degree of decoupling between the structures of the meeting and those of the organization as a whole. Conduct refers to the specific ways in which the interactions within the meeting are carried out and to the specific ways in which turn-taking is structured. Termination refers to the specific ways in which a meeting is terminated and recoupled to the organization. The process of termination also determines the extent to which the various outcomes of the meeting are transferred to the organization at large. Relatedly, Reference Mroz, Allen, Verhoeven and ShufflerMroz et al. (2018) cluster key findings in psychological meeting science in terms of what happens before (related to meeting design and composition), during (related to meeting actions, interactions and behaviours) and after the meeting (related to meeting outcomes).

Apart from being temporally delimited, meetings are also spatially delimited and embedded in materiality. In organizations, face-to-face meetings typically take place in meeting rooms that can seat between five to twenty participants (Reference Asmuß and SvennevigAsmuß and Svennevig 2009). Materiality – the material aspect of meetings, such as the types of furniture and equipment used – is important, because it pre-structures the meeting physically in a way that can influence how many people can attend, as well as who can speak. For example, the way in which tables and chairs are arranged in the room may inhibit or promote interaction among the participants. In addition, the type of artefacts that are available to participants may restrict or encourage creativity or formalism. For example, whiteboards and flipcharts (Reference Whittington, Molloy, Mayer and SmithWhittington et al. 2006) may help the participants visualize creative solutions, while projectors and presentation software such as PowerPoint may hinder the ability of participants to think ‘outside the box’. Using documentation, such as reports, may force participants to focus on specific issues and can thus also influence the way in which a meeting is conducted.

Spatial and material resources, such as ‘presentations, spreadsheets, tables, seating orders, projector screens and flipcharts’ (Reference Jarzabkowski, Burke and SpeeJarzabkowski, Burke and Spee 2015: S44), may also affect conversational, bodily (e.g., turning the body towards the chairperson or raising hands) and visual interactions (e.g., looking at participants) in strategy meetings and workshops (Reference Werle and SeidlWerle and Seidl 2015). Accordingly, Reference Paroutis, Franco and PapadopoulosParoutis, Franco and Papadopoulos (2015: S48) highlight that strategy meetings constitute ‘arenas where visual interaction with strategy tools takes place’. Exploring the use of artefacts, such as computers and projections, in strategy meetings, Reference Asmuß and OshimaAsmuß and Oshima (2018) show ‘how multimodal communicative actions in strategy meetings have an impact on the actual making of strategy’ (p. 890) and on the strategy roles of the participants. Relatedly, Reference StephensStephens (2012) speaks of the practice of multicommunicating in strategy meetings, that is, ‘communication practices involving technology where people conduct multiple, nearly simultaneous conversations’ (p. 195).

While most studies focus on face-to-face meetings, virtual meetings are starting to attract increasing attention from researchers, not least in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic (Reference GhooiGhooi 2020; Reference Timko, Mericle, Kaskutas, Martinez and ZemoreTimko et al. 2022). As defined by Reference Gerpott and KerschreiterGerpott and Kerschreiter (2022: 111), ‘virtual meetings are planned gatherings conducted with the help of technology that allows meeting attendants to see and hear each other while participating from different locations’. Whether a meeting is held virtually or physically is likely to have implications for strategizing in meetings, including meeting interactions, practices, participants, outcomes, and the role of materiality. For example, virtual meetings are suggested to generate less dynamic interactions than physical meetings (Reference AlpertAlpert 2011; Reference Hameed, Tanidir, Naik, Teoh, Shah, Wroclawski, Kunjibettu, Castellani, Ibrahim, da Silva, Rai, de la Rosette, Gauhar and SomaniHameed et al. 2021). One reason may be that virtual meetings lack some of the sensory clues that support communication in face-to-face ones, triggering more verbal checks to avoid misunderstandings (Reference Dunn and WilsonDunn and Wilson 2021; Reference He, Luell, Muralikrishnan, Straube and NagelsHe et al. 2020). Yet, virtual meetings tend to be more inclusive and have a higher reach because participation is easier, less costly and independent of location (Reference Gao, Huang and ZhangGao, Huang and Zhang 2020; Reference Richards, Edwards, Lackey, Wallace, Calleson, Barber, Long, Lin and FarelRichards et al. 2011; Reference Roos, Oláh, Ingle, Kobayashi and FeldtRoos et al. 2020). Though research on online meetings has surged since the pandemic, many studies on this issue raise questions rather than answering them (e.g., Reference GhooiGhooi 2020; Reference Seidl and WhittingtonSeidl and Whittington 2021).

Functions of Meetings

As various scholars (Reference Allen, Beck, Scott and RogelbergAllen et al. 2014; Reference Dittrich, Guérard and SeidlDittrich, Guérard and Seidl 2011a; Reference Mroz, Allen, Verhoeven and ShufflerMroz et al. 2018) have highlighted, meetings fulfil a wide range of different functions. Often a single meeting fulfils multiple organizational functions simultaneously and apart from the explicitly stated or official functions, a meeting can also fulfil latent or unofficial functions (Reference SchwartzmanSchwartzman 1989). Moreover, meeting purposes as stated in the meeting announcement can differ from meeting purposes as perceived by meeting participants (Reference López-Fresno and Cascón-PereiraLópez-Fresno and Cascón-Pereira 2021).

Reference Dittrich, Guérard and SeidlDittrich et al. (2011a; Reference Dittrich, Guérard and Seidl2011b) highlight five meeting functions in particular. Perhaps the most obvious role of meetings in organizations is coordination. People arrange meetings in order to be able to align or synchronize their activities (Reference Boden and FirthBoden 1995; Reference BrinkerhoffBrinkerhoff 1972), coordinate future action (Reference HuismanHuisman 2001; Reference Mintzberg, Raisinghani and TheoretMintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret 1976) and pool and distribute information (Reference SchwartzmanSchwartzman 1989; Reference TepperTepper 2004) or tasks (Reference KaplanKaplan 2011; Reference Mirivel and TracyMirivel and Tracy 2005). Another function is that of sensemaking. As Reference WeickWeick (1995) has pointed out, because meetings are the setting in which participants discuss various issues and put forward their arguments, they constitute a central sensemaking device. Meetings have been shown to stimulate critical thinking (Reference Hendry and SeidlHendry and Seidl 2003; Reference Mezias, Grinyer and GuthMezias, Grinyer and Guth 2001), help participants generate and develop new ideas (Reference Jarzabkowski and SeidlJarzabkowski and Seidl 2008), become aware of organizational issues (Reference Hodgkinson, Whittington, Johnson and SchwarzHodgkinson et al. 2006; Reference SchwartzmanSchwartzman 1989; Reference TerryTerry 1987) and explore solutions (Reference Mintzberg, Raisinghani and TheoretMintzberg, Raisinghani and Theoret 1976; Reference SeiboldSeibold 1979).

Meetings in organizations also have a political function, in the sense that they allow participants to promote certain issues and interests at the expense of other interests and to advance a certain agenda (Reference AdamsAdams 2004; Reference TepperTepper 2004). Meetings also enable participants to form alliances (Reference KangasharjuKangasharju 2002), negotiate (Reference Boden and FirthBoden 1995), exert influence (Reference Wodak, Kwon and ClarkeWodak, Kwon and Clarke 2011), reschedule agenda topics until an opportunity for decision arises (Reference TepperTepper 2004) and suppress new ideas (Reference Jarzabkowski and SeidlJarzabkowski and Seidl 2008).

Meetings can also have a symbolic, and typically latent, function. For example, meetings might symbolically confirm the established organizational order: Reference Bailey and BantonBailey (1965) and Reference SchwartzmanSchwartzman (1989) argue that, when an organizational member agrees to participate in a meeting without questioning its format or without overtly disagreeing about the setting of the meeting, implicitly he/she agrees to the established order that is embedded in that meeting. Other authors have emphasized that meetings with ritualistic elements may signal symbolically a certain status or change in status (Reference Bourque, Johnson, Starbuck and HodgkinsonBourque and Johnson 2008; Reference Johnson, Prashantham and FloydJohnson, Prashantham and Floyd 2006; Reference StarkerStarker 1978).

Finally, meetings may have a social function, in that they serve as a hub that makes it easier for participants to develop networks and relationships (Reference Hodgkinson, Whittington, Johnson and SchwarzHodgkinson et al. 2006; Reference TepperTepper 2004; Reference Tiitinen and LempiäläTiitinen and Lempiälä 2022) and form social values, norms and beliefs (Reference Mirivel and TracyMirivel and Tracy 2005). Meetings also foster group and organizational identity (Reference Bürgi, Jacobs and RoosBürgi, Jacobs and Roos 2005; Reference SchwartzmanSchwartzman 1989) and provide space in which participants can display emotion (Reference Kangasharju and NikkoKangasharju and Nikko 2009; Reference Liu and MaitlisLiu and Maitlis 2014; Reference TracyTracy 2007). Table 34.1 summarizes the five functions of meetings (for more details, refer to Reference Dittrich, Guérard and SeidlDittrich, Guérard and Seidl 2011a; Reference Dittrich, Guérard and Seidl2011b).

Meeting Practices and Their Role in Strategizing

Much of the research on the strategic role of meetings has focused on the practices that are applied in meetings and their effects on strategy. These include (1) discursive; (2) set-up; and (3) virtual meeting practices, which we will discuss in turn.

The first set of meeting practices are discursive practices, that is, practices related to the communication within meetings. For example, in a series of studies, Clarke, Kwon and Wodak have examined how various discursive practices that senior managers use in meetings shape strategic issues. In one study, Reference Wodak, Kwon and ClarkeWodak, Kwon and Clarke (2011) identify five discursive practices (bonding, encouraging, directing, re/committing and modulating) employed by chairpersons in their attempts at shaping the decision-making process. It suggests that chairpersons with an egalitarian leadership style tend to combine these practices in a balanced way, and thus usually succeed in reaching consensus over a decision. In another study, Reference Kwon, Clarke and WodakKwon, Clarke and Wodak (2014) identify five discursive practices (equalizing, re/defining, simplifying, legitimizing, reconciling) that seem to play a particularly important role in the development of a collective view on strategic issues. These practices are mobilized dynamically in meetings and fulfil specific goals: meeting participants tend to employ the practices of re/defining and simplifying in order to limit the scope of the discussion relative to strategic issues. The practices of equalizing and legitimizing, in turn, tend to ‘balance the opening-up and narrowing-down of understanding of the strategic issue’ (Reference Kwon, Clarke and WodakKwon, Clarke and Wodak 2014: 19), while reconciling minimizes conflict among the participants. Meeting participants coupled each of these discursive practices with ‘linguistic devices’ such as humour, metaphors and irony in order to make them more effective.

On that basis, Reference Kwon, Clarke, Vaara, Mackay and WodakKwon et al. (2020) identify four ways in which verbal irony is used in strategy meetings to deal with controversial strategic issues that meeting participants might not be able to solve or come to an agreement about. First, irony can be used in an acquiescing way, which means that the understanding of the issue is framed as having no alternative because of environmental constraints. Second, irony can be used in an empowering way, which means that it enables a new view to be synthesized from inputs of several individuals. Third, irony can be used in a channelling way, which means that it is employed to subsume other interpretations in a dominant view. Finally, irony might be used in a dismissing way, which means that it leads to rejecting alternative interpretations and reinforcing the status quo.

In a practitioner-oriented article, Reference Bourgoin, Marchessaux and BencherkiBourgoin, Marchessaux and Bencherki (2018) outline three practices that help managers to successfully conduct strategy meetings: clarifying the meeting’s purpose, adapting the meeting’s communication style to the desired type of dialogue (political, strategic or tactical), and selecting the right person to lead the meeting, depending on its purpose and communication style. A number of studies have also examined the effect of different modes of turn-taking on strategy. In their study of strategy meetings, Reference Jarzabkowski and SeidlJarzabkowski and Seidl (2008) show that different modes of discussion have different effects on the emergence and development of new strategic ideas: free discussions (i.e., without interventions from the chairperson) are associated with the emergence and development of new ideas, whereas administrative discussions (i.e., discussions about existing, previously agreed or non-contentious strategic items), restricted discussions (discussions strictly controlled by the chairperson) and restricted free discussions (those subtly steered by the chairperson) tend to limit the possibilities for new ideas to emerge and be developed. Focusing particularly on ‘free discussions’, Reference Detchessahar and JournéDetchessahar and Journé (2018: 796) find that genuine free discussions have ‘to be actively managed’ to ensure participation, including selecting the relevant participants and structuring the episode in a way that fuels discussion.

In addition to communication as such, studies have examined the practices associated with the display of emotions. Reference Liu and MaitlisLiu and Maitlis (2014) show that the display of positive emotions in meetings, such as ‘energetic exchange’ or ‘amused encounter’, is associated with more collaborative strategizing, in which actors engage in open discussion, generate multiple proposals or bond with the leader. In contrast to that, the display of negative emotions, such as ‘discord interaction’, ‘recurrent confrontation’ and ‘depleting barrage’, leads to antagonized strategizing, which increases the distance between the participants, hinders the exploration of alternatives and results in truncated strategic discussions.

The second set of meeting practices can be labelled set-up practices. These are practices that concern the temporal and spatial set-up of the meeting. Selecting the location where the meeting will take place is such a practice (Reference SchwartzmanSchwartzman 1989). In that respect, Reference Jarzabkowski and SeidlJarzabkowski and Seidl (2008) show that holding a meeting in the office space of the top management tends to increase their authority in the meeting. Setting the agenda and selecting the chairperson also have a strong influence on how strategy meetings are conducted. In the same study, Jarzabkowski and Seidl argue that, when top managers set the agenda for and chair strategic meetings, it is more likely that the respective strategies will serve the interests of those managers. Other set-up practices concern the relation of the focal meeting to other meetings. In that respect, Reference Jarzabkowski and SeidlJarzabkowksi and Seidl (2008) highlight the practice of rescheduling – that is, the practice of deferring the discussion about a specific item on the agenda to a future meeting – and setting up working groups which allow new strategic ideas to be kept alive and further developed until they reach a stage at which they stand a chance to be formally accepted.

The third set of practices are virtual meeting practices. While virtual meetings are in many respects similar to physical ones, recent studies have also highlighted some relevant differences; some meeting practices have been adjusted to the virtual setting while other practices are entirely new (Reference Seidl and WhittingtonSeidl and Whittington 2021). For example, signalling status in an online meeting cannot occur through a manager’s physical positioning at the head of the table, but has to happen via different means, such as using particularly high-resolution technology, intentionally creating a (virtual or physical) background that signals competence and power (Reference Gerpott and KerschreiterGerpott and Kerschreiter 2022) or trying to appear taller by adjusting the camera angle so that one is recorded from below (Reference Thomas and PemsteinThomas and Pemstein, 2015). Research has furthermore shown that crafting relationships may occur by working with parallel communication channels and team experiences may be created by using visual boards or other forms of digital note-keeping and interaction. Moreover, using emoticons and turning off one’s camera can signal affirmation or rejection (Reference Gerpott and KerschreiterGerpott and Kerschreiter 2022).

Similarly, practices of influencing the meeting process employed in the physical context, such as dominant body movements (Reference Reh, van Quaquebeke and GiessnerReh, van Quaquebeke and Giessner 2017), are difficult to conduct in the virtual setting, which requires adaptations in practices or the establishment of new ones (Reference Gerpott and KerschreiterGerpott and Kerschreiter 2022). Reference Gerpott and KerschreiterGerpott and Kerschreiter (2022) differentiate between virtual meeting practices related to (1) non- and para-verbal signals, such as dressing to impress; (2) physical artefacts, such as making participants wait in the virtual waiting room or having a secretary set up the virtual meeting room; and (3) meeting set-up and technology, such as using technological functions that make one look more attractive or assigning host and co-host roles, which allow controlling the meeting by adding or eliminating participants, muting and unmuting participants and determining breakout group constellations. In terms of practical advice, Reference Allison, Shuffler, Wallace, Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock and RogelbergAllison, Shuffler and Wallace (2015) have identified the following ‘best practices’ for making virtual team meetings successful: selecting a facilitator and appropriate technology, setting meeting norms, fixing and reinforcing team roles, acknowledging time zone and cultural differences, and following up with action items.

Relation between Meetings and Their Context

Strategy scholars have examined how meetings relate to the social context in which they are embedded. In particular, Reference Clarke, Kwon and WodakClarke, Kwon and Wodak (2012: 470) highlighted that strategy meetings are ‘influenced not only by the logic of argumentation and discursive skills of the participants’ but also by the contextual factors that surround and cross the meeting. These include interdiscursive relationships (e.g., previous talks), the broader socio-political and historical context and the extra-linguistic social and institutional context of the meeting (e.g., the hierarchical position of the participants). For example, Reference Asmuß and OshimaAsmuß and Oshima (2012) show that the hierarchical positions that meeting participants have in the organization affect their right to make spontaneous proposals in order to finalize and modify a strategic document. This indicates that, in meetings, hierarchy and institutional roles more generally are locally recognized.

A few studies have examined how talk within a strategic meeting is influenced by conversations that take place outside the meeting. In particular, in her study of committee meetings, Reference HoonHoon (2007) shows that the formal discussion in a meeting is shaped by informal conversation that takes place outside the meeting. These external ‘strategic conversations’ positively impact talk in the meeting by increasing understanding among the participants, by creating alignment in the discussion of strategic issues and by giving participants the chance to make prearrangements for the formal meeting.

In a similar study that focuses particularly on boardroom meetings, Reference McNulty and PettigrewMcNulty and Pettigrew (1999) examine how the informal interactions of part-time board members outside the boardroom influence the dynamics of the meetings. The authors show that the high percentage of proposals accepted and ratified in the boardroom is a result of the informal interactions that take place outside the boardroom, in the course of which board members exercise their influence. Meinecke and Handke (2022) recently highlighted the importance of ‘the meeting after the meeting’, defined ‘as an unscheduled, informal and confidential communication event [that] has the potential to create new structures in everyday organizational life’ (p. 381).

Relatedly, some authors have begun to examine the interrelations of meetings over time. Reference Jarzabkowski and SeidlJarzabkowski and Seidl (2008) studied how meetings are often embedded into a series of meetings. Following the development of fifteen new initiatives over time, they show that topics ‘travelled’ across different meetings before they are eventually either dismissed or taken up in the organization at large. Reference Kryger Aggerholm, Thomsen, Holtzhausen and ZerfassKryger Aggerholm and Thomsen (2014), in turn, examined how the strategic decisions resulting from six polyphonic management team meetings translated into an information meeting for the entire organization. The multiplicity of voices present in the management meetings transitioned to the organization-wide meeting. This led to an ambiguous presentation of the organization’s strategy, creating confusion and uncertainty among organizational members. In his conceptual study on meetings, Reference KastbergKastberg (2013) highlights how the separation and coupling between different strategy meetings affects the overall strategy development process and the functions that individual meetings can serve within it.

Some researchers have examined how meetings relate to larger practices of which they are part, such as the practice of strategic planning. For example, Reference Spee and JarzabkowskiSpee and Jarzabkowski (2011) studied how meetings, as the site at which strategic plans are drafted, relate to strategic planning more generally. In particular, the authors examine the interplay between text and talk in the process through which a strategy plan is produced and show how the movement from text to talk (recontextualization) and from talk to text (decontextualization) enables participants to exert power by influencing the content of the plan, which, once written, will travel across time, space and actors.

Recent studies have also highlighted the impact of the wider cultural context on the meeting. For example, Reference Prashantham and EranovaPrashantham and Eranova (2020) argued that meetings in Eastern settings with their high proclivity to adopt a paradoxical frame typically handle tensions differently than those in Western settings with a lower proclivity to do so. This is reflected in separating versus integrating designs: in the West insiders and outsiders, formal and informal elements as well as change and stability targets tend to be engaged with in separate meetings, whereas in the East these tensions tend to be included in single meetings. Similarly, Reference Kemp and RaddawiKemp (2015) finds that in Arab cultural contexts, meeting time is defined as polychronic (i.e., where preference is for attention on many things at a time) and hence treated differently than in monochronic Western contexts (i.e., where preference is for attention on one thing at a time). This has implications for meeting practices, including delayed meeting starts, extended meeting durations and frequent meeting interruptions. Similarly, meeting space is treated more ‘fluidly’, i.e., meeting boundaries are not strictly demarcated, in Gulf Arab meetings (Reference Kemp and WilliamsKemp and Williams 2013). For a general overview of meeting expectations and processes across cultures, see the review by Reference Köhler, Gölz, Allen, Lehmann-Willenbrock and RogelbergKöhler and Gölz (2015).

Strategy Workshops and the Suspension of Organizational Structures

In an attempt to capture the role of strategy workshops in the organization, researchers have mobilized Reference Hendry and SeidlHendry and Seidl’s (2003) concept of ‘strategic episodes’, defined as sequences of events defined by a beginning and an end. The beginning of a strategy workshop is typically marked by some degree of decoupling between the ordinary structures and routines of the organization and those of the workshop. This means that at the beginning of the workshop the ordinary structures and routines of the organization are temporally suspended, to be reinstated after the workshop has ended. By providing a space outside the organizational structures and routines, the workshop gives participants the opportunity to interact and communicate about the organization in new ways, and thus provides a platform for reflexive strategic discourse. For example, the traditional authority structures are often suspended during the workshop, which makes it easier for participants to express opinions, new ideas or criticism.

Several studies have refined the concept of strategic episodes. For example, Reference Schwarz and BalogunSchwarz and Balogun (2007) argue that strategy workshops involve partial decoupling. As a result, workshops are characterized by what Reference Brown and EisenhardtBrown and Eisenhardt (1997) term ‘semi-structures’ – that is, very general structures that provide participants with some guidance but still leave space for new forms of interaction to emerge. In turn, Reference Seidl, MacLean and MacIntoshSeidl, MacLean and MacIntosh (2011) examined the mechanisms through which structural decoupling is achieved, showing that this does not happen instantly at the start of a workshop but through an effortful and highly emotional process. If facilitators and participants do not actively inhibit the existing organizational structures, participants inevitably fall back into existing behavioural patterns.

Other studies examined how decoupling workshops from the organization affects behaviour. Johnson and colleagues (Reference Bourque, Johnson, Starbuck and HodgkinsonBourque and Johnson 2008; Reference Johnson, Prashantham, Floyd and BourqueJohnson et al. 2010), who examined in more detail what happens within workshops, compare workshops to rituals. The episodic character of strategy workshops, they argue, generates in participants a ‘liminal experience’ – that is, a state of ‘ambiguity and social limbo’, which leads to new ideas. They outline that the extent to which workshop participants have liminal experiences depends on how far three criteria are met: workshop ritualization, legitimacy of workshop liturgy and official signalling of the suspension of structural roles.

Reference Johnson, Prashantham, Floyd and BourqueJohnson et al. (2010) show that this type of liminal experience is also associated with two behavioural patterns. First, due to ‘the temporary suspension of participants’ normal social status’ (Reference Johnson, Prashantham, Floyd and BourqueJohnson et al. 2010: 1592), people leave their normal roles, and especially their hierarchical positions, generating an anti-structure. Second, participants jointly commit to the purpose of the workshop, generating a feeling of ‘communitas’. The combination of both is critical: in the context of an anti-structure, people will interact differently and, as a consequence, may express challenging new ideas. Whereas under normal conditions such challenges would lead to emotional conflict, communitas creates a social bond that keeps the participants together even in the face of criticism; it allows the conflict of opinions without affective conflict. Thus, liminal experience can render the strategy workshop a particularly fruitful context for the emergence of new ideas. The study by Reference Concannon and NordbergConcannon and Nordberg (2018) on board strategizing in liminal spaces suggests that other practices, such as dinners, private conversations and other informal practices, could be substitute mechanisms for awaydays to dismantle hierarchical structures and ‘create the liminality needed to achieve collaborative and creative strategic discussions’ (p. 79).

While workshops can lead to many new ideas through the suspension of organizational structures, these ideas are seldom transferred back to the organization at large. Therefore, it is often the case that a strategy workshop is considered to have failed, even though it is perceived to have been successful as such. This has been termed the ‘effectivity paradox’ of strategy workshops (Reference MacIntosh, MacLean, Seidl, Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl and VaaraMacIntosh, MacLean and Seidl 2010). As Reference Johnson, Prashantham and FloydJohnson, Prashantham and Floyd (2006: 27, emphasis added) explain: ‘[T]he very separation and anti-structure that [strategy workshops] foster may hinder the transfer of ideas and plans back to the everyday work situation.’ Thus, paradoxically, the more a workshop is decoupled from everyday organizational structures and routines, the greater the likelihood that it will lead to new ideas; at the same time, however, the greater the degree of decoupling, the harder it will be to bring these ideas into the organization at large.

The Effects of Different Workshop Designs

The effectiveness of different workshop designs in generating tangible outcomes has been examined in a host of studies, which, as Reference Healey, Hodgkinson, Whittington and JohnsonHealey et al. (2015) point out, generally distinguish three different types of outcome. Organizational outcomes can be defined as the impact of the workshop on the organization’s strategic direction. Thus, a workshop might ‘bolster strategic continuity or, alternatively, stimulate strategic change’ (Reference Healey, Hodgkinson, Whittington and JohnsonHealey et al. 2015: 3). Interpersonal outcomes can be defined as a workshop’s ‘impact on relations among key actors, [since] workshops can exert a direct impact on relations among those executives, managers and employees involved in the formal proceedings’ (Reference Healey, Hodgkinson, Whittington and JohnsonHealey et al. 2015: 4). Cognitive outcomes refer to the ‘impact on participants’ understanding of strategic issues, [which] includes [the] understanding of the organization’s strategic position and direction, the strategic issues it faces, and the wider business environment’ (Reference Healey, Hodgkinson, Whittington and JohnsonHealey et al. 2015: 4).

Most research on the effectiveness of workshops has focused on organizational outcomes, especially how plans or ideas are transferred from the workshop to the organization at large. In this context, workshop designs that manage to circumvent the effectivity paradox are of particular interest. Comparing ten strategy workshops, Reference MacIntosh, MacLean, Seidl, Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl and VaaraMacIntosh, MacLean and Seidl (2010) found that, first, strategy workshops are effective only when they are part of a series because serialization enables the workshops and ongoing organizational processes to become gradually interwoven. This finding is confirmed in subsequent quantitative studies (Reference Healey, Hodgkinson, Whittington and JohnsonHealey et al. 2015; Reference van Aaken, Koob, Rost and Seidlvan Aaken et al. 2013), but only for workshops on strategy formulation. Relatedly, the findings by Reference O’Brien, Meadows and GriffithsO’Brien, Meadows and Griffiths (2017) suggest that the use of social media can keep strategizing activity going between face-to-face strategy workshops. Second, Reference MacIntosh, MacLean, Seidl, Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl and VaaraMacIntosh, MacLean and Seidl (2010) find that the frequency of workshops affects the rhythm and momentum of the discussions: if the interval between workshops is too long, the momentum gets lost. Third, having senior participants is important because it affects the degree to which new ideas are perceived as ‘legitimate’ when transferred to the organization (Reference MacIntosh, MacLean, Seidl, Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl and VaaraMacIntosh, MacLean and Seidl 2010).

Subsequent studies have identified several additional aspects of workshop design that appear to contribute to the effectiveness of workshops in terms of whether they yield organizational outcomes. One of these aspects concerns the integration of workshops into the formal strategic planning process. Reference van Aaken, Koob, Rost and SeidlVan Aaken et al. (2013) find that workshops that are part of the ordinary strategic planning process have significantly higher positive organizational effects than workshops organized outside the context of this process. According to Reference Healey, Hodgkinson, Whittington and JohnsonHealey et al. (2015), the most important predictor of whether the outcome of a workshop will be perceived as successful is the degree to which a workshop’s objectives are clearly presented. There is also evidence that high numbers of workshop participants are negatively correlated with organizational outcomes (Reference van Aaken, Koob, Rost and Seidlvan Aaken et al. 2013).

A range of more recent studies have focused on how to design workshops to accommodate for diversity of participants. For instance, Reference Pregmark and BerggrenPregmark and Berggren (2021) highlight the important role of ‘trust as enabler’ in workshops with participants from outside the management team. Reference DarkowDarkow (2015: 22), in turn, examined how middle managers can be integrated into workshops to leverage ‘expertise dispersed in the organization’. Similarly, Reference Seidl and WerleSeidl and Werle (2018) studied how participants from multiple organizations might be integrated in interorganizational workshops in order to pool their expertise.

More generally, there is evidence for differences in the effectiveness of workshops relative to their purpose. Reference Healey, Hodgkinson, Whittington and JohnsonHealey et al. (2015) find that workshops focusing on implementation tend to be more positively associated with organizational outcomes than workshops focusing on formulation. Reference van Aaken, Koob, Rost and SeidlVan Aaken et al. (2013) report that certain aspects of workshop design, such as serialization, seem to be more relevant to formulation workshops, while others are more relevant to implementation workshops. Focusing particularly on implementation workshops, Reference KrygerKryger (2018) highlights that the design of the workshop might be tested through iterative prototyping to maximize its effectiveness.

In addition to organizational outcomes, some studies identify certain features of workshop design that affect cognitive and interpersonal outcomes in particular. For example, Reference Healey, Hodgkinson, Whittington and JohnsonHealey et al. (2015) found that the serialization and duration of workshops, the degree of cognitive effort they induce and the use of cognitively challenging tools are positively correlated with cognitive workshop outcomes: they all have an impact on how and to what degree participants understand the strategic issues that a workshop involves. Reference Roos and NilssonRoos and Nilsson (2020), in turn, found that motivated participants and a psychologically safe workshop setting drive engagement and new insights and allow workshop participants to make sense of the change and feel ready to implement it. Reference Chang and ChenChang and Chen (2015) found that workshops revolving around flexible small-scale discussions in a relaxed atmosphere had more effect on participants’ strategic planning capacity than traditional ones. Moreover, according to Reference Healey, Hodgkinson, Whittington and JohnsonHealey et al. (2015), stakeholder involvement and, surprisingly, particularly high and particularly low numbers of participants are positively correlated with interpersonal outcomes – that is, with the strength of the relationships between participants.

Generally, however, researchers have highlighted that it is not necessarily always desirable for a workshop to yield results beyond the workshop itself. As Reference Hendry and SeidlHendry and Seidl (2003: 186) wrote, when the discussions that take place within a workshop are highly controversial and emotive, ‘an abrupt ending of the episode without any repercussions outside it may be functional’. In this sense, workshops might also contribute to the organizational functioning by containing potential conflicts and preventing them from spreading into the organization at large.