Meeting quality and employee well-being: determinants of meeting satisfaction, engagement and strain

We apply the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001) as a framework, considering aspects of meeting quality as either meeting-related demands or resources with implications for meeting-related well-being. The JD-R theory defines demands as aspects of work that require effort and entail physiological or psychological costs, whereas resources support the achievement of goals and promote personal growth and well-being.

In the context of workplace meetings, certain aspects of meeting quality may be considered job demands, such as time consumed by ineffective meetings, ambiguous attendee roles or a poorly structured meeting process. Conversely, meetings provide attendees with resources to accomplish their work-related goals, such as participating in decision-making and gaining social support (Allen et al., 2014). In this study we examine six distinct factors of meeting quality: preparing for meetings; relevance of meeting for those invited; meeting time management; the meeting leader’s participatory actions; post-meeting action planning and meeting development (Cohen et al., 2011; Mroz et al., 2018a).

The JD-R theory further assumes that increasing job demands lead to strain, while high job resources foster engagement and can also protect against the negative effects of increasing demands (Bakker et al., 2005). In this study, we apply the theory to study meeting-related well-being. First, meeting satisfaction has been a focal interest for researchers, and it is discussed to be a component of overall job satisfaction (Rogelberg et al., 2010). We will continue this line of research by including a variable that captures meeting satisfaction. We will moreover include a novel construct, meeting engagement. As a positive consequence of meetings, it captures the attendees’ motivation for meetings and the meetings’ perceived usefulness in accomplishing work-related goals. Finally, we will introduce meeting strain as a novel negative meeting well-being construct that extends beyond Zoom fatigue (Riedl, 2022) and more traditional strain constructs. In this study, meeting strain refers to a comprehensive negative feeling caused by meetings and encompassing both stress and fatigue. Previous research evidence has demonstrated that meetings can significantly impact work well-being (Allen et al., 2016; Lübstorf and Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2020). By considering both the positive and negative aspects of meetings, we aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their associations with well-being. Furthermore, we aim to advance meeting research by focusing on these unique meeting-related well-being concepts.

Meetings are typically defined as pre-scheduled, work-related gatherings of two or more people (Rogelberg et al., 2006), varying in format and frequency (Luong and Rogelberg, 2005). Their number has increased notably since the shift to remote work (DeFilippis et al., 2020; Standaert et al., 2025), yet many are perceived as unproductive (Rogelberg, 2019). Despite calls to reduce them (Laker et al., 2022), meetings remain essential for workplace collaboration and resource-building (Allen et al., 2014).

The quality of meetings should be assessed as a process, taking into consideration what takes place before, during and after them (Mroz et al., 2018a). We therefore examine six distinct factors of meeting quality encompassing pre-meeting, during-meeting and post-meeting characteristics which have been deemed essential in earlier research (Cohen et al., 2011; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2018; Rogelberg, 2019). Pre-meeting factors include meeting preparation and attendee relevance, which pertain to decisions on defining the goals of a meeting, enabling attendees to prepare sufficiently and limiting attendance to those relevant to meeting objectives. During-meeting factors include time management and participatory meeting leadership, which refer to ensuring that meeting time is efficiently utilized, and the leaders’ efforts to consider attendees and promote a positive atmosphere. Finally, post-meeting factors include post-meeting actions and meeting development, which refer to agreeing on tasks and responsibilities to execute after meetings, and organizational efforts to enhance meeting practices.

Cohen et al. (2011) argued that employees’ perceptions of meeting quality have important implications for their behavior in and attitudes towards future meetings. Applying the JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001), it is plausible to expect that employees who perceive meetings as satisfying rather than disproportionate in terms of demands and resources will report more positive attitudes toward future meetings and higher levels of well-being. When meeting quality is perceived to be poor, meetings can be viewed as consisting of various demands imposed on employees that obstruct them from achieving other work goals. This may lead to farther-reaching consequences for job performance, job satisfaction and well-being (Rogelberg, 2019).

First, we aim to investigate the relationship between meeting quality factors and meeting satisfaction. Meeting satisfaction is generally defined as the degree to which attendees feel that a meeting was pleasant, engaging and met their expectations or needs (Allen et al., 2016; Cohen et al., 2011). It is a distinct facet of overall job satisfaction and also has far-reaching consequences for subsequent well-being (Allen et al., 2016; Rogelberg et al., 2010).

Meeting dissatisfaction may increase if meetings drain resources from core work tasks; for example, if they consume excessive time or lack proper structure (Allen et al., 2012). Conversely, when meetings have clear goals and appear relevant to attendees, meeting satisfaction improves (Allen et al., 2012). In terms of time management, delays are particularly harmful to meeting satisfaction (Allen et al., 2018). As Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. (2018) stated, meetings that start more than five minutes late are considered less satisfying, and meetings that end late may create a ripple effect that impacts the attendees’ entire daily agenda. Consistent with the JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001), if meetings lack structure and do not run on time, they may increase attendees’ job demands since less time remains to be allocated to other, perhaps more pressing work tasks. Furthermore, job control has been deemed a job resource positively associated with job satisfaction (Janssen et al., 2004), and meetings that adhere to their plan and schedule may increase the workers’ feelings of control.

Meeting leaders play a central role in shaping meeting satisfaction, particularly through their influence on time management and participation (Lübstorf and Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2020). Leadership behaviors can shape meeting-related resources (see, e.g. Schaufeli, 2015), such as opportunities for participation, clarity and predictability. Participatory leadership, in particular, has been associated with higher meeting satisfaction, as it enables attendees to contribute and aligns meeting processes with attendees’ needs (Mroz et al., 2018b; Odermatt et al., 2017). However, the effectiveness of leadership behaviors may depend on how they are perceived by meeting attendees. Leadership in meetings is not determined solely by formal roles but also by how leadership is claimed and accepted among participants (Gerpott and Kerschreiter, 2022). Leadership behaviors that align with participants’ expectations regarding the purpose and conduct of a meeting are likely to enhance meeting satisfaction.

Rogelberg et al. (2010) noted that both supervisors and employees need additional skills to conduct satisfactory meetings; therefore, developing these meeting skills can enhance meeting satisfaction within work groups. For example, gathering feedback from participants after meetings can help evaluate meeting effectiveness and identify opportunities to improve the overall meeting experience (Allen et al., 2014).

In light of the preceding research, we propose the following hypothesis:

Effectively structured, meetings can enhance employees’ work engagement, characterized by a positive mental state of vigor, dedication and absorption in one’s work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Most research has focused on general work engagement as an outcome of successful meetings; however, meeting attendees’ engagement has been found to enhance group decision-making processes and commitment (Allen and Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023). Thus, meeting engagement warrants investigation of its own. Engagement in the context of meetings has mainly been studied from the perspective of virtual meetings (see, e.g. Lim and Ratan, 2025); in this study, we extend the concept beyond a specific meeting modality. Following Lim (2024), we define meeting engagement as a fulfilling, motivational state experienced during or immediately after meetings, where attendees perceive meetings as useful to their work-related goals or professional development.

Meeting research has identified specific leadership behaviors and meeting structures that facilitate an engaging meeting environment (Allen and Robelberg, 2013). From a broader leadership perspective, such behaviors can be understood as shaping key job resources, such as voice, clarity and psychological safety, that all support employee engagement (Schaufeli, 2015). For instance, participative leadership styles, in which the meeting leader encourages open discussion, have been associated with higher levels of engagement than directive leadership styles (Mroz et al., 2018b). Effective time management during meetings also plays a crucial role as poor time management may imply a lack of respect for employees' contributions and negatively impact psychological safety (Allen and Rogelberg, 2013). Psychological safety, in turn, fosters predictability and supports engagement by enabling attendees to contribute without fear of negative repercussions.

Employee engagement in meetings can be further enhanced through active participation in decision-making (Yoerger et al., 2015). This highlights the importance of leadership in facilitating meaningful discussions and ensuring that all attendees are able to contribute (Allen et al., 2012; Allen and Rogelberg, 2013). Overall, engagement seems to improve when the meeting leader conducts the meeting well, which corroborates the notion of the JD-R theory of supervisor support as a resource conducive to employees’ work motivation (Demerouti, 2001).

Meetings can also provide a platform for workplace development, which may support a sense of autonomy and meaningfulness in work. Many teams may not recognize their ability to actively shape their work environment through participation in meetings (Kauffeld, 2006). Involving employees in improving meetings can foster a greater sense of job relevance and commitment, reinforcing engagement with the meeting and the job overall (Allen and Rogelberg, 2013).

In light of the literature presented above, it was expected that

The research so far suggests that meetings trigger different affective responses in attendees (Allen and Rogelberg, 2013; Rogelberg et al., 2010), and negative experiences may contribute to emotional strain that affects employees’ attitudes and cognitive load beyond the meeting itself. In this study, we examine meeting strain as an umbrella concept encompassing various negative experiences related to the emotional and cognitive overload caused by meetings, such as meeting fatigue and meeting stress. Thus, meetings may include negative aspects, which, in light of JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001), can be considered meeting-related job demands.

Luong and Rogelberg (2005) have argued that meetings can be viewed as stressors that disrupt the daily workflow, and meeting load contributes to fatigue. Meetings as interruptions or hassles have been linked to reduced perceived control, resulting in an increased risk of job burnout, anxiety and negative emotions (Luong and Rogelberg, 2005). Recent studies have particularly examined virtual meetings and the phenomenon known as “Zoom fatigue” (Riedl, 2022; Standaert et al., 2023), which is a form of somatic and cognitive exhaustion caused by the intensive use of virtual meeting tools. Overall, research has demonstrated the complexity of meeting-related strain: it may manifest in various forms (e.g. stress, fatigue) depending on many factors, such as meeting modality and individual differences (see, e.g. Nurmi and Pakarinen, 2023).

A heavy meeting load, as well as poor time management in meetings (prolonged meetings, lack of punctuality) have been considered meeting-related stressors (Allen et al., 2018; Rogelberg et al., 2014). In the study by Allen et al. (2012), time lost emerged as the main concern for those who felt worse about increased meeting load. In addition to time management, goal-oriented meeting practices such as preparing the structure and agenda, and considering whom to invite, can contribute to reduced meeting strain. Good preparation increases meeting effectiveness, reducing time spent on non-essential matters and thus buffers against meeting time demands and their impact on well-being (Rogelberg et al., 2006). Inviting only relevant attendees is important, as individuals with higher task orientation tend to experience greater strain when attending excessive or unnecessary meetings (Rogelberg et al., 2006). Ensuring that only essential attendees are invited can help minimize role ambiguity, irrelevant tasks and counterproductive behaviors, which may be seen as work demands (Lübstorf and Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2020).

By encouraging active participation, meeting leaders can promote positive affect among attendees, support consensus building and prevent disruptive behaviors (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2016; Malouff et al., 2012). This is likely to have a positive impact on reducing meeting strain. Particularly in virtual meetings, which are associated with increased multitasking (Standaert et al., 2025) and drowsiness (Nurmi and Pakarinen, 2023), participating productively may also help alleviate fatigue. Furthermore, a positive leader-member exchange may reflect on the social resources of the attendees. According to the JD-R theory, workplace social support acts as a resource with positive impact on motivational aspects of a job, such as engagement and satisfaction. On the other hand, lack of social support can also be considered a job demand that leads to strain (Janssen et al., 2004).

Moreover, Rogelberg et al. (2010) stated that leaders should be held accountable for how they manage and seek to improve meetings. Organizations should also build awareness of meeting practices and allow people to opt out of irrelevant meetings to conserve employees' time resources (Mroz et al., 2019). Continuous meeting development, such as streamlining processes and eliminating unnecessary meetings, can reduce meeting strain.

In light of the empirical findings presented above, our third hypothesis is:

The JD-R theory assumes that demands and resources are job-specific (Bakker et al., 2023). Therefore, in this study, the associations were compared across different industries, taking into account the characteristics of remote work as well as the experiences of individuals in different roles. More specifically, the role of professional status, meeting leadership role, meeting load, remote work and industry were tested. We anticipate that employees in different roles and meeting contexts will prioritize distinct aspects of meeting quality, which, in turn, shapes how meeting quality relates to meeting satisfaction, engagement and strain. To the best of our knowledge, no prior comparative research has examined these meeting quality factors and their well-being associations. Accordingly, this part of our analysis is exploratory, and we do not formulate specific hypotheses regarding subgroup differences.

Firstly, professional status and meeting responsibilities are likely to influence attendees’ perceptions of meetings. It has been acknowledged that managers and leaders attend significantly more meetings than employees (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2018), which may motivate them to pay more attention to the design and quality of meetings. Furthermore, the meeting experience is likely to differ between those who regularly lead meetings and those who only attend them (Allen and Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023). Meeting leaders have been shown to evaluate the effectiveness of meetings somewhat more positively than attendees (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2018). Leaders and participants may also hold different mental representations – or “meeting mindsets” – about the purpose of meetings and the extent to which they serve personal, relational or collective goals (Gerpott and Kerschreiter, 2022). The alignment (or misalignment) of these mindsets can shape how meeting leaders and participants perceive meetings, potentially leading to differences in their meeting experiences and evaluations.

Secondly, meeting load may affect how individuals view the quality of meetings. Research shows that the number of meetings may affect well-being and daily fatigue (Luong and Rogelberg, 2005). In addition, Yoerger et al. (2015) found a stronger relationship between participation in decision-making and engagement when employees attended fewer meetings, possibly making these few meetings stand out more in importance.

Thirdly, before the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of meetings were typically held face-to-face in the absence of other options (Standaert et al., 2025). This study complements the research on meeting quality and its various well-being associations in a new meeting reality, where different modalities and their combinations (remote, hybrid and face-to-face) have become part of employees’ everyday lives. Allison et al. (2015) noted that individuals working in virtual teams have different ways of dealing with specific challenges (e.g. technological diversity), which may affect the proximal outcomes of the meeting. Remote or hybrid meetings may also place more demands on the meeting leader (Allison et al., 2015).

Fourthly, in meeting research, industry-specific studies have been conducted (e.g. Allen et al., 2019); however, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have so far compared meeting quality experiences across industries. Such comparisons are needed to assess generalizability and also to inform targeted interventions. In this study, we compare meeting experiences across five industries: information and communications technology, service sectors (e.g. retail, hospitality, transportation), public and welfare services (e.g. health, education), manufacturing and administrative fields.

Study participants were respondents to an online survey collected in autumn 2024 as part of a larger research project on meeting experiences (From palaverism to productive meetings, 2024–2026). The project focused on internal workplace meetings, as organizations and teams can more directly shape the practices and processes associated with them. Participants were invited from among members of five large Finnish trade unions and five public and private organizations through their internal newsletters and direct emails to their work email addresses. The participating organizations represented retail, public health and social services and information and communications technology sectors. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was acquired from the participants at the beginning of the online survey. Study participants were required to work at least 20 h per week and be over 18 years old.

A total of 1,910 people responded to the survey. Complete demographic data were available for 1,245 participants. The participants’ average age was 48 years (SD = 10.1, range 23–67 years). Most were women (56%), worked in a senior specialist position (56%) and had over 10 years of work experience (89%). Altogether 18% held positions as managers or leaders. The participants worked an average of 39.4 h per week (SD = 4.04, range 20–70 h). Participants were employed in a variety of industries, with the largest groups working in IT and communications (32%); wholesale, retail, hospitality, catering and transportation (17%); health, social services and education (12%); manufacturing, mining and quarrying (12%); administrative and support services, public administration and security (10%). These industries were included in the analyses of the present study as they each accounted for at least 10% of the participants. These industries are also the largest in Finland by number of personnel (Finstat, 2023).

Most participants (47%) participated in two to three meetings daily, spending on average three hours per day in meetings. Each week 29% of participants attended less than five meetings, 30% attended five to ten meetings, 28% attended between 10 and 20 and 10% over 20 meetings per week. Altogether 72% reported organizing or leading at least some meetings themselves. Of the participants, 57% worked remotely most of the time, making remote meetings the most common modality; 57% of participants also reported primarily attending remote meetings.

We asked the participants to rate items assessing internal meetings at their workplace with a five-point response options ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). If the participants had multiple jobs, they were asked to evaluate the workplace where they felt most confident about rating meetings.

Meeting preparation was measured with items from Rogelberg’s (2019) Meeting Quality Assessment Scale. For the purposes of this study, the items were modified from negative to positive. The three items included in this study were: “Goals of the meetings are clearly defined”; “Attendees can provide input for the agenda” and “Attendees come to the meetings prepared”.

Attendee relevance was also assessed with items modified from Rogelberg (2019). The three items included in this study were: “All relevant persons are invited to meetings”; “Meetings have an appropriate number of attendees” and “Persons needed, given the meeting goals, are present at the meetings”.

Post-meeting actions were likewise measured with items adapted from Rogelberg (2019). The items used in this study were “Attendees follow up on what they are supposed to do”; “Meeting leaders follow up on what they are supposed to do” and “When meetings end, action items and responsibilities are clear”.

Time management was assessed with two items from Rogelberg (2019), modified from negative to positive: “Time is used effectively in meetings” and “Time allotted to meetings is sufficient”; and one item from Baran et al. (2012): “Meetings end on time”.

For participatory meeting leadership, we created items based on the survey by Odermatt et al. (2015) on how leaders prepare for their meetings. Three items were included in this study: “The meeting leader establishes a positive atmosphere in the meetings”; “The meeting leader includes everyone in the conversation” and “The meeting leader considers attendees’ needs and expectations”.

Meeting development was assessed with items created in our research group. The three items included in this study were: “Actions are taken to improve meetings at my workplace”; “Meetings are being developed to support well-being at work at my workplace” and “Attention is paid to the efficiency and relevance of meetings”.

Meeting satisfaction was assessed with a general item, “I am generally satisfied with the meetings in my workplace” (based on one of the items in the Meeting Satisfaction Scale by Rogelberg et al., 2010), as well as three items modified from the Meeting Satisfaction Instrument by Briggs et al. (2006; “satisfaction with meeting process” subscale). These three items were “I feel satisfied with the procedures used in meetings”; “I feel satisfied with the way in which meetings are conducted” and “I feel satisfied about the way activities are carried out in meetings”. The response scale for all four items ranged from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always).

For meeting engagement, we asked the participants to generally rate the internal meetings at their workplaces. They responded to items from Lim’s Virtual Meeting Engagement Scale (Lim, 2024; see also Lim and Ratan, 2025). The items were modified by instructing respondents to consider all meetings, not just virtual meetings. Response options ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Three items from the “self-fulfilling” subscale were selected for this study: “I feel the meetings are useful to me”; “I feel the meetings are good learning opportunities for me” and “I feel the meetings help me accomplish my work goals”.

Meeting strain was measured with three items developed for this study. These items were created on the basis of work-related stress research. The participants were asked to score the items on a scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The items were: “Meetings cause me stress”; “I find meetings stressful” and “I feel tired after meetings”.

We used five categorical variables for between-group difference testing. Professional status was coded as 1 = employee, 2 = manager/leader. Leading meetings described how much, if any, the respondents led meetings themselves (as a percentage of meetings they attended overall; 1 = none; 2 = less than 50%; 3 = more than 50%).

Meetings per week described the approximate number of meetings the respondents attended in a period of one week. It was coded into four categories: 1 = 0–5; 2 = 6–10; 3 = 11–20; 4 = over 20. Remote work described how much the respondents worked remotely (1 = none; 2 = less than 50%; 3 = more than 50%).

Industry included the five largest industries in our data: 1 = IT and communications; 2 = wholesale, retail, hospitality, catering and transportation; 3 = manufacturing, mining and quarrying; 4 = health, social services and education and 5 = administrative and support services, public administration and security.

First, we tested the factor structure of the focal constructs by performing confirmatory factor analyses. Models tested ranged from a single-factor model (combining all the measures into a single factor) to a nine-factor model (separating each construct as their own factor). We evaluated the goodness-of-fit of each model by comparing the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Fit Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR). The recommended cut-off values for good model fit are 0.95 for CFI and TLI, 0.06 for RMSEA and 0.08 for SRMR (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Wang and Wang, 2012). The best-fitting model was then tested separately in each of the subgroups (i.e. grouped by professional status; industries; meeting load; meeting leadership and remote work) to ensure model fit for individual groups. Next, we tested for the invariance of the measurement model across subgroups by comparing configural, metric and scalar models. The configural model assumes the same factor structure across groups, the metric model sets the factor loadings to be equal across groups and the scalar model assumes equal loadings and intercepts. When sample sizes in groups are unequal, Chen (2007) has suggested using a change of > −0.01 in CFI as a main criterion, along with a change of < 0.015 in RMSEA and <0.03 (loading invariance) or < 0.01 (intercept invariance) in SRMR.

We also tested the reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs. Following recommendations by Cheung et al. (2024), we used McDonald’s Omega as a reliability coefficient, which should yield values > 0.70. Convergent validity was assessed by examining the standardized factor loadings (0.50 or greater). Discriminant validity was tested by examining correlations between constructs. Correlations smaller than 0.80 are usually nonproblematic (Rönkkö and Cho, 2022). To assess potential common method bias, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) by entering all study variables into an unrotated factor analysis.

For hypothesis testing, we used structural equation modelling (SEM) and multigroup SEM in Mplus8.11 software, using the maximum likelihood estimator. SEM combines factor analysis and regression-based path analysis to examine relationships between underlying (latent) constructs while accounting for measurement error (Wang and Wang, 2012). This allows an accurate estimation of relationships and was well suited to study meeting quality-meeting well-being relationships. Finally, to test subgroup differences, we allowed the path coefficients to be freely estimated in each group and used the MODEL CONSTRAINT command to compute the difference in path estimates between groups. A significant z-value (p < 0.05) indicated a statistically meaningful difference between groups.

Correlations for the study variables are presented in Table 1. All the meeting quality variables showed anticipated positive correlations with meeting satisfaction and engagement and negative correlations with meeting strain.

The nine-factor model showed the best overall fit when comparing fit indices (χ²(314) = 1044.779, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.036; CFI = 0.969; TLI = 0.963; SRMR = 0.030) and all items loaded on their expected factors. The nine-factor model also showed a good fit when tested separately in each of the subgroups (i.e. groups based on professional status, industry, number of meetings per week, meeting leadership and proportion of remote work). Measurement invariance tests supported scalar invariance, indicating that the items were interpreted similarly between subgroups. The CFA model comparisons and invariance testing results are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Convergent validity was assessed by examining the standardized factor loadings, and discriminant validity by examining correlations between constructs. Standardized factor loadings ranged from 0.55 to 0.91. All factor correlations were <0.85, indicating acceptable convergent and discriminant validity. Harman’s single-factor test showed that the first unrotated factor accounted for 39% of the total variance, below the 50% threshold, indicating that common method variance is unlikely to dominate the data. In addition, all nine variables showed acceptable internal reliability with Omega’s greater than 0.70 (see Table 1).

The structural equation model explained a substantial proportion of variance in meeting satisfaction (R² = 0.78), and a moderate proportion in meeting engagement (R² = 0.36) and meeting strain (R² = 0.25). The associations between meeting quality factors and different meeting well-being constructs are presented in the further sections and in Figure 1, which shows the standardized regression coefficients. Among the six meeting quality factors, time management was most consistently associated with the meeting well-being constructs.

Meeting preparation, time management, participatory leadership, post-meeting actions and meeting development all showed a positive association with meeting satisfaction, lending support to H1a and H1c-e. Only attendee relevance showed no direct association with meeting satisfaction, and therefore, H1b was rejected.

The group-specific results are shown in Table 2. Between-group difference testing showed that the relationship between meeting preparation and meeting satisfaction was significantly stronger for leaders and managers than for employees. In addition, for leaders and managers, only time management and meeting preparation showed significant positive associations with satisfaction, whereas for employees, both participatory leadership and post-meeting actions were also associated with higher meeting satisfaction.

For frequent meeting attendees and meeting leaders, developing meeting practices was positively associated with meeting satisfaction. In contrast, for those attending – or leading – fewer meetings, participatory leadership, preparation and post-meeting actions were positively associated with meeting satisfaction. The “high-volume” groups (over 20 weekly meetings, and those who led over 50% of the meetings they attended) also showed a strong positive association with time management and meeting satisfaction.

Time management and post-meeting actions were positively associated with both hybrid and remote workers’ meeting satisfaction. Additionally, for remote workers, participatory leadership and meeting preparation associated with a higher meeting satisfaction. Some industry-specific paths also emerged. Unlike the other four industries, health and education sector workers showed a strong positive association between post-meeting actions and meeting satisfaction, but no association between time management and satisfaction. For IT and communications, meeting preparation also showed a strong positive association with meeting satisfaction.

Meeting preparation, time management, post-meeting actions and meeting development all had positive associations with meeting engagement, thereby supporting hypotheses H2a, H2c, H2e and H2f, but not H2b and H2d (respectively, attendee relevance and participatory leadership). While the overall test for group differences (z-test) was not significant for the relationship between any of the meeting quality factors and meeting engagement, some group-specific effects emerged (see Table 3).

For managers and leaders, a significant positive relationship was evident between meeting development and meeting engagement, while for employees, meeting preparation, time management and post-meeting actions were positively associated with meeting engagement. For those with a heavy meeting load, post-meeting actions and meeting development were positively associated with meeting engagement, whereas for those with fewer weekly meetings, only time management showed a significant positive association. Only for frequent meeting leaders, a positive association was found between meeting development and meeting engagement as well as between attendee relevance and meeting engagement. Time management and post-meeting actions were positively associated with engagement when leading meetings was less frequent. For remote workers, time management, post-meeting actions and meeting development were positively associated with meeting engagement.

Only time management and participatory meeting leadership were negatively associated with meeting strain; thus, only hypotheses H3c and H3d were supported. Multigroup comparisons revealed that particular groups showed negative relationships between participatory leadership and meeting strain: employees (i.e. non-managers); participants who attended five or fewer weekly meetings and participants who did not lead any meetings (see Table 4). A strong negative association between time management and meeting strain was seen in two industries: IT and communications and retail, service and transportation. In addition, those with very heavy meeting load and those who did not work remotely also showed this negative association.

This study investigated how different aspects of meeting quality relate to meeting well-being, namely meeting satisfaction, meeting engagement and meeting strain. The findings suggest that effective time management appears to be a relatively universal factor, particularly in reducing meeting-related strain. In contrast, improving meeting satisfaction and engagement requires tailoring meeting practices to differences in contextual conditions, such as the attendees’ overall meeting load and work setting. Placing the findings within the framework of the JD-R theory (Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001), these results suggest that the relative importance of meeting quality factors varies across work contexts, supporting the theory’s assumptions about job-specific demands and resources.

This study contributed to the discussion about balancing the negative and positive effects of meetings (Romney et al., 2025). Our study showed that various meeting quality factors were significant for the immediate well-being associations of meetings. Hence, it is essential to incorporate distinct dimensions of meeting quality in research rather than considering it as one single phenomenon (Mroz et al., 2018a).

For leaders and managers, good meeting preparation was strongly associated with meeting satisfaction, while for employees, it enhanced engagement. This would suggest that good meeting preparation has positive yet diverse effects depending on the attendees' professional status. For managers (who have been shown to attend more meetings; Mroz et al., 2018a; Romney et al., 2025), the procedural clarity of meetings may make their meeting load more manageable, increasing meeting satisfaction. For employees, good meeting preparation seems to hold motivational resources, such as feelings of autonomy, if they are provided with opportunities to impact the agenda before the meeting.

The positive relationship of good meeting preparation on meeting satisfaction was also seen for remote workers and those working in ICT (this sector also has the greatest number of people working remotely in Finland; Finstat, 2021). In remote work, clear goals and agendas may help mitigate virtual meeting challenges like placelessness and reduced leadership (Riva et al., 2021). Remote workers also showed a positive association between participatory leadership in meetings and meeting satisfaction, plausibly emphasizing the significance of well-facilitated meetings in offering social resources for those who may be missing out on interaction and information sharing (Standaert et al., 2025). Time management and meeting strain were particularly strongly associated for face-to-face workers, although in our sample they participated less frequently in meetings than did remote or hybrid workers. Face-to-face meetings have been found to show a stronger relationship between meeting load and job burnout (Standaert et al., 2025). It is possible that remote workers have more ways to optimize demands (see, e.g. Mäkikangas et al., 2022) and safeguard their resources against the straining effects of ineffectiveness (e.g., work-related multitasking; Lübstorf et al., 2023). To summarize, the potential meeting-related demands and resources seem to differ for remote and face-to-face workers.

Our study further found that only during-meeting factors (time management and participatory leadership) directly affected meeting strain. In line with earlier research (Allen and Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2023; Luong and Rogelberg, 2005; Rogelberg et al., 2006), it is essential to view time management as a key factor when addressing meeting demands and their associations with well-being. Furthermore, efficient time management in meetings had a positive association with satisfaction, engagement and (reduced) strain regardless of meeting frequency. This supports the notion of Rogelberg et al. (2006) that what happens in meetings is more important than the meeting load itself. In contrast to other meeting characteristics, the effects of time management appear to be more universal across contexts. Globalization and the widespread use of virtual meetings have contributed to more aligned norms regarding meeting timeliness, with evidence suggesting that the negative consequences of poor time use (e.g. lateness or overruns) are becoming increasingly similar across cultural settings (Allen et al., 2021; Köhler et al., 2023).

Interestingly, participatory leadership was not consistently associated with meeting engagement, which contrasts with our initial expectations. Clark et al. (2026) found that particularly leaders’ relation-oriented behaviors were associated with followers’ work engagement in hybrid and remote work environments, as they support interpersonal resources. However, in this study, the conceptualization of meeting engagement related more to goal-fulfilment, learning and the perceived usefulness of the meeting, which may be better supported by task-oriented leadership behaviors. Furthermore, in contemporary and virtual work contexts, self-leadership and autonomy may become more important job resources (Galanti et al., 2021) and individuals may be less reliant on leaders for involvement. Future research should investigate the relational aspects of meeting leadership behaviors and their associations with participant engagement, as leader-member exchange has overall shown strong associations with followers’ daily well-being (Martin et al., 2023).

The non-significant association of attendee relevance with meeting well-being is also noteworthy. From a shared or distributed leadership perspective, especially in virtual or knowledge-intensive contexts, it may be less clear who constitutes the “right” participants in a meeting. Leadership roles and contributions may shift dynamically among participants, reducing the salience of clearly defined roles (Gibbs et al., 2017; Horila and Siitonen, 2020). Expectations regarding how meetings should be led are also shaped by cultural norms, gendered assumptions and prior meeting experiences, influencing who may participate, how time is used and how leadership is enacted (Gerpott and Kerschreiter, 2022; Köhler et al., 2023; Mroz et al., 2019).

However, the subgroup findings suggest that participatory meeting leadership and attendee relevance are not irrelevant but context-dependent: participatory leadership was positively associated with satisfaction and engagement among those attending fewer meetings, indicating that leadership may become more salient when meeting participation is less routine or when individuals have fewer opportunities for influence (cf. Yoerger et al., 2015). On the other hand, when meeting load is high, opportunities for participation may become cognitively demanding rather than motivating, thereby weakening the positive associations of participatory leadership. In this vein, Romney et al. (2025) found that meeting participation, engagement and creative performance showed an inverted U-shape effect when meeting load increased. Other resources such as clear structure or effective time use may be more important when the meeting load is intensive. In contrast, a positive relationship was only found between engagement and attendee relevance for frequent meeting leaders. Frequent meeting leaders are more directly accountable for whether the appropriate participants are present and may therefore experience stronger engagement when attendee composition aligns with meeting goals. Future research could examine how leadership dynamics unfold across different meeting types (e.g. recurring vs one-off, virtual vs on-site) and how they influence perceptions of meeting quality. Overall, these findings point to the importance of considering boundary conditions and contextual factors when examining the role of leadership and participant composition in meetings.

Due to the important role of meeting leaders, it is important for organizations to support them in developing meetings. For managers and remote workers, meeting development was linked to meeting engagement, corresponding to research on the positive link between perceived organizational support and work engagement (Hajjami and Crocco, 2023; Mäkikangas et al., 2022). According to the findings of this study, researchers could specifically consider the needs of meeting leaders when assisting organizations in improving meeting practices. In Tóth-Király et al.’s (2024) study, higher levels of job control and recognition and lower levels of workload predicted managers’ transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and well-being. Our findings reflect this by showing that managers’ ability to influence meetings through better preparation and development plays a key role in their meeting-related motivation.

The insights from this study suggest that improving meeting quality requires coordinated efforts across multiple levels – individual, managerial and organizational – rather than isolated actions.

At the individual level, employees can play an active role in shaping meeting quality. For example, they can engage in “meeting crafting” by reflecting on which aspects of meetings support their motivation, and which create strain, and by sharing ideas for improvement. Similar to job crafting (Tims and Bakker, 2010), meeting crafting involves adjusting how meetings are structured, how people interact and how one participates in meetings to increase helpful resources and reduce unnecessary demands. This could include asking for clearer agendas, seeking more meaningful ways to contribute or suggesting changes to how meetings are run. Importantly, meeting quality is not only determined by leaders or organizational policies but can also be co-created by participants. This perspective complements more top-down approaches and highlights that empowering employees to shape their meeting experiences can support both engagement and well-being. Future research could further examine the conditions under which such meeting crafting is most effective and how it interacts with leadership and organizational practices.

At the managerial and team level, the findings highlight the importance of meeting facilitation and tailoring practices to participants’ needs. In particular, time management and participatory leadership emerged as key factors in reducing meeting strain, suggesting that meeting leaders would benefit from targeted training in structuring and facilitating meetings. In addition, the observed subgroup differences indicate that meeting practices may need to be adapted to specific teams and contexts. For example, leaders may consider varying the level of participation, structure or interaction depending on meeting frequency, purpose and participant roles. In hybrid settings, particular attention should be paid to balancing the experiences of remote and on-site participants to maintain both engagement and well-being. Where demands cannot be reduced, additional meeting resources (e.g. clarity of goals, opportunities for contribution) may help buffer strain.

At the organizational level, improving meeting quality should be approached as an ongoing, systemic process, just like developing other aspects of organizational culture. The concept of meeting orientation highlights how organizations can intentionally use meetings as a strategic tool and support their effective use through policies, practices and incentives (Hansen and Allen, 2015; Mroz et al., 2019). In contrast to a routine meeting culture that evolves implicitly, a more intentional meeting orientation is reflected in clear organizational guidelines for meeting procedures, alignment of meetings with strategic goals, and rewarding meeting leadership (Hansen and Allen, 2015). For example, organizations could embed meeting effectiveness into leadership development programs and establish shared norms around time management and participant involvement. At the same time, organizations should critically consider when meetings are necessary at all, as avoiding unnecessary meetings is also a central component of effective meeting orientation (Hansen and Allen, 2015).

Finally, these practices should be implemented with attention to contextual and cultural boundary conditions. Meeting norms are shaped by broader organizational and societal contexts. Organizations operating across cultural contexts may therefore benefit from adapting meeting practices to local norms while maintaining overarching principles such as effective time use.

This study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design represents an important limitation, as it precludes causal inference between meeting quality and well-being. Although our hypotheses are theoretically grounded, the observed associations may also reflect reverse causation (e.g. employees with higher well-being perceiving meetings more positively) or the influence of unmeasured third variables (such as general work climate). In addition, the design does not capture temporal dynamics, such as the potential accumulation of meeting demands or lagged effects on well-being. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted as evidence of associations rather than causal effects. Future research would benefit from longitudinal or experience-sampling designs that can better disentangle directionality and within-person processes over time.

Second, reliance on self-report data may introduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). While Harman’s single-factor test did not indicate a substantial bias, it is a relatively insensitive test (Howard et al., 2024), and we cannot entirely exclude the possibility of some inflation due to common method variance. Future research should use multiple data sources, including objective meeting records in addition to longitudinal data, to reduce the possible bias on these relationships.

Third, the sampling frame of the present study, drawn exclusively from Finnish organizations and trade union registers, may limit the generalizability of the findings. Although the sample spans a wide range of industries and organizational contexts and thus captures diverse meeting experiences within Finnish working life, meetings are inherently shaped by cultural and institutional contexts (Köhler et al., 2023). For example, Nordic work environments are typically characterized by relatively flat organizational structures and consensus-oriented leadership, which may influence meeting practices and participation dynamics. Prior research suggests that cultural scripts guide the participants’ expectations of interaction patterns and behaviors of the other meeting participants (Köhler et al., 2023). Accordingly, the present findings should be interpreted within this cultural setting, and future research would benefit from cross-cultural designs that examine how meeting quality and meeting well-being vary across countries.

Despite these limitations, this study contributed to developing meeting research towards a more scientific approach on meetings. By validating the measurement of multi-faceted meeting quality, as well as developing and validating scales to measure meeting-specific well-being constructs, this study contributed to meeting research conceptually and theoretically.

In conclusion, meeting quality was significantly associated with meeting satisfaction, engagement and strain, underscoring its relevance for meeting-related well-being. Overall, higher meeting quality was linked to more positive meeting well-being and lower strain. Improving meeting practices through better design, leadership and alignment with participants’ needs can enhance satisfaction and engagement while reducing strain, underscoring the importance of systematically developing meetings across organizational contexts. Contextual elements, such as professional status and work modality, influenced how meetings are experienced. While time management appears to be a relatively universal factor, especially in reducing meeting-related strain, the links between meeting quality and satisfaction and engagement are more context-dependent.