{"id":1162665,"date":"2026-02-20T04:10:42","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T12:10:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/?post_type=msr-research-item&p=1162665"},"modified":"2026-02-24T07:32:42","modified_gmt":"2026-02-24T15:32:42","slug":"nudging-attention-to-workplace-meeting-goals-a-large-scale-preregistered-field-experiment","status":"publish","type":"msr-research-item","link":"https:\/\/www.microsoft.com\/en-us\/research\/publication\/nudging-attention-to-workplace-meeting-goals-a-large-scale-preregistered-field-experiment\/","title":{"rendered":"Nudging Attention to Workplace Meeting Goals: A Large-Scale, Preregistered Field Experiment"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Overview<\/p>\n

Ineffective meetings are pervasive. Thinking ahead explicitly about meeting goals may improve effectiveness, but current collaboration platforms lack integrated support. We tested a lightweight goal-reflection intervention in a preregistered field experiment in a global technology company (361 employees, 7196 meetings). Over two weeks, workers in the treatment group completed brief pre-meeting surveys in their collaboration platform, nudging attention to goals for upcoming meetings. To measure impact, both treatment and control groups completed post-meeting surveys about meeting effectiveness. While the intervention impact on meeting effectiveness was not statistically significant, mixed-methods findings revealed improvements in self-reported awareness and behaviour across both groups, with post-meeting surveys unintentionally functioning as an intervention. We highlight the promise of supporting goal reflection, while noting challenges of evaluating and supporting workplace reflection for meetings, including workflow and collaboration norms, and attitudes and behaviours around meeting preparation. We conclude with implications for designing technological support for meeting intentionality<\/p>\n

\n
\n

RELATED RESEARCH<\/strong><\/p>\n

Formative studies<\/p>\n