=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2903/IUI21WS-HEALTHI-5
|storemode=property
|title=Retrofitting Meetings for Psychological Safety
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2903/IUI21WS-HEALTHI-5.pdf
|volume=Vol-2903
|authors=Marios Constantinides,Sagar Joglekar,Daniele Quercia
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/iui/Constantinides021
}}
==Retrofitting Meetings for Psychological Safety==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2903/IUI21WS-HEALTHI-5.pdf
Retrofitting Meetings for Psychological Safety
Marios Constantinidesa , Sagar Joglekara and Daniele Querciaa,b
a Nokia Bell Labs, Cambridge, UK
b King’s College, London, UK
Abstract
Meetings are the fuel of organizations’ productivity. At times, however, they are perceived as wasteful
vaccums that deplete employee morale and productivity. Current meeting tools, to a great extent, have
simplified and augmented the ways meetings are conducted by enabling participants to “get things done”
and experience a comfortable physical environment. However, an important yet less explored element
of these tools’ design space is that of psychological safety—the extent to which participants feel listened
to, or motivated to be part of a meeting. We argue that an interdisciplinary approach would benefit the
creation of new tools designed for retrofitting meetings for psychological safety. This approach comes
with not only research opportunities—ranging from sensing to modeling to user interface design—but
also challenges—ranging from privacy to workplace surveillance.
Keywords
meetings, execution, physical comfort, psychological safety
1. Introduction port them. While meeting tools pledge to fa-
cilitate better meetings—ones that are well-
Meetings are often considered as the fuel of executed, and create a safe environment for
an organization’s productivity. Employees contribution—yet report after report estimate
come together for a common purpose to dis- a growth of ineffective meetings1 ; numbers
cuss ideas, to make collective decisions, and though that are bound to change, if meeting
to ultimately reach their objectives. How- tools were to fully capture people’s meetings
ever, it is no secret that meetings are of- experience. Recently, in a large-scale crowd-
ten seen as wasteful vacuums, or as an en- sourcing study [2], researchers determined
emy of productivity. Although there are the main factors that impact people’s meet-
good meetings and bad meetings, their col- ings experience. They administered a 28-
lective negative impact on employee morale item questionnaire to 363 individuals whose
and productivity is significant [1]. To moder- answers were statistically analyzed through
ate this, organizations devote notably large Principal Component Analysis, and found
amounts of resources to facilitate and sup- that three factors sufficiently capture peo-
ple’s experience in meetings, namely, (a) exe-
Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI 2021 Workshops, April cution, (b) physical comfort, and (c) psycho-
13–17, 2021, College Station, USA
logical safety. Put differently, these factors
" marios.constantinides@nokia-bell-labs.com (M.
Constantinides); sagar.joglekar@nokia-bell-labs.com (S. capture the extent to which (a) people feel
Joglekar); daniele.quercia@nokia-bell-labs.com (D. that a meeting was productive, (b) the meet-
Quercia) ing room was pleasant, and (c) the setting
0000-0003-1454-0641 (M. Constantinides);
was psychologically safe.
0000-0002-8388-9137 (S. Joglekar); 0000-0001-9461-5804
(D. Quercia)
© 2021 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use
permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution
1 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/2019/01/
4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR Workshop Proceedings 30/report-suggests-that-23rds-of-the-100-billion-spent
-annually-on-business-meetings-travel-is-wasted
CEUR
http://ceur-ws.org
(CEUR-WS.org)
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
Current meeting tools, however, primarily 2. Capturing psychological
focus on enabling participants to “get things
done” (i.e., execution), or on optimizing the
safety
environmental conditions (i.e., physical com- Psychological safety is about whether par-
fort). Execution is about whether a meet- ticipants felt listened to, or motivated to be
ing had a clear structure, purpose, and re- part of a meeting. Edmondson described it
sulted into a list of actionable items; a large “as the absence of interpersonal fear that al-
body of previous research focused on these lows people to speak up with work-relevant
aspects. Kim and Rudin [3] developed a sys- content” [11]. Previous research showed that
tem that detects key decisions in dialogues, inclusiveness and balance of conversational
while McGregor and Tang [4]’s system gen- turn-taking play an important role in group
erates an ‘action items’ list from the spoken performance [12]. Tools have been devel-
dialogue. Using an agenda planning tech- oped to create awareness by highlighting
nique, Garcia et al. [5] allowed meetings par- salient moments during conversations [13],
ticipants to vote for agendas to improve per- to enhance group collaboration through per-
ceived meeting quality. Video Threads [6] suasive feedback [14], and to allow partici-
provides asynchronous video sharing, while pants to reflect on their own and their peers’
Time Travel Proxy [7] identifies the gist of experiences [15]. Although such tools, to
what was missed to enable late participa- some extent, offer features that facilitate ex-
tion effectively. Physical comfort is about ecution and support physical comfort, they
whether the meeting room was pleasant (in often fall short in enabling psychological
regard to air quality and crowdedness). In safety. We argue that a more interdisci-
Human-Building Interaction literature [8], plinary approach would likely benefit the
poor environmental conditions are known to creation of new tools designed for support-
impact employees’ cognitive functions, de- ing psychological safety. To achieve that, we
cision making, and performance. There- foresee a number of challenges and opportu-
fore, organizations have resorted to sensors nities, ranging from sensing to modeling to
through which the environmental conditions user interface (UI) design.
could be sensed [2, 9], and even adapted ac- Sensing. New emerging sensing devices
cordingly [10] to meet recommended stan- such as earables [16] are now fully equipped
dards, thus increasing their employees’ pro- with IMU (inertial measurement unit) sen-
ductivity and well-being. To this end, meet- sors, allowing on-body and on-device sens-
ing tools could account for physical comfort ing. This opens up a new avenue for meet-
in their design, potentially in a form of inter- ing tools by allowing participants to mon-
ventions (e.g., adjusting ventilation). How- itor signals that could otherwise go un-
ever, the design space should not only facilitate noticed; for example, capturing body cues
execution and ensure that desirable physical of (dis)agreement or (in)active participa-
environmental conditions are met, but should tion during a virtual conversation when the
also cultivate a psychologically safe setting. video stream is absent [17]. Similarly, smart-
watches are now fully equipped with heart
rate sensors that provide a window to peo-
ple’s physiology, allowing one to track their
own or their peers’ emotional states [18]; as-
pects that are closely linked to creating a safe
environment for contribution. Additionally, and empathic of each other [24]. Borrow-
in the future, we foresee that better precision ing ideas from calm technology [25] and bio-
devices would enable more nuanced non- philic design, meeting tools could embrace
verbal or verbal communication patterns to new types of cues only available through
be captured. technology [26]. For example, the use of dif-
Modeling. New algorithms are also ferent symbols, imagery, and artificial arti-
likely to provide a new understanding and facts (e.g., real-world objects [27], light [28],
perspective that would help further theorize or movement 2 ) could augment the ways we
the concept of psychological safety. New interact and communicate with each other.
Natural Language Processing text-mining These new visualizations could bring teams
algorithms [19] are now able to reveal certain together despite working apart, and remove
language markers that might be deeply any geographical barriers due to physical dis-
hidden in a conversation, particularly in tancing.
a remote setting. These algorithms can Workplace surveillance. While this in-
annotate everyday language and capture terdisciplinary approach promises to deliver
important types of social interactions (e.g., experiences richer of psychological safety,
a heated discussion resulting in conflict it also raises questions relating to work-
resolution). NLP-based algorithms can now place surveillance. It is often regarded that
analyze conversations and test whether these organizations and surveillance go hand in
conversations accommodate different points hand [29]. On a very pragmatic level, there
of view [20], or even reveal the presence (or is a handful of reasons as to why organi-
absence) of certain health-related markers zations opt in for employees’ surveillance
(e.g., stress markers) [21]. Additionally, new (e.g. maintaining productivity, monitoring
Natural Sound Processing algorithms [22] resources used, protecting the organization
are now able to model verbal cues (e.g., from legal liabilities). The critics, however,
prosody) that would potentially enable richer rightly argue that there is a fine line between
and more focused interactions. For example, what organizations could be monitoring and
prosodic features (e.g., pitch and energy) what they should be monitoring. If crossed, it
are known to provide a reliable indication will have consequences on employees, affect-
of the emotional status in a conversational ing their well-being, work culture, and pro-
exchange. ductivity. If future meetings tools incorpo-
UI design. Last but not least, new oppor- rate any kind of employees’ monitoring, they
tunities are likely to arise for the UI design need to ensure that is done in a way that pre-
community. New visualizations are more serves an individual’s rights, including that
likely to be (re)invented, beyond dashboards of privacy.
and simple analytics [23]. Drawing from be- The workplace is constantly changing
havioral economics research, we foresee that and evolving. These changes are currently
new forms of interventions would allow peo- accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic,
ple to be more empathetic, compassionate, which might be leading to a dramatic change
and aware of each other’s emotional states, in how we work: from the well-known
views, and thoughts. Previous research in the eight-hour workday to the office building
area of organizational behavior showed that to the salient boundaries between work and
affective sharing within groups conveys our personal life. Meetings are no exception
internal experiences, signals our emotional
states and, potentially, makes us more aware 2 Blooming: http://www.thelisapark.com/blooming
to this sudden change. In a post-pandemic ative Work, volume 6, ACM, 2004, pp.
world, we envision that new sensing devices 346–349.
would provide access to employees’ data [6] J. Barksdale, K. Inkpen, M. Czerwin-
that otherwise might not be possible to ski, A. Hoff, P. Johns, A. Roseway,
collect (e.g., on-body sensing); that new G. Venolia, Video threads: Asyn-
algorithms would ‘make sense’ of such chronous video sharing for temporally
data, and capture behavioral aspects that distributed teams, in: Proc. of the ACM
are hard to quantify (e.g., (dis)agreement, 2012 Conference on Computer Sup-
empathy, or stress markers); and that new ported Cooperative Work, ACM, 2012,
user interfaces (e.g., inspired by biophilic pp. 1101–1104.
design) would enable meeting participants [7] J. Tang, J. Marlow, A. Hoff, A. Roseway,
to stay connected despite any geographical K. Inkpen, C. Zhao, X. Cao, Time travel
or technological barriers due to remote proxy: Using lightweight video record-
working. ings to create asynchronous, interactive
meetings, in: Proc. of the ACM CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Com-
References puting Systems, ACM, 2012, pp. 3111–
3120.
[1] S. Kauffeld, N. Lehmann-Willenbrock,
[8] H. S. Alavi, E. F. Churchill, M. Wiberg,
Meetings matter: Effects of team meet-
D. Lalanne, P. Dalsgaard, A. Fatah gen
ings on team and organizational suc-
Schieck, Y. Rogers, Introduction to
cess, Small Group Research 43 (2012)
human-building interaction (hbi) inter-
130–158.
facing hci with architecture and urban
[2] M. Constantinides, S. Šćepanović,
design, ACM Trans. on Computer-
D. Quercia, H. Li, U. Sassi, M. Eggle-
Human Interaction 26 (2019).
ston, Comfeel: Productivity is a matter
[9] H. S. Alavi, H. Verma, M. Papinutto,
of the senses too, Proc. of the ACM
D. Lalanne, Comfort: A coordi-
on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and
nate of user experience in interactive
Ubiquitous Technologies 4 (2020) 1–21.
built environments, in: IFIP Confer-
[3] B. Kim, C. Rudin, Learning about
ence on Human-Computer Interaction,
meetings, Data Mining and Knowledge
Springer, 2017, pp. 247–257.
Discovery 28 (2014) 1134–1157.
[10] P. Bader, A. Voit, H. V. Le, P. W. Woź-
[4] M. McGregor, J. C. Tang, More to
niak, N. Henze, A. Schmidt, Win-
meetings: Challenges in using speech-
dowwall: Towards adaptive buildings
based technology to support meetings,
with interactive windows as ubiquitous
in: Proc. of the ACM Conference
displays, ACM Trans. on Computer-
on Computer Supported Cooperative
Human Interaction 26 (2019) 1–42.
Work and Social Computing, ACM,
[11] A. Edmondson, Psychological safety
2017, pp. 2208–2220.
and learning behavior in work teams,
[5] A. B. Garcia, J. Kunz, M. Fischer, Cut-
Administrative Science Quarterly 44
ting to the chase: Improving meet-
(1999) 350–383.
ing effectiveness by focusing on the
[12] A. W. Woolley, C. F. Chabris, A. Pent-
agenda, in: Proc. of the ACM Confer-
land, N. Hashmi, T. W. Malone, Evi-
ence on Computer Supported Cooper-
dence for a collective intelligence factor
in the performance of human groups,
Science 330 (2010) 686–688. volume 13, 2019, pp. 428–439.
[13] T. Bergstrom, K. Karahalios, Conver- [21] S. Scepanovic, E. Martin-Lopez,
sation clusters: Grouping conversation D. Quercia, K. Baykaner, Extracting
topics through human-computer dia- medical entities from social media,
log, in: Proc. of the ACM CHI Confer- in: Proc. of the ACM Conference on
ence on Human Factors in Computing Health, Inference, and Learning, 2020,
Systems, ACM, 2009, pp. 2349–2352. pp. 170–181.
[14] T. Kim, A. Chang, L. Holland, A. S. Pent- [22] K. Curtis, G. J. Jones, N. Campbell,
land, Meeting mediator: Enhancing Effects of good speaking techniques on
group collaboration using sociometric audience engagement, in: Proc. of
feedback, in: Proc. of the ACM Confer- the ACM International Conference on
ence on Computer Supported Coopera- Multimodal Interaction, 2015, pp. 35–
tive Work and Social Computing, ACM, 42.
2008, pp. 457–466. [23] S. Few, Information Dashboard Design:
[15] B. A. Aseniero, M. Constantinides, The Effective Visual communication of
S. Joglekar, K. Zhou, D. Quercia, data, O’Reilly Media, 2006.
Meetcues: Supporting online meetings [24] F. Walter, H. Bruch, The positive group
experience, in: Proc. of the IEEE Vi- affect spiral: A dynamic model of the
sualization Conference, IEEE, 2020, pp. emergence of positive affective similar-
236–240. ity in work groups, Organizational Be-
[16] F. Kawsar, C. Min, A. Mathur, A. Mon- havior 29 (2008) 239–261.
tanari, Earables for personal-scale be- [25] M. Weiser, J. S. Brown, The coming
havior analytics, IEEE Pervasive Com- age of calm technology, in: Beyond
puting 17 (2018) 83–89. calculation, Springer, 1997, pp. 75–85.
[17] J.-H. Choi, M. Constantinides, [26] C. Y. Qin, M. Constantinides, L. M.
S. Joglekar, D. Quercia, Kairos: Aiello, D. Quercia, Heartbees: Visualiz-
Talking heads and moving bodies for ing crowd affects, in: Proc. of the IEEE
successful meetings, in: Proc. of the VIS Arts Program (VISAP), IEEE, 2020,
International Workshop on Mobile pp. 1–8.
Computing Systems and Applications [27] B. Yu, M. Funk, J. Hu, L. Feijs, Stresstree:
(HotMobile), 2021, pp. 1–7. A metaphorical visualization for
[18] S. Park, M. Constantinides, L. M. Aiello, biofeedback-assisted stress manage-
D. Quercia, P. Van Gent, Wellbeat: ment, in: Proc. of the Conference on
A framework for tracking daily well- Designing Interactive Systems, 2017,
being using smartwatches, IEEE pp. 333–337.
Internet Computing 24 (2020) 10–17. [28] B. Yu, J. Hu, M. Funk, L. Feijs, Delight:
[19] M. Choi, L. M. Aiello, K. Z. Varga, Biofeedback through ambient light for
D. Quercia, Ten social dimensions of stress intervention and relaxation assis-
conversations and relationships, in: tance, Personal and Ubiquitous Com-
Proc. of The Web Conference (WWW), puting 22 (2018) 787–805.
2020, pp. 1514–1525. [29] K. Ball, Workplace surveillance: An
[20] A. Robertson, L. M. Aiello, D. Quercia, overview, Labor History 51 (2010) 87–
The language of dialogue is complex, in: 106.
Proceedings of the International AAAI
Conference on Web and Social Media,