Mental Models of Meeting Goals: Supporting Intentionality in Meeting Technologies

TL;DR

The paper investigates how workers conceptualize and enact meeting goals, revealing two dominant mental models: meetings as a means to an end and meetings as ends in themselves. Through 21 in-depth interviews in a global technology company, the study maps how goals arise, how they are communicated, and the obstacles—time, attendee diversity, personality, priorities, hidden agendas, and technology—that hinder goal alignment. It links these models to functional outcomes (planning, staying on track, preparation) and affective/interpersonal dynamics (certainty, time disrespect, pressure), arguing that current calendar and meeting tools fail to surface or support intentionality across the meeting lifecycle. The authors propose design interventions, including a simple goals field in invitations and generative AI support, to surface and align intentions, enabling more purposeful, less Fatigue-inducing meetings, and they discuss the trade-offs and policy considerations necessary to implement such interventions responsibly.

Abstract

Ineffective meetings due to unclear goals are major obstacles to productivity, yet support for intentionality is surprisingly scant in our meeting and allied workflow technologies. To design for intentionality, we need to understand workers' attitudes and practices around goals. We interviewed 21 employees of a global technology company and identified contrasting mental models of meeting goals: meetings as a means to an end, and meetings as an end in themselves. We explore how these mental models impact how meeting goals arise, goal prioritization, obstacles to considering goals, and how lack of alignment around goals may create tension between organizers and attendees. We highlight the challenges in balancing preparation, constraining scope, and clear outcomes, with the need for intentional adaptability and discovery in meetings. Our findings have implications for designing systems which increase effectiveness in meetings by catalyzing intentionality and reducing tension in the organisation of meetings.

Figures (2)

• Figure 1: Summary of findings: our findings centered around mental models of meeting goals; current practices and obstacles to considering meeting goals; and the functional, affective, and interpersonal implications of these mental models, practices, and obstacles on meeting intentionality.
• Figure 2: Designing for intentionality. There are many timepoints (A) and interfaces (B) where intentionality can be probed and surfaced. An example is a 'meeting goals' field in a calendar invitation (C), used as an exploratory probe during our interviews.