Meetings shape more than decisions, they shape who feels heard, valued, and included.
A 2026 review by Rogelberg and colleagues, synthesises thirty years of research on meeting science and offers a compelling insight. Meetings are not simply operational necessities, they are one of the most influential, and often overlooked, mechanisms through which inclusion is experienced at work.
Despite this, meetings are rarely treated as intentional spaces for inclusion. Instead, they are often approached as routine, with limited attention to how everyday dynamics shape participation and voice.
1. Meetings as everyday sites of inclusion
The research highlights that meetings function as a primary platform for employee voice, determining who speaks, who is listened to, and whose contributions shape outcomes.
However, participation is rarely evenly distributed. Hierarchy, gender, and status consistently influence who contributes and how. More senior individuals tend to dominate airtime, while others may hold back, not due to a lack of ideas, but because the environment does not sufficiently support contribution.
These dynamics are often subtle and easily overlooked. They do not always present as explicit exclusion, yet their cumulative effect can shape how individuals experience belonging, credibility, and influence over time.
Meeting format can further amplify these patterns. In virtual environments, for example, some individuals are more likely to contribute via chat, while others dominate verbal discussion. Without careful facilitation, these differences can reinforce existing inequalities in whose voices are recognised.
In this sense, meetings are not just where decisions are made, they are where inclusion is continuously enacted.
2. The influence of micro behaviours
A key insight from the research is the extent to which small, everyday behaviours influence meeting experiences and outcomes.
Encouraging dissent and inviting diverse perspectives can strengthen both perceived effectiveness and group cohesion. When individuals feel able to challenge ideas constructively, they are more likely to experience themselves as part of the group.
In contrast, behaviours such as interrupting, dismissing contributions, or allowing a small number of voices to dominate can undermine trust and limit participation. Over time, this narrows the range of perspectives considered, with implications for both inclusion and decision quality.
Silence also plays a more nuanced role than is often assumed. When used intentionally, it can support reflection and idea generation. However, when it reflects hesitation or concern about speaking up, it can signal barriers to participation that remain unaddressed.
Perceptions of fairness are equally important. When meeting processes are experienced as respectful and equitable, individuals are more likely to contribute and engage. When fairness is lacking, participation tends to decrease, often in ways that are gradual and difficult to detect.
3. Leadership and the shaping of meeting culture
Leaders play a central role in shaping whether meetings support or hinder inclusion.
The evidence suggests that inclusive meetings are actively designed rather than left to chance. Leaders who clarify purpose, structure discussions effectively, and intentionally invite a range of perspectives create conditions where broader participation is possible.
There is no single leadership style that guarantees inclusion. Instead, effective leaders adapt their approach, balancing direction with participation depending on the context and the needs of the group.
Meetings also function as expressions of organisational culture. How individuals interact, how disagreement is handled, and how decisions are reached all communicate what is valued. Over time, these patterns reinforce norms and shape expectations around whose voices matter.
For organisations seeking to strengthen inclusion, this has clear implications. Meetings are not peripheral to culture, they are one of its primary mechanisms.
Focusing on inclusion therefore requires attention not only to strategy, but to the quality of everyday interactions in spaces where people gather, contribute, and decide.
You can read the original article here.
