Ip

Ca

b

Uc

C

a

KVHGMD

1

vtTcdwmtftm

eivem

t

0h

International Journal of Hospitality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

j ourna l h om epa ge : www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman

dentifying best practices, opportunities and barriers in meetinglanning for Generation Y

arole B. Soxa,∗, Sheryl F. Klineb, Tena B. Crewsc

School of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, United StatesDepartment of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management in the Alfed Lerner College of Business and Economics,niversity of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, United StatesCollege of Hospitality, Retail and Sport Management, Integrated Information Technology Program, University of South Carolina,olumbia, SC 29208, United States

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:irtualybrideneration Yeetingselphi

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this study is to identify best practices, opportunities and barriers when planning virtualand hybrid meetings for a Generation Y audience (1979–2000). Using a modified Delphi technique, anexpert panel of meeting professionals completed four rounds of the Delphi to determine group commonconsent. The panel of experts who participated had planned traditional, virtual and hybrid meetingsfor associations, corporations and/or government groups. Resulting recommendations for best practices

for virtual meetings included offering shorter sessions to remote participants and providing easy to usetechnology; opportunities included gamification and interactive components; and barriers included per-ception of effectiveness and attendees preoccupation with technology. For hybrid meetings, best practicesincluded adding social networking components, and providing positive feedback to participants; oppor-tunities included incorporating interactive components and including challenging but solvable games;and barriers included perception of fun and keeping material challenging enough.

. Introduction

The last decade has brought new trends and technological inno-ations to the forefront of the meeting industry and there is a needo manage these advancements within virtual and hybrid meetings.he components used within the meeting industry are evolvingontinuously and new ways of serving customers are endlessly inemand (Smith and Kline, 2010). These advancements, combinedith technological innovation, has introduced virtual and hybrideetings as a fairly new trend within the meeting industry. With

hese new genres of meetings in focus, there is an immediate needor knowledge of best practices, opportunities, and barriers withinhe area of virtual and hybrid meetings through continued advance-

ent and growth, and academic literature contributions.Virtual meetings have been defined by the industry as “digital

vents, meeting and learning technologies that include: webcast-ng (streaming media); virtual environments (2D and 3D) such as

irtual events, virtual trade shows, conferences, campuses, learningnvironments; and perpetual (365 days per year) business environ-ents” (PCMA et al., 2011, p. 3). A hybrid event “involves a mixture

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 803 397 9430; fax: +1 803 777 6665.E-mail addresses: soxc@mailbox.sc.edu (C.B. Sox), skline@udel.edu (S.F. Kline),

crews@hrsm.sc.edu (T.B. Crews).

278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.009

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

of physical events with elements of a virtual event usually run-ning simultaneously and with overlapping content and interactiveelements” (Doyle, 2013, p. 1).

This research introduces the first of a series of studies beingconducted to determine the best practices, opportunities and chal-lenges with regard to virtual and hybrid meetings. Since this genreof meetings is actively being planned by meeting professionals, theDelphi method is employed within this study to produce recom-mendations based on common consent from an expert panel ofmeeting professionals. Specifically, common consent is identifiedwithin the areas of best practices, opportunities and barriers thatare considered for Generation Y (1979–2000) (McBeath, 2009).

To provide a more global perspective, Puybaraud et al. (2010)conducted an international research project aimed at better under-standing the needs of Generation Y within the workplace. Theresults indicated that Generation Y is currently the most digitallyadvanced generation. Among the findings, Generation Y individ-uals within the UK and US prefer more flexibility within their workenvironment, and those living within China and India expect suchflexibility. However, there is a shortage of Generation Y individ-uals entering the workforce within Western Europe, making their

talents even more in demand. Within the UK, Generation Y is thesmallest generation in number within the current population; how-ever, in other countries, their numbers have greater significance.Within the US, for example, Generation Y is the largest generation

Hospit

apo

tcawWGorio

ariti

2

2

(aibbeIicwoIei

iMde(poattiepu

mapttatcm

C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of

nd within India, their number contributes to more than half of theopulation. Within the world, Generation Y makes up 25.47 percentf the total population (Puybaraud et al., 2010).

Puybaraud et al. (2010) also note that regardless of their number,his generation is credited with transforming the way business isonducted. Due to their technological savvy and use of the Internetnd mobile communication, they are initiating behavioral trendshich are influencing other generations throughout the world.hile older generations may not embrace technology as fully as

eneration Y, this generation, internationally, is demanding the usef technology within the workplace. In fact, Puybaraud et al. (2010)eport that since this generation is so attached to technology, it ismperative for work environments to include this as a componentf their work lives.

By focusing on Generation Y, insight is gained on how to bestccommodate the most technologically literate generation cur-ently within the workforce (Fjelstul et al., 2012). While thisnformation has obvious practical impacts, it is also a valuable con-ribution to the foundation of academic research in this area, whichs currently limited and in need.

. Literature review

.1. Virtual and hybrid meetings

The Meetings, Expositions, Events and Conventions (MEEC)Fenich, 2012) industry has a substantial effect on national, statend local economies (Lee and Back, 2005). In fact, the meetingsndustry within the United States currently supports roughly $60illion in labor revenue and 1.7 million jobs. In addition, $11.3illion in state and local tax revenue and $14.3 billion in fed-ral tax revenue are supported by the industry (Canton, 2011).n 2009, over 200 million people attended almost 2 million meet-ngs. These meetings included corporate and incentive meetings;onferences and conventions; and trade shows and exhibitions,hich added $263 billion spending contributions to the U.S. econ-

my (Sheivachman, 2011). According to the Grass Roots Meetingsndustry Report (2013), there has been an increase in meetings andvents activity over the past year and the forecast for additionalncreases is positive.

As the meetings and conventions industry is steadily increasing,t is currently experiencing an evolutionary inclusion of technology.

eeting planners continue to strive to integrate the most up-to-ate technological methods within their meetings to enrich thexperience of attendees (Kim and Park, 2009). According to Baker2009), meeting management best practices now includes incor-orating remote conferencing technology. While this componentf meetings was considered cost prohibitive in the past, the costsre now beginning to be affordable for appropriate implementa-ion. In addition, the accessibility of meeting technology throughhird-party arrangements can assist in lowering costs. The Marr-ott International and Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, forxample, each have taken the initiative to furnish some of theirroperties with the technology for hybrid meetings which can besed in conjunction with face-to-face (F2F) meetings.

Mullich (2009) states that industry experts are now recom-ending companies integrate F2F meetings with new technology

ccording to the specific meeting objectives. Companies can incor-orate technology, for example, to assist with initial discussions orraining purposes, followed-up by F2F meetings to enhance rela-ionship building, introduce significant information and progress

project. The use of social media is also increasing in use. Thisechnological component of F2F meetings encourages and allowsontinued discussion with meeting attendees before or after theeeting.

ality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254 245

As the latest technologies are being utilized, meetings arebeing significantly transformed within the industry (Chudoba et al.,2011). While F2F meetings continue to be successful, virtual andhybrid meetings offer innovative technological opportunities formeeting planners and attendees. The virtual world is greatly influ-encing the MEEC industry and is expected to grow to an $18.6billion industry by 2015. Hybrid meetings have been noted asthe future of the meeting and convention industry (Fryatt et al.,2012b); however, there have been few published academic stud-ies regarding virtual and hybrid meetings within hospitality andtourism (Pearlman and Gates, 2010).

While there is a rise in the number of virtual meetings, it doesnot appear these meetings will take away from F2F meetings (Cain,2011). In fact, combining virtual elements with F2F components,hence hybrid meetings, has been successful within the meetingindustry. The concerns that virtual meetings will cannibalize F2Fmeetings, as previously anticipated, have largely disseminated(Cain, 2011). A study published by the Professional ConventionManagement Association’s (PCMA) UBM Studios and Virtual EdgeInstitute (VEI) (2011) stated that even though virtual meetings areoften the preferred mode of communication, hybrid meetings allowfor the best components of online and F2F meetings to be com-bined for a more effective mode of communication. In a recent studyby Meeting Planners International (MPI) Foundation (Fryatt et al.,2012a), hybrid meetings were seen as still-emerging, but accordingto meeting professionals, all meeting events will eventually utilizea hybrid platform.

Most research on virtual meetings has focused on the increaseof these types of meetings or future plans to utilize virtual meet-ings as opposed to F2F meetings (PCMA et al., 2011). The majorityof information on virtual and hybrid meetings is currently foundwithin trade publications, industry Web sites and provided by pri-vate consultants (Pearlman and Gates, 2010).

Two of the largest meeting professional associations (PCMA andMPI), for example, have both recently conducted industry researchon virtual and hybrid meetings (Fryatt et al., 2012a; Fenich et al.,2012). Fryatt et al. (2012a) published a study in which hybrid meet-ings and events were investigated. The MPI association memberswithin nine time zones were contacted through F2F and hybridmeetings. The 1794 responses came from a combination of MPImembers including students, educators, buyers, suppliers and tech-nology specialists. In addition, in person and phone interviewswith 37 technology vendors, consultants and meeting plannerswere also conducted for this study. Researchers found that 70%of survey respondents agreed that hybrid meetings were impor-tant to the future of the industry, however, this format is stillnot being utilized within the majority of planned meetings (Fryattet al., 2012a). Numerous factors are included with regard to theoverall success of a hybrid meeting. In addition to technology,other factors contributing to success include processes, people andformats.

Fenich et al. (2012) investigated the preferences of GenerationY within meetings and events through a study funded through aPCMA Foundation Study grant. The study consisted of 78 ques-tions related to the preferences of Generation Y for meeting contentdelivery, attendance, motivation and communication styles. Thesurvey was distributed online using a snowball technique. Incen-tives were offered for forwarding the survey to friends. Resultswere gleaned from more than 2000 completed surveys of individ-uals within Generation Y. The findings support previous reportsindicating Generation Y is technologically savvy. This generationlikes structured but casual meetings with technology integrated

into the format. The results also indicated this generation prefersevents that include internet accessible activities. The study findingsalso indicated that meeting planners should consider the needs ofthis generation when planning meetings and events, which also

2 Hospit

sfucp

eocootmwvnn

acrtcp

ie2tiaottaatlmttd

ftor

nsott

8Frtamb

itoi

46 C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of

upports the Delphi findings of the current study. As the industryocuses on virtual and hybrid meetings there is a need to betternderstand and explore the impact of such meetings and impli-ations on the meeting field from both an academic and industryerspective.

While there is access to academic virtual and hybrid meeting lit-rature outside of hospitality and tourism specifically in the areasf education, information systems, and business, there are few arti-les written on this topic within the past 10 years within the areasf hospitality and tourism. Pizam (2011) wrote an editorial basedn virtual meetings within the hospitality industry which notedhat while there is a fear within the hospitality industry that F2F

eetings will be replaced with technology, there are companiesho are definitely embracing the virtual trend. While integrating

irtual components with F2F meetings, hybrid meetings compa-ies are creating innovative ways to incorporate technology as aew way of doing business (Pizam, 2011).

Vandenberg and Reese (2011) note making attendees comfort-ble when participating in virtual meetings was determined to be aritical component of the meeting’s success. Virtual meetings alsoesulted in a more positive experience for meeting attendees whenraining, guidelines and support were provided. While not spe-ific to generational differences, this information assists meetingrofessionals when planning virtual meetings for all audiences.

Virtual reality applications have also been studied. Virtual real-ty applications, such as Second Life, refer to computer-simulatednvironments that imitate the real world (Pearlman and Gates,010). These environments are also called virtual worlds and areypically visual, 3D applications. Pearlman and Gates (2010) specif-cally investigated the awareness, acceptance and adoption of thesepplications and noted virtual applications are still in early devel-pment stages. It was found that businesses were using virtualechnology for meetings and that virtual meetings would continueo increase in the future (Pearlman and Gates, 2010). The studylso found while only a small percentage of meeting profession-ls had actually used virtual worlds for conducting meetings andhere were some barriers to these meetings, such as poor col-aboration, it was clear these meetings are increasing due to the

any benefits they present (Pearlman and Gates, 2010). Some ofhese benefits include enhanced networking opportunities, addi-ional sponsorship opportunities and additional options for contentelivery (Feldman, 2009).

Friedman et al. (2009) compared virtual and F2F meetings andound nonverbal communication was the main differentiating fac-or between the two meeting types. Virtual meetings do, however,ffer the option of remaining anonymous online and may assist ineducing inhibition amongst attendees.

Kim and Park (2009) investigated the attitudes of meeting plan-ers with regard to using technology within the workplace. Thistudy revealed the adoption of technology varied based on the typef meeting planner. It also revealed meeting planners with moreechnological experience are more likely to use technology withinheir planning and their meetings.

The industry research literature indicates that approximately0% of virtual meeting attendees note they cannot replace large2F events due to the lack of human contact within the virtual envi-onment (Carlson Wagonlit Travel, 2010). Rhoads (2010) supportshese findings in a study which concludes that F2F meetings have

higher level of satisfaction among attendees; however; hybrideetings might be the best alternative since the components of

oth F2F and computer-mediated meetings are included.Based on the literature, it is apparent that virtual meetings are

ncreasing, but there are still critical components missing fromhese meetings that can only be found in F2F meetings. There arepportunities to better enhance virtual meetings, such as provid-ng training and support, but hybrid meetings are currently noted

ality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254

as the future of meetings (Fryatt et al., 2012a). Meeting planners arecurrently working to adapt to technological innovations (Kim andPark, 2009) and need to continue to include technology in order tobetter manage future meetings (Smith and Kline, 2010).

Meeting professionals have embraced the use of virtual andhybrid meetings and these alternatives to F2F meetings are nowbeing recognized as an accepted way to do business withinthe meetings industry (Cain, 2011). Industry professionals haveacknowledged the need for more information and education withinthe area of virtual and hybrid meetings (Fryatt et al., 2012a,b;PCMA et al., 2011). As technology is evolving quickly, there is a cur-rent need for academic research to fill gaps within the literaturefocusing on technology within meetings and events, and specif-ically information pertaining to the newest genres of meetings,such as virtual and hybrid. There is a need for more academicstudies, while currently limited in number and scope, as theywill further enhance the level of meeting planning knowledge,offer theoretical considerations and further contribute as this areadevelops.

2.2. Theory

The Generational Cohort Theory (GCT) has been used withinthe areas of marketing and education to divide markets accordingto the attitudes, values, acceptances and ideas of the generation,based on years of age (Tsui, 2001). The GCT was initiated by Ryderin 1965, but labeled in 1977 by Inglehart (Brosdahl and Carpenter,2012). Twenge and Campbell (2008) indicate that researching gen-erational cohorts offers one way to investigate the perceptions ofgroups of individuals. Generational cohorts are defined as personsborn within a particular timeframe, have had similar experiencesthroughout their lifetimes and have been subjected to notable emo-tional happenings during their formative years (Strauss and Howe,1991). These experiences often create similarity regarding atti-tudes, values, and perceptions, making them distinctive from othergenerations (Brosdahl and Carpenter, 2012; Meredith et al., 2007).The GCT, however, does not go unchallenged. There are views thatas people age, their perceptions change (Sessa et al., 2007). Whilethis challenge is noted, there is an increasing number of studiessupporting the GCT (Van-Ness et al., 2012; Lancaster and Stillman,2005; Hicks and Hicks, 1999).

Within the United States, there are seven recognized genera-tional cohorts including Depression-era, World War II, Post-War,Baby Boomer I, Baby Boomer II, Generation X and Generation Y(McBeath, 2009; Noble and Noble, 2000). When reviewing Gen-eration Y specifically, there are many notable differences whencompared to other generations. Generation Y is more raciallydiverse than the preceding generations (Boone and Kurtz, 2001)and the individuals in Generation Y are considered to be moreoptimistic, mature and less cynical than those in Generation X(Stapinski, 1999). The two largest factors separating them fromother generations, however, are exceptional purchasing power andtheir engagement in the creation, innovation and use of technology(McBeath, 2009).

This study recognizes best practices, opportunities and barriersfor planning meetings for Generation Y participants. This gener-ation is perceived as requiring innovative and new technologywithin the meetings they attend (Fenich et al., 2012). Therefore,it is imperative for meeting planners keep abreast of the techno-logical needs of this generation in order to better accommodatethese attendees (Fjelstul et al., 2012).

2.3. Generation Y

As of March 2012, there were 31,927,000 Generation Y individ-uals employed within the United States making up approximately

Hospit

2ite

GN(WeWeat

uPescmaco

afgr2trtwnmta2p

hgttt

st

•••••••

aceuat

C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of

1% of the total country’s workforce (Catalyst, 2012). Since not allndividuals within Generation Y have reached the legal age to work,his number will continue to increase as these individuals age andnter the workforce.

Generation Y has been referred to with many labels includingeneration Dot-com, Millenials, EchoBoomers, Bridgers, NeXters,et Generation, First Digitals, Trophy Generation and C-Generation

Ballone, 2007; Cetron and Davies, 2008; Fenich et al., 2011;esley, 2009). In addition to the inconsistency with regard to gen-

ration label, the dates of the generations have also varied greatly.ith regard to Generation Y, little agreement is found when consid-

ring the year span for this cohort, however most researchers wouldgree individuals in this generation were born anywhere betweenhe years of 1979–2000 (McBeath, 2009).

This wide age span makes it difficult for marketers to bestnderstand their target market (McBeath, 2009; Wolburg andokrywczynski, 2001). Since this research is drawing from thexpertise of active meeting professionals, the current study con-iders those individuals in Generation Y eligible by age to attendorporate, association and government meetings in which theseeeting professionals plan and/or manage. Therefore, while the

ge range of 1979–2000 is considered within this study, realisti-ally, those included by age due to the nature of the study wouldnly encompass individuals from 1979 to 1993.

Generation Y has been chosen specifically for this study as theyre technology savvy, noted previously as one of the key factors dif-erentiating this generation from others, and this is the most recenteneration to enter the workforce. Generation Y includes a globaleach of over 70 million people (Fenich et al., 2011; Hewlett et al.,009). Generation Y has been engaged with technology throughoutheir lives. The current perception of this generation is that theyequire and demand more technological advances within meetingshey attend (Fenich et al., 2011). Therefore, meeting planners areorking to better understand and keep up with this generation’seeds (Fjelstul et al., 2012). While the meeting needs and require-ents of all generations are changing based on new and innovative

echnology, investigating the generation that is most demandingnd known to be most technology savvy, Generation Y (Fenich et al.,011) offers the most benefit for meeting planners and industryrofessionals.

Generation Y is the most recently employed generation andas demands and requirements that are different from previousenerations (Fenich et al., 2011; Hewlett et al., 2009). Due toheir experience with technology and their knowledge in this area,heir expectations match their technological literacy with regardo meetings they attend (Fenich et al., 2011; Fjelstul et al., 2012).

Generation Y is predicted to be the largest in size and the mosttudied of all generations (Drago and Cunningham, 2006). Some ofhis generation’s characteristics are:

entertainment driven;exceptionally comfortable with technology,aware and have a strong sense of community;team players;adaptable;physically inactive; andmore likely to engage if gaining a sense of pride and purpose(Drago and Cunningham, 2006).

While there is existing literature on Generation Y, the majority ofrticles focus on either educating and managing this generation oromparing them with other generations (Fenich et al., 2011). How-

ver, Fenich et al. (2011) investigated how different generationsse technology within meetings, and within this study there was

substantial focus on Generation Y and on meetings held withinhe hotel environment. This study was exploratory in nature and

ality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254 247

was used to assess how hotels can best market to this generation.In the process, a concise list of Generation Y meeting preferenceswas established.

According to a report by Zikhur (2011), those between 18 and 33are more prone to use a laptop or mobile phone to access the Inter-net. They surpass older generations with regard to communicatingand gaming online. While Generation Y is ahead of the older gener-ations with regard to technology implementation and utilization,the preceding generations are making significant gains on theirprogress (Zikhur, 2011). This indicates that if meeting plannerscan accommodate Generation Y with regard to technology imple-mentation within meetings, the older generations will also benefitas well because they are gaining on Generation Y with regard totechnology usage. Accommodating the technological demands ofGeneration Y, therefore, will serve as a precedence from which allgenerations will gain value.

The purpose of this study was to gain consensus on best prac-tices, opportunities and barriers for planning virtual and hybridmeetings for Generation Y from a panel of meeting experts. Thisstudy adds to the recent growth within the area of virtual andhybrid meetings and adds to the limited state of academic litera-ture. As meetings evolve and technology advances, it is imperativethat studies support and contribute to the meeting and conventionsareas of hospitality and tourism to assist industry professionalsand to contribute to the academic body of knowledge. Within thisbody of knowledge, a foundation has begun, but it needs to be fur-ther enhanced in order to support current and upcoming industryadvances and innovation.

3. Materials and methods

3.1. The delphi technique

The Delphi technique is a method for developing commonconsent through the use of rounds to gather input from a knowl-edgeable panel within an area of expertise (Yousuf, 2007). TheDelphi is named after the Greek oracle at Delphi known for givingprophecies (Koontz and O’Donnell, 1976). In the 1950s, the Delphitechnique was used by the military to gain expert consensus onsensitive military issues (Yousuf, 2007). This technique, originallycreated by Olaf Helmer and colleagues at the Rand Corporation,was used by the military as a forecasting tool (Yousuf, 2007; Stitt-Gohdes and Crews, 2004).

The Delphi technique utilizes a group communication processallowing for an effective method to deal with complex issues (Stitt-Gohdes and Crews, 2004). According to Linstone and Turoff (1975),there are 4 factors within the Delphi technique which includeindividual contributions and feedback on a particular subjectarea; assessment of the group findings; opportunity for individ-ual revisions; and anonymity for individual responses among theparticipating panel members. The Delphi technique has been suc-cessfully utilized within government, technology, education andbusiness. It offers researchers an alternative to standard sur-vey research and allows for an expanded communication processamongst a group of subject area experts (Stitt-Gohdes and Crews,2004).

While the Delphi technique is acknowledged within the area oftourism and is considered to be an effective tool, it does not go with-out criticism (Donohoe and Needham, 2009). Many of the benefitsof using the Delphi technique are easily apparent (i.e. anonymity,expert judgment, common consent, etc.). The disadvantages, how-

ever, should also be noted. These disadvantages include, but are notlimited to, the tool itself being highly sensitive to the study designcharacteristics (i.e. expertise and composition of panel; clarityof questions; survey administration and reporting), high attrition

2 Hospit

rc

oasnr(t

mbm1wiawahaettbmtmi

nnmaiimnrbt

sfecta

imputewmm

otatwv

48 C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of

ates of panel members, and determining what defines adequateonsensus within the study (Donohoe and Needham, 2009).

Within this study, for example, an attrition rate did exist. Outf the 46 candidates asked to participate in the survey, 22 agreednd committed to participate, and 12 completed all 4 rounds of thistudy. Attrition was identified as a potential problem at the begin-ing of the study; however, previous research identifies 10–15espondents as being adequate for the completion of a Delphi studyTaylor-Powell, 2002; Crews, 2004), therefore; the number of par-icipants did not diminish the results of this study.

The Delphi technique has been successfully utilized withinany areas of study including technology and education and has

een particularly noted as being an appropriate and effectiveethod for researching Information Systems (IS) projects (Cornish,

977; Stitt-Gohdes and Crews, 2004). The Delphi technique has aide range of uses and examples include use of the Delphi for the

nvestigation of perceptions amongst business teachers (LaBontynd Scott, 1993); and an investigation of work practice componentsithin a High Performance Management System (HPMS) for man-

gers of restaurants (Murphy and Olsen, 2008). The Delphi methodas been used successfully by research institutions, governmentgencies and many other institutions and has been considered anffective and appropriate method for gaining a common consent onopics of interest (Crews, 2004). It is most important to note thatechnology has been cited as an area where the Delphi method haseen effective and produced meaningful results. Virtual and hybrideetings include a significant technological component, and since

hese components are ever-evolving as they are included withineetings, the Delphi technique is an appropriate tool for gaining

nformation for this area of study.The Delphi technique was utilized for this study due to the

eed for current feedback from a panel of expert meeting plan-ers who are actively managing and planning virtual and hybrideetings. Due to the newness of the genre of meetings (virtual

nd hybrid), and the lack of academic literature within this area,nvolving experts who currently plan meetings is a key componentn building the foundation for future research. Involving the Delphi

ethod to develop common group consent with regard to plan-ing and managing virtual and hybrid meetings for Generation Yesulted in recommendations for best practices, opportunities andarriers which can be further tested providing additional informa-ion in this area.

By applying the GCT, Generation Y was targeted based on theirimilar attitudes, values, and perceptions, making them distinctiverom other generations (Brosdahl and Carpenter, 2012; Mereditht al., 2007). Since Generation Y is considered to be technologi-ally advanced when compared to other (employable) generations,argeting them within this study provides insight into the mostdvanced technological requirements within a meeting audience.

This study is the first study in a series of related studiesnvestigating the planning and management of hybrid and virtual

eetings. This initial study provided an opportunity to gain theerspective of meeting professionals and what was currently beingtilized to accommodate these attendees. The second step will beo design a study to gain additional information and the prefer-nces of meeting attendees of virtual and hybrid meetings. In thisay, information gained from those planning and executing theseeetings can be combined and compared with those attending theeeting to even further expand this insight and knowledge.In order to elicit common consent from an established group

f expert panel members on the topic of best practices, oppor-unities and barriers for planning a meeting for a Generation Y

udience, a modified Delphi technique was employed. The Delphiechnique used one modification to the classical Delphi methodhich included an initial list, gleaned from a literature review, pro-

ided to the expert panel instead of beginning the Delphi process

ality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254

with a blank slate. Hence, a modified Delphi was utilized. This initiallist was employed to kick-off and encourage the participation of thepanel members and is in no way considered to be complete. Thislist provided to the panel was gleaned from publications of well-respected and known industry associations, as noted in Fig. 1, whorecently conducted research within these areas. The list was used tospur and encourage engagement from panel participants. This listconsisted of eight best practices, three opportunities and four bar-riers included for both virtual and hybrid meetings for GenerationY.

In Round One, members of the panel were asked to keep, add,delete or edit the list of the items provided. Items on the list weredivided and categorized with regard to hybrid and virtual meetings.Round One resulted in five best practices, four opportunities andfour barriers for virtual meetings, and eight best practices, threeopportunities and four barriers for hybrid meetings. Within eachround, panel members were given the opportunity to add newanswers to each section, and after Round One, they could also addprevious answers back to the list, and offer additional explanationif desired. The answers where then added to each list accordinglyand reflected within the next round.

In Round Two, the panel was given the results from Round Oneand asked to again keep, add, delete or edit from the list of itemsdeveloped in Round One which resulted in 9 best practices, 7 oppor-tunities and 3 barriers for virtual meetings and 10 best practices, 3opportunities and 6 barriers for hybrid meetings. In Round Three,panel members were asked to rank the list of items resulting fromRound 2 on a 5 point Likert scale (5 = Definitely Keep to 1 = DefinitelyDelete). In Round Four, the final round, panel members were giventheir chosen ranking score (1–5) from the previous round and thegroup mean for each item. In an effort to gain common consent, agoal of the Delphi method, participants indicated whether to keepor change their score based on the group mean. Common consentoccurred if two thirds of the panel members rated the item with a4 or 5 on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = Definitely Keep to 1 = DefinitelyDelete) (Crews, 2004).

3.2. Panel selection

A panel of 22 industry meeting professionals was created forthis study. Purposive and snowball sampling were first used createthe panel. Through utilizing industry contacts of the researcher, alist of meeting professionals (planners) was solicited to participatein this study. Each individual asked to participate was also asked torefer other individuals who fit within the criteria for the study. Inaddition, a meeting professional’s site on the social media networkLinkedIn was also utilized to solicit participants. One panel memberparticipated as a result of LinkedIn and all others participated dueto purposive or snowball sampling solicitation.

A total of 46 individuals were solicited directly for participa-tion in this study. Initial telephone conversations were conductedwith each possible participant during which time the GCT wasintroduced and it was confirmed that each participating plannerhad Generation Y participants included within their meeting audi-ences. An expert panel of 22 members was created based on thosewho fit the criteria of the study and were committed to partici-pation. The 22 panel members represented a wide distribution ofstates throughout the United States including California, North Car-olina, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginiaand the District of Washington, DC. The criteria for participationincluded:

(1) Individuals must have worked as a meeting planner (or have thejob components thereof) within the past two years and have atleast five years of meeting planning experience.

C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254 249

VIRTUAL and HYBRID Meetings

Item Source

Best Practices Offer same sessions (content) to all participants PCMA, UMB & VEI (2011)

Offer shorter sessions to remote participants Fryatt, et al. (2012) Meeting format should resemble TV talk show Fryatt, et al. (2012) Planners should collaborate with designers of meeting

Cooney (2011b)

Provide easy to use and convenient technology PCMA, UMB & VEI (2011)

Include videos PCMA, UMB & VEI (2011)

Include interaction with live experts PCMA, UMB & VEI (2011)

Include interactive experiences PCMA, UMB & VEI (2011)

Opportunities Sponsorship Opportunities Fryatt, et al. (2012) Audience engagement opportunities PCMA, UMB & VEI

(2011) Interactive components PCMA, UMB & VEI

(2011)

Barriers Create a sense of belonging Fryatt, et al. (2012) Willingness to pay Fryatt, et al. (2012) Perception of effectiveness PCMA, UMB & VEI

(2011) Attendees preoccupied with other technology

, etc.)PCMA, UMB & VEI

d one

(

nswmisrtanieaahph

tcoPwrwcu

3

t

(Facebook, email, shopping

Fig. 1. Roun

2) Individuals must have planned a virtual meeting or a hybridevent within the past two years.

The panel members were instructed to specifically address theeeds of Generation Y within the survey. At the beginning of eachection of the survey, Generation Y was noted and the age rangesere given for consideration with regard to virtual and hybrideetings throughout the survey. Although 22 participants were

ncluded and intermittently participated in all four rounds of thetudy, only 12 panel members participated in all rounds; so only theesponses of those that participated in all rounds were included inhe final results. Research notes 10–15 participants are adequate for

Delphi study in which the focus of the members does not vary sig-ificantly (Taylor-Powell, 2002; Crews, 2004). This study included

ndividuals who were all meeting professionals self-classified asither association, corporate, government or independent plannersnd their experience ranged in planning government, corporatend association meetings. Within those who participated, 100%ad been involved in planning or managing F2F meetings, 81% hadlanned/managed virtual meetings and 75% had planned/managedybrid meetings.

A Delphi study is typically conducted over a number of weekso allow participants time to complete all rounds and work towardonsensus (Ludwig, 1997). This study was conducted over a periodf eight weeks in which four rounds of the Delphi were conducted.anel members did not communicate with each other in personith regard to this study as all edits, additions, deletions and

ankings were anonymous. Participants were required to respondithin one week per round. All rounds were completed electroni-

ally and anonymously through the development of online surveyssing Qualtrics.

.3. Procedures

Once the panel members were solicited and a verbal agreemento commit was provided, a letter confirming their participation, a

(2011)

initial list.

timeline of the round delivery, and due dates were sent to eachconfirmed panel member via email. For each round an email wassent to each participant with the link to the Qualtrics survey. Oneweek was allotted for completion of each round. Three individualreminders were emailed to the panel members throughout eachweek to encourage completion.

The purpose of this study resulted in an expert panel consensuson best practices, opportunities and barriers for planning virtualand hybrid meetings for Generation Y. Assessing how meeting pro-fessionals currently plan and manage meetings for Generation Yis important due to the current needs and demands of this gener-ation (Fenich et al., 2011). As meeting planners manage and planmeetings for the newest generation to enter the labor force, it isimperative to understand how to best engage Generation Y par-ticipants (Fenich et al., 2011). In addition, the results of this studyenhance the limited body of knowledge in this area of meeting plan-ning. While adding to the existing foundation of knowledge, thereis further need for future research to support current and upcomingindustry advances and innovations.

4. Results

Through the modified Delphi, an expert panel was used todetermine best practices, opportunities and barriers for planninghybrid and virtual meetings for Generation Y. Although 22 plan-ners participated in the study, only 12 of the expert panel membersparticipated in all 4 rounds to determine best practices, opportuni-ties and barriers when planning and managing virtual and hybridmeetings for Generation Y. In Round One, the panel members weresent a list of items included for best practices, opportunities andbarriers as gleaned from industry publications (Fryatt et al., 2012b;

PCMA et al., 2011). The same items were included for both virtualand hybrid meetings and were served as a starting point for thepanel members (Crews, 2004). This initial list is provided in Fig. 1below.

2 Hospitality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254

dctcmw

rwotkmrR

•

•

•

•

••

••

vt3apfd“ara

ntimhalctma

ifiT

p“di(t

Table 1Round 3 results in order of highest mean score.

Item Mean score

VIRTUAL meetingsBest practices Include social networking component 4.8

Provide challenges to help participantsstay focused

4.67

Include interactive experiences 4.47Allow participants to share what theyhave learned as affirmation that themeeting is on track

4.47

Provide easy to use and convenienttechnology

4.40

Offer shorter sessions to remoteparticipants

4.07

Include interaction with live experts 3.87Include videos 3.73Offer same sessions to all participants 2.87

Opportunities Interactive components 4.93Audience engagement opportunities 4.86Include opportunities to keep themengaged

4.80

Creative component for participants toshow their knowledge

4.67

Gamification (include gaming withinmeeting)

4.13

Teach the teacher opportunities 4.13Grades or certificates for participation 4.13

Barriers Perception of effectiveness 4.0Attendees preoccupied withtechnology (Facebook, email, shopping,etc.)

4.0

Create a sense of belonging 3.53

HYBRID meetingsBest practices Include social networking component 4.73

Planners should collaborate withdesigners of meetings

4.67

Include technological challengeswithin material

4.67

Provide positive feedback forparticipation

4.57

Provide easy to use and convenienttechnology

4.47

Offer same sessions to all participants 4.07Include interaction with live experts 4.07Include interactive experiences 4.60Offer shorter sessions to remoteparticipants

3.67

Include videos 3.60Opportunities Include opportunities to keep them

engaged4.86

Interactive Components 4.79Include challenging but solvable gameswithin material

4.47

Barriers Keeping it challenging enough 4.40Perception of fun 4.33Attendees preoccupied withtechnology (Facebook, email, shopping,etc.)

4.27

Perception of Effectiveness 4.20

50 C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of

In Round One each panel member was instructed to keep, add,elete or edit the recommendations included within each of theategories of best practices, opportunities and barriers for Genera-ion Y for both virtual and hybrid meetings. Round Two was thenreated from the results in Round One and once distributed, panelembers were again asked to keep, add, delete or edit the itemsithin each of the three categories.

Once Round One was concluded, the only recommendation thatemained from the original list was “planners should collaborateith designers of meeting” listed within the best practices category

f virtual meetings. Through a Delphi study participants have timeo reflect upon the recommendations in Round One and Two andeep initial recommendations, delete or expand upon the recom-endations based on their experience and expertise. The following

emained on the list of recommendations after the completion ofound One and Two.

Virtual Opportunities: Include opportunities to keep themengaged.Hyrbrid Opportunities: Include opportunities to keep themengaged.The following were added to the initial list after Rounds One andTwo.Virtual Opportunities: Gamification (include gaming withinmeeting).Hybrid Best Practices: Include social networking component.Hybrid Best Practices: Include more challenging technologyopportunities.Hybrid Barriers: Keeping it challenging enough.Hybrid Barriers: Perception of fun.

After Round Two the initial list of 8 best practices expanded to 9irtual best practices and 10 hybrid. Three opportunities expandedo 7 virtual opportunities and 3 hybrid. Four barriers expanded to

virtual barriers and 6 hybrid. Throughout the process, there werelso wording changes implemented to the recommendations by theanel members for clarity. Within the category of opportunities,or example, “audience engagement opportunities” was changeduring the process and made into the two recommendations ofinclude opportunities to keep participants engaged” and “includeudience engagement opportunities.” These two recommendationseflect the need to incorporate individual as well as all-inclusiveudience engagement opportunities.

While the recommendation of, “provide easy to use and conve-ient technology” continued to be seen as a good recommendation;he participants also recognized the fact that including technolog-cal challenges within material was also a key component of the

eeting environment. While Generation Y is often associated withaving savvy technological skills, sometimes even being referred tos “digital natives”, there is evidence their use of technology is moreimited that we might expect (Selwyn, 2009). These limitations mayreate the need for easy to use and convenient technology. Genera-ion Y is also known, however, to have a short attention span, which

ight create the need for challenges throughout the meetings theyttend (Brazeel, 2009).

In Round Three, participants were asked to rank each of thetems resulting from Rounds Two. Each item was ranked based on ave point Likert scale (5 = Definitely Keep to 1 = Definitely Delete).able 1 provides further details.

The top recommendation, based on highest mean, for bestractices in both virtual and hybrid meetings was the same,include social networking components”. Social networking is

efined as engagement; people with a common interest associat-

ng together and building relationships, on a social networking siteHartshorn, 2010). This finding is in line with current trends withinhe meeting industry. Corbin Ball, recently named as one of the

Create a sense of belonging 4.07Willingness to Pay 3.37

25 most influential people in the meetings industry, stated that,“social media is changing the meeting planning landscape. . .and issteadily changing how meetings will be marketed and managed”(Ball, 2010, para. 25).

There are numerous opportunities to include social network-ing components into meetings and events. One way would beto ask attendees to share the conference information on theirsocial networks as they register. Incentives could also be used to

encourage attendees to share information about the meeting ontheir social networking sites. Twitter hashtags can be included inpromotional information and attendees can be encouraged to usethe hashtags when discussing the meeting on social media sites.

C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of Hospit

Table 2Common Consent results in order of highest mean score.

Item Mean Score

VIRTUAL meetingBest practices Include social networking components 4.58

Provide challenges to help participantsstay focused

4.58

Include interactive experiences 4.25Allow participants to share what theyhave learned as affirmation that themeeting is on track

4.25

Provide easy to use and convenienttechnology

4.17

Include interaction with live experts 3.83Offer shorter sessions to remoteparticipants

3.75

Opportunities Interactive components 4.75Creative components for participantsto show their knowledge

4.75

Include audience engagementopportunities

4.67

Include opportunities to keepparticipant (individually) engaged

4.33

Teach the teacher opportunities 4.33Grades or certificates for participation 4.17Gamification 3.67

Barriers Perception of effectiveness 3.83Attendees preoccupied withtechnology (Facebook, email, shopping,etc.)

3.58

HYBRID meetingBest practices Include social networking components 4.58

Provide positive feedback forparticipants

4.58

Planners should collaborate withdesigners of meetings

4.50

Include technological challengeswithin material

4.50

Provide easy to use and convenienttechnology

4.25

Include interactive experiences 4.25Offer same sessions to all participants 4.08Include videos 3.66Offer shorter sessions to remoteparticipants

3.58

Opportunities Include interactive components 4.67Include opportunities to keep audienceengaged

4.58

Include challenging but solvable gameswithin material

4.42

Barriers Perception of fun 4.33Keep material challenging enough 4.33Perception of effectiveness 4.08Attendees preoccupied withtechnology (Facebook, email, shopping,

3.92

Ao

t(bmmalctwhda

etc.)Create a sense of belonging 3.83

ttendees can be encouraged to upload their photos and imagesf the meeting onto their social media sites (Walter, 2011).

Interestingly, the recommendation of “include videos,” men-ioned as a way to keep participants interested during meetingsCooney, 2011b), ranked within the lowest two recommendations,ased on mean score, within the best practices category of hybrideetings on the common consent list (see Table 2). This recom-endation appeared throughout the rounds on both the virtual

nd hybrid meeting lists, but did not make the common consentist for virtual meetings. Having it fall off of the virtual meetingommon consent list does not support Cooney’s (2011a) commentshat this type of media should be used even more aggressively

ithin virtual meetings to keep participants interested. This mayave fallen off of the virtual meeting list because including videosoes not offer interactive engagement with virtual participantsnd videos may not be seen as an activity that will keep a virtual

ality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254 251

audience interested. As technology evolves, other more engagingopportunities may be taking precedence over videos.

Within the opportunities category, virtual meetings includedseven recommendations versus three recommendations for hybridthrough Round Three. The four additional recommendations(with mean score) found in virtual category included, “creativecomponent for participants to show their knowledge, 4.67,” “gam-ification (including gaming within meeting), 4.13,” “teach theteacher opportunities, 4.13,” and “grades or certificates for par-ticipation, 4.13.” These four recommendations support the studyconducted by Drago and Cunningham (2006), which lists some ofthis generation’s characteristics to include entertainment driven(gamification); exceptionally comfortable with technology (gami-fication); have a strong sense of community (creative componentsfor participants to share their knowledge, and teach the teacheropportunities); team players (creative components for participantsto share their knowledge, and teach the teacher opportunities);and more likely to engage if gaining a sense of pride and purpose(creative components for participants to share their knowledge,teach the teacher opportunities, and grades or certificates for par-ticipants). In addition, many of these items noted by panel memberspertained specifically to the perceptions of Generation Y found inother literature as well. For example, “Perception of Fun,” is in linewith Generation Y viewing learning as a fun activity (Lalia, 2011).“Gamification,” is the process of incorporating gaming into plat-forms that would not usually employ such concepts which is partof the online experience expected by Generation Y (Swan, 2012).

In Round Three, within the barriers category, both hybrid andvirtual recommendations included “perception of effectiveness,”“attendees preoccupied with technology” and “create a senseof belonging,” however, additional recommendations were listedwithin the hybrid category including “keep it challenging enough”“perception of fun,” and willingness to pay.” The lowest rankingrecommendations by mean score in each category however, aredropped from the common consent list. These include, “create asense of belonging, 3.53” in the virtual category, and “willingnessto pay, 3.37” in the hybrid category.

In Round Four, each participant was given their previous rank-ings (1–5) from Round Three, and the group mean for each item.In an effort to develop a common consent, participants were thenasked if they wanted to keep or change their answer accordingly.While Round Four did not result in a unanimous consensus with allpanel members rating a particular item as Definitely Keep(5), 33recommendations reached common consent with 2/3 of the par-ticipants rating either a 4 or 5. This common consent list of itemswithin each category of best practices, opportunities and barriersfor virtual and hybrid meetings is provided in Table 2 below.

The participants made additional changes between Round Threeand Round Four to finalize the common consent list. Within the cat-egory of best practices for virtual meetings, “include videos,” and“offer same sessions to all participants” were eliminated from thelist. For best practices for hybrid meeting, “include interaction withlive experts,” was eliminated from the list. Within the category ofbest practices, the items remained the same for both virtual andhybrid, but the order changed within the hybrid category, placing“include interactive components” above “include opportunities tokeep audience engaged.” Within the barriers category, the last itemin each category of virtual and hybrid with the lowest mean inRound Three (“create a sense of belonging” in virtual, and “will-ingness to pay” in hybrid) were eliminated from the list.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study are the result of the contributionsand participation of meeting planner professionals. The 12 panelmembers who participated in all rounds of this study were

2 Hospitality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254

spwTpcuo

TabdtCtli(

cloincrwtpmolerwnwrii

at“miiooeowwpttcriC

bwtC

Table 3Items resulting from round 3, but not reaching common consent.

Item Mean

VIRTUAL meetingBest practices Include videos 3.41

Offer same sessions to all participants 2.75Barriers Create a sense of belonging 3.5

HYBRID meeting

52 C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of

elf-identified as association, government, corporate and inde-endent planners who have planned virtual or hybrid meetingsithin the past two years and have at least five years of experience.

hrough their recent and/or current involvement with meetinglanning of virtual and hybrid meetings, confirmed via phoneonversation, it was ensured they could provide current andp-to-date information with regard to the needs and requirementsf Generation Y.

Through the utilization of the GCT, Generation Y was targeted.he GCT describes groups, or generations, as people born within

defined timeframe, who have had like experiences and haveeen exposed to important emotional occurrences during theirevelopmental years (Strauss and Howe, 1991). These occurrencesend to create like attitudes, values, and perceptions (Brosdahl andarpenter, 2012; Meredith et al., 2007). Generation Y was chosen ashe group of study for this research due to their advanced techno-ogical skills and due to the perception that this generation requiresnnovative and new technology within the meetings they attendFenich et al., 2011).

Throughout the four rounds of the study, modifications andhanges to the original items, gleaned from recent industry pub-ications were made within the three categories of best practices,pportunities and barriers for virtual and hybrid meetings. Thesetems were chosen because they had all been recently recog-ized as important factors within each area respectively. The listonsisted of eight best practices, three opportunities and four bar-iers included for both virtual and hybrid meetings. The same listas given for each category of virtual and hybrid meetings. From

he original list, only four out of the eight recommendations for bestractices remained within the virtual category. Three new recom-endations were added to the final list. For hybrid meeting, six

f the eight original items for best practices remained on the finalist, and three new recommendations were added. Within the cat-gory of opportunities, two of the three original recommendationsemained for virtual meetings, and five new recommendationsere added. Two out of the three recommendations in the opportu-ities category for hybrid remained, and one new recommendationas added. Within the barriers category, two of the four original

ecommendations remained from the original list for virtual meet-ngs, and none were added. For hybrid, three of the four originaltems remained as barriers, and two were added.

Gaming as a topic, although not included in the original list,ppears twice on the common consent list for Generation Y withinhe opportunities section for both virtual and hybrid meetings.Gamification” and “Include challenging but solvable games withinaterials” offers two opportunities to meeting professionals. By

ncluding gaming elements into virtual or hybrid meetings, bothndividual and audience engagement would be enhanced andpportunities provided. While there are many different types ofpportunities in which to add gaming to a meeting or event, onexample would be a game that was implemented for the attendeesf the 2011 EventCamp Vancouver. During this meeting, attendeesere asked to voluntarily play a game called Get Your Green Onhich was designed to show how sustainability could be incor-orated into meetings and events. Attendees were asked to useheir mobile devices (or they were provided with one) to volun-arily participate. The game included both individual and grouphallenges, and through their participation, attendees were able toaise money for the BC Cancer Foundation. Throughout this meet-ng, 1715 acts of green were achieved and $1500 was raised for theancer Foundation within 2.5 days (Endean, 2013).

The findings of the Delphi study also indicate that positive feed-

ack is necessary when executing (successful) hybrid meetingshich supports the Generation Y characteristic of “more likely

o engage of gaining a sense of pride and purpose” (Drago andunningham, 2006). For virtual meetings, one of the results within

Best practices Include interaction with live experts 3.66Barriers Willingness to Pay 3.58

the opportunities category included, “offer grades or certificates forparticipation.” This can also be viewed as a form of positive feed-back and supports the aforementioned characteristics. Grades (orcertificates) can be distributed at the end of each session attendedor at the end of each conference. Meeting facilitators can be coachedto give positive feedback to participants as they engage duringthe session meetings. In addition, participation highlights can beattributed to participants and further discussed in larger groupsessions for additional positive reinforcement.

Within the common consent list, there are a number of oppor-tunities for meeting professionals to combine efforts to satisfy therequirements and needs of Generation Y within the virtual andhybrid meeting arena. By including social networking componentsinto both virtual and hybrid meeting, for example, opportunitiescan be given to allow for participant feedback in addition to allow-ing for audience and individual engagement opportunities. All ofthe recommendations are used to enhance the experience of theGeneration Y meeting attendees and can be used to attract themto these meetings. By determining how to best address the needsof Generation Y, meeting planners are working to make attendeesfeel more comfortable, a key component of success as noted byVandenberg and Reese (2011).

Five items included in Round 3 that did not gain common con-sent within Round 4 are provided in Table 3. The highest meanscore of the items that did not make the common consent list was3.66, therefore while important enough for the planners to includeit within the first three rounds; it was dismissed from the final rec-ommendations. Since these items made it through the first threerounds of the study, they should be further investigated in terms ofimportance to virtual and hybrid meetings.

Technology is continuously evolving and Generation Y is con-tinuously aging, so the importance of these items as viewed byGeneration Y may change in the future as well. Interestingly, whiletechnology is being incorporated into the future of meetings (vir-tual and hybrid) it also appeared as a barrier for this generationwithin both categories. There is an obvious concern that whilethis generation is technologically savvy, and immersed withintechnology, they are also preoccupied with technology. “Includ-ing social networking components” appeared at the top of eachof the recommendations lists for both virtual and hybrid meet-ings, yet “attendees preoccupied with technology (Facebook, email,shopping, etc.)” appeared in the barriers category for both virtualand hybrid meetings. “Provide easy to use and convenient technol-ogy” also appeared in both best practices category, contrasting with“include technological challenges” which appeared in the hybridbest practices category.

These contradictory findings may indicate planners are strug-gling with the best ways to incorporate technology for thisgeneration, in addition to the possible reality versus myth ofthis generations’ technological savvy. While Generation Y is oftenperceived as the “digital native” generation, having advanced tech-

nological skills, there is evidence that their use of technology ismore limited than we might expect (Selwyn, 2009). Since virtualand hybrid meetings are still fairly new genres of meetings, there

Hospit

moaa

omtcasito

go“ntGsycttvTst

bmptmineoom

5

ertwk

6

cvogapwtw

i

C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of

ust be further exploration of how to best accommodate technol-gy within these meetings for this generation. There appears to bedditional questions that still need to be addressed in order to bestccommodate these individuals.

Another notable finding resulting from this research is the focusn feedback for the participants, especially noted within the virtualeeting category. “Creative components for participants to show

heir knowledge;” “teach the teacher opportunities;” “grades orertificates for participation;” all coincide with the known char-cteristics of Generation Y “more likely to engage if gaining aense of pride and purpose” (Drago and Cunningham, 2006). Find-ng this within the virtual meeting category only may emphasizehe challenge of keeping this generation engaged through virtualpportunities.

Within hybrid meetings, on the other hand, the barriers cate-ory included more recommendations focused on the experiencef the meeting. “Perception of fun;” “create a sense of belonging;”keep material challenging enough” and “perception of effective-ess” (also included in virtual) all relate to the overall experience ofhe participant. This supports the finding of Fjelstul et al. (2012) thateneration Y views meetings as social events, yet they take themeriously. They want meetings to be fun with a sense of belonging,et challenging and effective as well. Projecting these perceptionsould be a component of marketing and could be accomplishedhrough the use of testimonials from previous conferences, tes-imonials from planners as they prepare for the conference, andisuals of individuals displaying the particular behavior (i.e. fun).hese examples could be used within promotional materials, onocial networking sites, media sites and within other forms of dis-ribution.

While there were recommendations found on both lists forest practices, opportunities and barriers for virtual and hybrideeting, planners should look at each list independently when

lanning either of these meetings for Generation Y. The oppor-unities category for each offer planner’s suggestions specific to

eeting type with virtual focusing on feedback and hybrid focus-ng on engagement. Within the barriers category, virtual meetingseed to consider the perception of effectiveness and how to betterngage participants to avoid them being preoccupied with technol-gy, For hybrid meetings, planners need to consider the perceptionf fun and effectiveness and look at the overall experience theeeting will provide for this generation.

.1. Limitations

One limitation of this study is while the planners did representight states across the United States, more states could have beenepresented for a wider range of perspectives to be included withinhis study. In addition, no international planners were includedithin this study which would have added to the depth of the

nowledge gained through this process.

. Conclusion

Based on the findings of this study, meeting planners shouldonsider the needs and demands of Generation Y when planningirtual and/or hybrid meetings in which they are involved. Basedn panel member feedback, virtual and hybrid meetings were eachiven different recommendations for best practices, opportunitiesnd barriers. For both virtual and hybrid meetings, planners shouldrovide easy to use and convenient technology, offering a some-hat different perspective to the perception of this group being

echnologically savvy and requiring more technological demandsithin meetings (Fenich et al., 2011).

Within the virtual category, planners also are recommendingncluding a more human factor within these meetings such as

ality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254 253

interaction with live experts, interactive experiences and allow-ing participants to share information. Several of these interactivecomponents were also seen as opportunities such as keeping theaudience and individuals engaged, gamification, sharing knowl-edge and teach the teacher components. With regard to virtualmeetings, there was a concern or barrier seen for the perceptionof effectiveness of these meetings.

In addition to overlapping recommendations found within bothcategories, the recommendations for hybrid meetings also includedhaving the planners collaborate with the designers of the meet-ing, provide positive feedback to participants and include videos.Within the barriers section, planners should consider the per-ception of fun, keep material challenging and create a senseof belonging for attendees. As noted in a previous study byVandenberg and Reese (2011), there are recommendations thatsupport creating a positive environment in both virtual and hybridmeetings.

Preferred methods of reinforcing feedback are one area thatcould be further explored. How does this generation want to receivefeedback? Do they prefer feedback online or in person? Who dothey want this feedback from and in what form? By engaging ahybrid audience in a focus group discussing preferred methodsof feedback may be one opportunity worth exploring. Catchingthe attendees within the meeting may prompt and fuel valuablediscussion about possible opportunities existing within this area.By understanding how positive feedback would be most effec-tive, both planners and attendees could benefit by implementingthese opportunities within their meetings. Generational informa-tion could also continue to be compared depending on the audienceinvolved within this focus group.

Now that a consensus from meeting planners has been identi-fied with regard to best practices, opportunities, and barriers forvirtual and hybrid meetings, this information can now be usedto create a questionnaire to be distributed to virtual and hybridmeeting attendees. By first determining what was currently beingutilized and observed by meeting planners actively planning vir-tual and hybrid meetings, future research can assist in determiningif these findings are supported or enhanced by meeting attendees.Is there agreement between the two groups and are the perceptionsthe same?

With technology ever-evolving and more Generation Y employ-ees entering the workforce each year, it is important to re-addressthis topic often as meeting professionals gain more experiencein working with this audience, and as the needs of this audiencecontinue to progress. Yearly survey questionnaires at a specific con-ference, for example, could be utilized to determine the changesover time with regard to the use of technology. By comparing tech-nology use by generations over time, it would become evidentif all generations are merging and using technology at the samepace, or if some generations remain advanced or behind within thisarea. By providing such a foundation for meeting planners to workwith when planning these types of meetings for Generation Y, thisresearch is providing a valuable tool for meeting professionals aswell as offering a foundation on which academic research can bebuilt upon. Academic research in this area is lacking, however, thereis a need to better understand how these types of meetings willimpact the MEEC industry going forward and how the continuedevolution of these meetings will impact the generations involvedin both planning and attending them.

References

Baker, M.B., 2009. Embracing Mtgs. Management practices. Business Travel News26 (18), 24–25.

Ball, C., 2010. Social media–a new paradigm for meetings. In: Corbin BallAssociates: The Meeting Technology Professionals., pp. 25, Retrieved on

2 Hospit

B

BB

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

C

D

D

D

E

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

G

H

H

H

K

K

54 C.B. Sox et al. / International Journal of

January 27, 2013 from http://www.corbinball.com/articles technology/index.cfm?fuseaction=cor av&artID=6680

allone, C., 2007. Consulting your clients to leverage the multi-generational work-force. Journal of Practical Consulting 2 (1), 9–15.

oone, L., Kurtz, D., 2001. Contemporary Marketing. Harcourt, Inc., Orlando, FL.razeel, S., 2009. Recruitment practices and generational characteristics. Offshore

69 (12), 2.rosdahl, D.J.C., Carpenter, J.M., 2012. U.S. male generational cohorts: retail for-

mat preferences, desired retail attributes, satisfaction and loyalty. Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services 19 (6), 545–552.

ain, S., 2011. Virtual goes mainstream. Smart Meetings: The Intelligent Wayto Plan, Retrieved from http://smartmeetings.com/event-planning-magazine/2011/06/virtual-goes-mainstram

anton, R., 2011. New research quantifies the meetings industry. Hotel Management226 (5), 22.

arlson Wagonlit Travel, 2010. Meetings and events: Where savings meets success,Retrieved January 8, 2013 from http://www.carlsonwagonlit.com/en/global/tmi/etm/meetings and events.html?src=EMO70102065

atalyst, 2012. Catalyst Quick Take: Generations in the Workplace in theUnited States & Canada. Catalyst, New York, Retrieved on July 7, 2013 fromhttp://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/generations-workplace-united-states-canada

etron, M.J., Davies, O., 2008. Trends shaping tomorrow’s world. The Futurist 42 (2),35–52.

hudoba, K., Watson-Manheim, M., Crowston, K., Chei Sian, L., 2011. Participation inICT-enabled meetings. Journal of Organizational & End User Computing 23 (2),15–36.

ooney, B., 2011a. Getting to great with virtual meetings. Medical Meetings 38 (7),25–27.

ooney, B., 2011b. 12 best practices for hybrid meetings. MeetingsNet.com,Retrieved on May 1, 2013 from http://meetingsnet.com/virtualhybrid/12-best-practices-hybrid-meetings

ornish, 1977. The study of the future. World Future Society, Bethesda, Maryland,Washington, DC.

rews, T.B., 2004. Telecommunications course content: input from information tech-nology professionals. Journal of Information Systems Education 15 (4), 417–425.

onohoe, H.M., Needham, R.D., 2009. Moving best practice forward: Delphi charac-teristics, advantages, potential problems, and solutions. International Journal ofTourism Research 11 (5), 415–437.

oyle, M., 2013. Virtual event definitions. Virtual Edge Community, Retrieved onJanuary 8, 2013 from www.virtualedge.org/page/virtual-event-definitions

rago, J.P., Cunningham, G.K., 2006. Generational theory: implications for recruit-ing the Millenials. USA Strategy Research Project. US Army War College,pp. 1–27.

ndean, T., 2013. Why social gaming will amaze at your next meeting orevent. Corporate Meetings Network, Retrieved on April 30, 2013 from:http://www.corporatemeetingsnetwork.ca/news/Social-gaming-corporate-meetings-events-515-1.html

eldman, R., 2009. Going virtual: Some benefits of virtual events, RetrievedJanuary 22, 2013 from Corbin Ball Associates, http://www.corbinball.com/research/2010/edmvgforecast10.pdf

enich, G.G., 2012. Meetings, Expositions, Events and Conventions: An Introductionto the Industry. Pearson Hall, Boston, MA.

enich, G.G., Scott-Halsell, S., Hasimoto, K., 2011. An investigation of technologicaluses by different generations as it relates to meetings and events: a pilot study.Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 12, 53–63.

enich, G.G., Scott-Halsell, S., Ogbeide, G.C., 2012. What the Millenial genera-tion prefers in their meetings conventions and events. A PCMA EducationFoundation Grant Funded Research Paper, Retrieved on April 30, 2013 fromhttp://dev.pcma.org/docs/be-in-the-know-docs/millenial generation findings.pdf?sfvrsn=0

jelstul, J., Severt, K., Breiter, D., 2012. A meeting industry take on Generation Y. MPIFoundation, March., pp. 1–10.

riedman, D., Karniel, Y., Dinur, A., 2009. Comparing group discussion in virtual andphysical environments. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 18 (4),286–293.

ryatt, J., Garriga Mora, R.G., Janssen, R., John, R., Smith, S., 2012a. Hybrid meetingsand events. MPI Foundation. Meeting Professionals International.

ryatt, J., Janssen, R.W., John, R., Garriga Mora, R., Smith, S., 2012b. Lessons learned:Hybrid meetings. Meeting Professionals International, Retrieved January 10,2013 from http://www.mpiweb.org/ secure/HybridLessons.pdf

rass Roots, 2013. Grass Roots meetings industry report 2013, Retrieved August 30,2013 from http://www.grassrootshbi.com/media/29267/grass-roots-meetings-industry-report-2013-2013-market-analysis-2013-forecast.pdf

artshorn, S., 2010. 5 differences between social media and social net-working. Socialmedia today, Retrieved on January 26, 2013 fromhttp://socialmediatoday.com/index.php?q=SMC/194752

ewlett, S., Sherbin, L., Sumberg, K., 2009. How Generation Y & Boomers will reshapeyour agenda. Harvard Business Review 87 (7/8), 71–76.

icks, R., Hicks, K., 1999. Boomers, Xers, and Other Strangers. Tyndale House Pub-lishers, Illinois.

im, D., Park, O., 2009. A study on American meeting planners’ attitudes toward andadoption of technology in the workplace. Tourism & Hospitality Research 9 (3),209–223, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/thr.2008.44.

oontz, H., O’Donnell, C., 1976. Management: A Systems and Contingency Analysisof Managerial Functions, 6th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.

ality Management 36 (2014) 244– 254

LaBonty, D., Scott, J.C., 1993. Perceptions of experts about business teacher educa-tion: a Delphi study. Journal of Education for Business 69 (2), 99–104.

Lalia, R., 2011. Millinials and meetings: here today and tomorrow. Meetings & Con-ventions 46 (8), 86.

Lancaster, L., Stillman, D., 2005. When Generations Collide. Harper Collins Publish-ers, Inc., New York.

Lee, M., Back, K., 2005. A review of convention and meeting management research1990–2003: identification of statistical methods and subject areas. Journal ofConvention & Event Tourism 7 (2), 1–20.

Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., 1975. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications.Addison-Wesley, London.

Ludwig, B., 1997. Predicting the future: have you considered using the Delphimethodology? Journal of Extension 35 (5).

McBeath, T., 2009. Recruiting Generation Y: the role of authority in higher educationadvertising. In: American Academy of Advertising Conference Proceedings, p. 21.

Meredith, G.E., Schewe, C.D., Karlovich, J., 2007. Defining Markets, DefiningMoments: America’s 7 Generational Cohorts, Their Shared Experiences, and WhyBusinesses Should Care. Booklocker Publishers, Retrieved, February 21, 2013 athttp://assets.booklocker.com/pdfs/2780.pdf

Mullich, J., 2009. The new face of face to face meetings. The Wall StreetJournal, Retrieved on August 29, 2013 from http://online.wsj.com/ad/article/globaltravel-face

Murphy, K., Olsen, M., 2008. Dimensions of a high performance management system:an exploratory study of the US casual restaurant segment. International Journalof Contemporary Hospitality Management 21 (7), 836–853.

Noble, S., Noble, C., 2000. Getting to know Y: the consumption behaviors ofa new cohort. American Marketing Association, Conference Proceedings 11,293–300.

Pearlman, D.M., Gates, N.A., 2010. Hosting business meetings and special events invirtual worlds: a fad or the future? Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 11(4), 247–265, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2010.530535.

Pizam, A., 2011. Virtual Meetings: if you can’t fight them, join them. InternationalJournal of Hospitality Management 3, 1–2.

Professional Convention Management Association, UBM Studios, & Virtual EdgeInstitute, 2011. Business motivations and social behaviors for in-person andonline events. http://virtualedgeinstitute.com

Puybaraud, M., Russell, S., MsEwan, A.M., Leussink, E., 2010. Generation Yand the workplace annual report 2010. Johnson Controls, Retrieved onAugust 30, 2013 from http://www.gbcsa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/NZGBC-Gen-Y-and-The-Workplace-Annual-Report-2010.pdf

Rhoads, M., 2010. Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication: what doestheory tell us and what have we learned so far? Journal of Planning Literature25 (2), 111–122.

Selwyn, N., 2009. The digital native – myth and reality. Aslib Proceedings 61 (4),364–379.

Sessa, V.I., Kabacoff, R.I., Deal, J., Brown, H., 2007. II. Research tools for thepsychologist-manager: generational differences in leader values and leadershipbehaviors. Psychologist-Manager Journal (Taylor & Francis Ltd) 10 (1), 47–74,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10887150701205543.

Sheivachman, A., 2011. Meetings industry a significant driver of roomnights. HotelManagement (21582122) 226 (4), 6–49.

Smith, S.L., Kline, S.F., 2010. Crisis preparedness and meeting planners’ perceptions.Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 11 (1), 62–78.

Stapinski, H., 1999. Y not love? American Demographics 21, 62–69.Stitt-Gohdes, W.L., Crews, T.B., 2004. The Delphi technique: a research strategy for

career and technical education. Journal of Career and Technical Education 20(4.), 55–67.

Strauss, W., Howe, N., 1991. Consumer Behavior. They Dryden Press, London.Swan, C., 2012. Gamification: a new way to shape behavior. Communica-

tion World 29 (3), 13–14, December 22. Retrieved January 8, 2013 fromhttp://certi.mst.edu/media/administrative/certi/documents/Article-Millennial-Behaviors.pdf

Taylor-Powell, E., 2012. Quick tips collecting data: Delphi technique. Uni-versity of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, Retrieved December, 31, 2002http://www.uwex\.edu/ces/pdande/resources/pdf/Tipsheet4.pdf

Tsui, B., 2001. Generation next. Advertising Age 72 (3), 14–15.Twenge, J., Campbell, S., 2008. Generational differences in psychological traits and

their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23.Vandenberg, L., Reese, L., 2011. Virtual training or virtual success: Michigan State

University extension’s virtual conference. Journal of Extension 49 (6), 14.Van-Ness, R.K., Ferrara, S., Gozu, C., 2012. Collegiate schools of business: now what?

Thoughts of generational cohorts. Journal of International Management Studies12 (4), 46–59.

Walter, E., 2011. 15 ways to bring social media to events. Social Media Exam-inier, Retrieved April 30, 2013 from http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/15-ways-to-bring-social-media-to-events/

Wesley, E., 2009. Yahoo! Contributor Network. http://voices.yahoo.com/names-generation-y-4071449.html

Wolburg, J., Pokrywczynski, J., 2001. A psychographic analysis of Generation Y col-lege students. Journal of Advertising Research, 33–52.

Yousuf, M.I., 2007. Using expert’s opinions through Delphi technique. Practical

Assessment, Research & Evaluation 12 (4), 1–8.

Zikhur, K., 2011. Pew Internet and American Life ProjectGenerations 2010 (updatedwith 2011 information). Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew ResearchCenter for the People and the Press, Washington, DC, Retrieved on April 22, 2013from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Generations-2010.aspx