Principle
Do not claim a meeting nudge worked from awareness alone
People noticing the meeting more is not the same as the meeting becoming better.
When it fits
- A new meeting prompt, agenda tool or AI assistant makes people report more reflection but the real outcome is uncertain.
When to avoid it
- The 2026 field experiment tested one specific nudge; a null effect there does not prove every meeting reflection tool is ineffective.
Why it matters
Measure the intended outcome separately from proximal signals such as awareness, prompt completion or self-reported preparation. A tool can change how people think about meetings without measurably improving effectiveness. Keep both results: the mechanism signal may be useful, but it does not substitute for the outcome.
An example
If a goal prompt increases preparation awareness but meeting effectiveness does not improve, report both instead of advertising 'better meetings.'
Check your result
The evaluation can distinguish a changed behavior or perception from the outcome the intervention was meant to improve.
Keep this limit in mind
- The 2026 field experiment tested one specific nudge; a null effect there does not prove every meeting reflection tool is ineffective.
Connected ideas
Useful withAssume the measurement can change the behavior
Evidence and sources
In the 2026 preregistered field experiment, the pre-meeting goal-reflection intervention did not produce a statistically significant improvement in the primary meeting-effectiveness outcome.
A null primary effect in this implementation does not prove that all goal reflection is ineffective.
Nudging Attention to Workplace Meeting Goals: A Large-Scale, Preregistered Field Experiment · Abstract results