Are In-Person Meetings Essential?
July 10th, 2009
Last week I was doing some consulting work here in Dallas and attended a strategy and planning meeting for an upcoming event. While the majority of people attending the meeting were Dallas locals, two individuals had flown in from out of state for a 3-hour meeting.
As the meeting concluded, one of the executives commented that it was nice having the out-of-towners fly in to attend the meeting in person. Then they exchanged comments about hating conference calls and meeting over the phone, complaining how it just wasn’t the same. This my friend, is Sludge.
Sure, virtual meetings aren’t quite the same as face-to-face contact, but I couldn’t help but wonder, when are we going to let go of our old, outdated beliefs about how work happens?! Consider the expense and the environmental impact of flying people into town, renting a car, staying overnight at a hotel for a 3-hour meeting. And did I mention the other consultants and I had to fight rush-hour traffic, sitting on the highway for about an hour each way to commute into Dallas?
This may sound harsh, but meetings aren’t about enjoying the company of your coworkers in person and they aren’t about using your preferred communication method. Meetings are—or at least should be—about accomplishing a specific result. There should be a clear outcome for each meeting you attend and the meeting should be accomplished in the medium (in-person, conference call, webinar, etc) that makes the most sense. And p.s. a status update doesn’t warrant a meeting.
In our meeting last week we had specific outcomes and results we needed to answer by the end of the meeting. And we did. But we could have reached the same conclusions by meeting virtually, saving everyone time, money, and lessening our impact on the environment.
What do you think? Are in-person meetings essential? If so, when? What difference would it make in your life and your organization if you attended fewer in-person meetings?
I’m with you Ashley! While some in-person meetings might be essential – the vast majority of them are not and, as you stated, are just people and organizations refusing to let go of their outdated thinking about “the way we have always done things”.
As someone who has worked and lived in New York, New Jersey, and Boston in the past I am no stranger to sitting in way too much traffic – or enduring wasted time on crowded public transportation for a short meeting that would have been just as effective on the phone or via a webinar.
Some companies and people get this – and all I can hope is that the others will come around eventually – although the pace is a bit too slow for my liking.
Great question Ashley and one I’m passionate about.
I wonder if those people calculated the ROI of that face-to-face meeting? Those calcuations need to include the dollar value of their time, the travel time, expenses related to the travel, etc. I think it depends upon the type of meeting whether it should be face-to-face or virtual. I believe that people attend most conferences and events because of the face-to-face experiences they have there. Not necessarily because of content only. Those face-to-face interactions provide more than that.
If it’s a meeting with specific goals and outcomes, I agree with you and Phil that the stinkin’ thinkin’ of face-to-face meetings only shows an old-school philosophy that won’t make it in a Web 2.0 connected world.
I agree with Jeff that it depends on the type of meeting but… face-to-face accomplishes one big thing in helping to build the relationship. Once you’ve met f2f, I agree that you can take and build the relationship online.
Going back 10 years to our Netpreneur Coffee & Donuts get-togethers, I realized how potent f2f was in conjunction with the online thing. We are doing more and more events these days and once again, I realize that virtual and traditional relationship building are a potent punch. ie: excitement generated at our live tweetups are in part, a result of the work we do online as a lead-up to the event.
But again, Ashley is talking about small, internal meetings while I’m referring to events. Does it make a difference?
btw, Ashley- beautiful blog and design work! Thanks.
Ashley, this was an ongoing issue with a former business partner…and we lived in the same town! What we came to realize is that she values in person connection to get work done, and I prefer the phone. We both value connection and results, and yet she is first and foremost connection drive, and I am first and foremost results driven.
What this meant for us is that we had to mix it up to stay in partnership. I have to say I really step on my “green” values when I get in the car for a meeting I could have easily handled on the phone. In fact, green values were at the top of my list when I was switching careers 5 years ago–and it’s why I coach on the phone and not in person.
Sticky…yes?
I don’t think in-person interviews are essential, but I would certainly say they’re not the same. I don’t think being honest about that is sludge – it’s simply stating a reality as one individual may see it.
During our conversation last week for my podcast, we discussed the concept of work and team culture in a ROWE. Face-to-face meetings DO help develop a sense of team and organizational culture, and I do feel that something is lost when you dial in.
Does the work still get accomplished? Usually. But the level of engagement might not be there. I think that’s a legitimate problem with ROWE.
@Chris – Good points. The conversation I witnessed implied a sense of superiority of f2f meetings over conference calls. And the negativity around anything less felt like sludge to me. f2f meetings have their place, but I believe the intended outcome of the meeting should determine the format–it’s simply not necessary to create a sense of org culture & engagement in every single meeting.
I completely agree with Ashley that the purpose should drive the format. Saying that f2f meetings develop sense of team and culture implies that work is a social club. Some people need those types of human connections to perform, but in the end those connections will not be the driving factor to whether results are produced; in fact, they could be more of a distraction to the results.
One meeting we have is a perfect example to this issue. We have a recurring ‘coordination’ meeting every Monday that supposedly is for discussing projects that will be worked on during the week. Originally, projects were discussed among the people directly working on them. However, other members of the department (especially support staff, who don’t directly work on projects) felt left out because the director usually was at that meeting and sometimes would offer company information. Now, the meeting has devolved into a department f2f (nearly all the department attends) with the director where very little actually gets resolved or coordinated since most of the information gets covered in other meetings during the week. There’s nothing gained by this f2f meeting other than to offer a venue for socializing with other department members.
Having watched the MLB All-Star Game last night made me think that ROWE is really like a baseball team. There is a main focus (result) for players, which is to win games. Their team culture is not built in team meetings – it’s built on their goal of winning. Although friendships deveop among players because of meeting through the team, those friendships don’t drive their results on the field and they use their time away from the field to maintain their friendships.
In general, you don’t need every meeting to be f2f to get real results – all you need are defined expectations and accountability. When that is the focus, format should be optional and everyone should recognize that.
I like the baseball team analogy Matt made. Friendships and social time are nice, but they don’t drive the results a company’s going for.
I personally am not a fan of phone conferences because I often can’t hear, or there are side conversations going on that I’m not sure if they concern me or not, where if I were physically there, I could see by body language that two people were just having an aside and it didn’t concern me. But most phone meetings I’ve been to are as productive as the f2f ones. And my irritation at not always being able to hear is definitely not worth an hour’s drive each way to attend a meeting at a different office. 10 seconds wasted with me saying “Could you repeat that?” versus two hours wasted.
If you want to do team-building and socializing face-to-face, make it optional and make it for the express purpose of socializing and team-building. The people who find it valuable will go, and the people who don’t won’t. ROWE is all about identifying what your actual goals are and then meeting them, so if you have an actual goal of using face-time to build up warm fuzzies, there are ways to do that that don’t interfere with getting things done, and that don’t drag people across the country for a face-to-face meeting.