Recently, a client asked me why I was “so obsessed with web cams”. To give you context, he was challenging me on why I felt it was important to have a video link for our up-coming conference call. A lot of my work is done via video calls and interestingly, you would be surprised at how many people I drag kicking and screaming to engage in this technology.
Not surprisingly, the more senior the client, the greater the resistance. I too have been around for a long time, and while I would never be described as a technology guru, I do try and keep up with advances that allow for better business.
Many years ago, web cams weren’t available. Meetings were generally in person. Follow-up meetings where physically meeting wasn’t warranted, either because of time or expense of travel, were conducted on the phone. If more than two people were involved, a conference call was arranged, and that took some effort.
One of the most significant shifts in face to face meetings followed the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York. Air travel took on a whole new level of complexity and rigor. Companies clamped down expenses, instead promoting the use of communication technologies available at that time. You may not remember, but web conferencing wasn’t one of those technologies. Yes, the web cam had been invented, but there wasn’t near enough penetration in the business community to provide a user friendly and dependable option.
To understand where conference calling falls short, you need to understand when the conference call was created.
Although the original concept was invented by Bell Labs in 1956, it wasn’t until the late seventies that it became a viable option. It was a time of regulation in the world of telephony, making the use of conference calling labor intensive and costly.
It was also a time before the internet, a time before technology had created the now ubiquitous distractions we all fall prey to. Email, texting, web surfing, etc. are now commonplace in any office environment. Unfortunately, these distractions all too often capture the attention of someone who should be following a conference call, but has checked out.
Beyond the issue of engagement however, one needs to understand the difference between a live meeting and a phone call.
Conference calling, or even the one on one phone call is a linear exchange. We hear each others voices and communicate through words and the inflection or syntax of one’s voice. But we miss out on a whole lot more.
In person, we share considerably more than we do on the phone.
The first things to go are the distractions. Emailing, texting while on mute or believe it or not, following the ball game – yes, the ball game – are now all off the table. Participation is required, tuning out almost impossible. Meetings become way more productive as engagement and contribution increases. Time is saved because things don’t have to be repeated to those who “didn’t hear” what was being said, read, following the ball game.
More importantly though, is the benefit of adding the third dimension, because the communication is no longer unidimensional.
This is the dimension of the person’s face. Their expressions and reactions are all captured in the face to face, and lost without it.
Video conference calls, while not as powerful as the in person variant, none the less allow each participant a deeper level of engagement. The video portion allows us to see how the people talking are expressing themselves physically but equally important, allow us to see how the others react; not possible on a conference call.
Body language and facial expressions are shared for all to see. This is a language that is integral in effective communication because effective communication is emotive. Much is lost when you can’t see someone smiling or appearing cynical.
An in person meeting will always be the best choice, but when that’s not an option, if you want the full story, remember the webcam.