Let's meet...

Question of the day from Michelle Martin, over in the Bamboo project is: Why does the face-to-face model of sharing information persist?  She wonders, like I do, why the first reaction to getting something done for many people is to suggest a face-to-face meeting.

Michelle also talks about Cliff Allen's chart at SuretoMeet who suggests that if people are short on time and they need to gather information, then online is the way to do it, while if they are trying to build relationships and to become motivated and inspired, then face-to-face is the answer.

I don't think it's so clear cut as for time efficiency go online and for relationship-building go face-to-face. In fact some of my experience would suggest that the opposite is true and I think it depends on the people and the context rather than the notions of time efficiency and relationship-building.

As it happens I've just finished an interview where I was asked this question:

Our face-to-face meetings have been more mobilising and more fruitful than the online communication. Doesn’t that mean that there should be more face-to-face in the starting period?

And this was my reply:

Face-to-face meetings are often mobilising and fruitful, which is why you have to make the most of them. They are also a luxury. Many people - especially as our communities span wider geographical locations - don’t have the choice of lots of face-to-face in the starting period and so it’s not an option for them.

My own thoughts on this - and I know there are others who differ - is that face-to-face meetings are much richer if they begin with online interactions. There is a lot you can do online in preparation for meeting face-to-face, so that when you come together you have already created a shared context for your face-to-face connections.

Online and face-to-face, or rather all the different modalities of meeting and being together, bring out different aspects of people’s personality. For example, I’m a different person on the phone (which I dislike) than I am in text (which I love) and than I am in person (where I’m rather shy). The richness of using different modes for communicating is that you get to know many more parts of another person, giving you different entry points to their knowledge, their ways of being, and the points of connection between you.

Another observation about working in different modes is that there are different types of power relations in each mode. A face-to-face leader who is not adept at communicating online may find their comfort zone stretched in online interactions. In the same way someone who is active and participative online may not hold the same sway in face-to-face settings. This opportunity to mix modes, redistribute power relations, and encompass different ways of working is complicated and rather nerve-racking, but it is driving innovation and (re-)shaping our social relations.

We have much more experience of working face-to-face, so privileging the face-to-face in the starting period can make it too easy not to explore online ways of being together, missing the multi-dimensional aspects of working and relating. If you meet and develop a working relationship online with someone, then you are usually curious and interested to meet people face-to-face. If you meet and develop a working relationship face-to-face with someone, then you often wait for the next face-to-face encounter to continue working together. That’s why I think it’s better not to have lots of face-to-face in the beginning.

Comments

[Michele Martin]

Bev, I love what you say here about how the different modalities of interaction change and enhance power relationships and our sense of each person's personality and contributions. We need all formats to really have the richest connections. Great point!

Also--the learning cycle is one of action/reflection/action/reflection. To me, face-to-face tends to favor action in many ways, while online interactions tend to favor reflection--at least in terms of how I see most meetings being run. Ideally both modalities would embrace both activities, but in those cases where they don't, then at least the nature of those modalities can enhance the process.

And on a purely logistical level, as you point out with using online activities prior to a face-to-face meeting, it really can make your f2f meetings more valuable and productive if you've done some prior work online. You definitely get more bang for the buck!

Again, great post and thanks for sharing this!

[Barb McD]

Bev, I can attest to the richness that spending time online meant for my husband and me when we met f2f. We chatted (and used many other web-based tools) for 2-1/2 years BEFORE we met f2f. In that 2-1/2 years we had fallen in love, but needed the f2f experience to see if the chemistry was there. It was. This whole notion that f2f is required to really get to know someone just doesn't jive with my experience (and I'm not talking about only my husband). There is can be mobilization and fruitfulness online, when it's needed. For what it's worth, I've been married for almost 5 years and I have yet to be surprised by anything my husband has said or done. I had learned all about him without any f2f interaction.

[Beverly Trayner]

That's a great example Barb that I had forgotten about when I was writing. Your story makes me wonder if you would have reached the same point in your relationship now if it had begun f2f, or if your relationship is different because it began f2f.