We can hold conference calls with colleagues from all over, and do it basically for free. Tiny videocams built into laptop computers—that are themselves millions of times more powerful than the computers used to fly men to the moon in the 1960s—allow real-time visual meetups, saving time and money, making business run better and progress move faster. Still, no matter how far we have come, in-person meetings are better than data-mediated connections.
As the perceptive comedian Louis CK puts it so hilariously and accurately, way too many people today take the wonders of modern technology for granted. Like him, I grew up using a rotary telephone. Answering machines and voice mail were not even contemplated. Cell phones, email, and videoconferencing were far in the future.
Now, things are different. We can hold conference calls with colleagues from all over, and do it basically for free. Tiny videocams built into laptop computers—that are themselves millions of times more powerful than the computers used to fly men to the moon in the 1960s—allow real-time visual meetups, saving time and money, making business run better and progress move faster.
Still, no matter how far we have come, in-person meetings are better than data-mediated connections. Here is how one blogger explains it:
There’s just no substitute for face to face contact with people. No matter how much new technology we develop.
Three reasons for that:
First… Email/text/phone conversations do not convey anywhere near as much information as an in-person meeting. Ask anyone who’s ever done computer dating. And that additional information still matters, even in a business context. My strongest business contacts are always those people I’ve spent time with in person. Why? Because physical proximity opens doors to a fuller connection with people. You get a far better sense of who they are, and you’re also far more likely to talk about non-business topics. Their family life. Their history. The terrible vacation disaster they had last month. And that translates into both a stronger connection and a stronger working relationship.
Second… While one could argue that the above connections could be made in sporadic meetings, not requiring an office, remote communication doesn’t nurture the same level and quality of “hey, what do you think about this idea” casual, quick collaboration that physical proximity allows. It’s far tougher to be creative in a vacuum—or even within the constraints of separate locations. Convenience, access, and physical energy and synergy all matter.
Third… While audio and teleconferencing are terrific resources, they’re still the next best thing to being there. It’s tough to get high-quality discussions with time delays and uncertainty about who is talking, when. And—raise your hand if you’ve never done other tasks during a group teleconference.
And a commenter on that blog adds another important dimension:
If you are physically present with other people, you simply get more comfortable with them.
I spent most of a decade with my office in one state and my data center 500 miles away in another. And I made a point to get down there every 3-4 months and just spend a couple of days hanging out with the folks in computer operations. No urgent tasks, no demands, just spending time within earshot. As a result, they became much more willing to contact me when problems were still small. And much more willing to go out of their way to help when I contacted them from home and needed something. And when I say “more willing,” I mean compared to the relationship they had with my co-workers who did not do so—specifically including those whose desks were less than a hundred yards away, but who never bothered to go see operators in person.
Communicating with all the new technologies is really great. I certainly would not want to be without it. But when it comes to establishing and maintaining a relationship with another human being, it is no substitute for spending time face to face. Far better than nothing, of course. But not as good as even occasional personal visits.
How long will this very significant gap continue to exist?
It seems highly unlikely that video teleconferencing will ever overcome the deficiencies described above, no matter how broadband and high fidelity it becomes. Early generations of immersive virtual reality—which are still at least a decade away—probably will not capture or convey as much information as we can get in an actual face to face meeting with someone.
In my view, virtual reality will have to enable essentially all the different channels of learning and communicating that real reality provides; not only hearing and vision, but also touch, taste, and smell; and not only those, but also nuances of body warmth, perspiration, and pheromones.
We have a long way to go, and it will be exciting and powerfully beneficial when we get there. But for now, byte-to-byte can’t touch face-to-face.
IEET Blog