Is face-to-face necessary?

“I am writing to you this evening with what seems to me to be a slightly paradoxical request,” the email began. “I am looking for a presenter (live and in person) on the topic of Virtual Teams.”

He was writing from Europe, where the event would take place, with colleagues and clients joining from across North America, Europe, the Caribbean, and Asia. I was impressed with the emailer's self-awareness.

We’ve received speaking queries where people don’t appear to notice that a virtual teams event might by rights take place virtually. There is a certain symmetry, a coherence of the message, that is hard to miss. Some do.

So this post, roiling around for some months, as the plethora—of books, articles, “studies” (I use quotes because some of them are of questionable provenance), and off-the-top-of-the-head posts on how to ensure virtual team success—proliferates.

A striking one came last year, a request to write another book foreword. It turned out to be a solid manuscript, based on sturdy research, and we ended up writing it without hesitation.

But I remain troubled by its—and the rest of these formulas’—Rxes for virtual team troubles: first meet face-to-face.

If that’s the primary requirement, rarely put forth with any theatre-of-the-absurb quips, then many virtual teams are sunk from the outset.

Unstated in the always-begin-in-person requirement is that otherwise people cannot learn to trust one another, that that only happens when you can watch how others fondle their coffee cups, pick at their cuticles, make faces (voluntarily or otherwise), or hang around a bar together.

Face-to-face, particularly for global and cross-country teams, is just not practical for everyone who has to work together—for example, flying across the US or taking the train from Chile to Venezuela or helicoptering across the Hindu-Kush.

I feel almost silly listing the reasons: it’s expensive; it’s time-consuming; it’s not particularly green; and, most important, there is no incontrovertible proof that it guarantees superior results. My bold assertion: It's an opinion, not a fact, that when teams meet face-to-face initially they always produce better, faster, and cheaper.

The problem in proving the opposite is that it's hard to imagine any organization actually performing this experiment, especially given the prevailing business climate. Would a thoughtful leader pay for the proof: give the same project to two teams—complex ones that require the best minds—funding one to meet first in person, the other to start virtually?

We need a number of well-designed studies that examine teams of similar diversity with comparably complex remits and roughly analogous resources, budgets, and schedules.

My hunch—based on our experience studying teams that never meet face-to-face—is that beginning in person may be desirable but it is not necessary.

It’s nice. It’s fun. It may even get some friendships off the ground more quickly.

But it also may create cliques that wouldn’t otherwise form; instill some prejudices that come about in the split-second when people first encounter one another; eliminate the possibility of serendipity that often comes about in the online environment; and, need I add, stress people out because travel is now so appealing.

Meeting face-to-face doesn’t guarantee success. Think of some of your own experiences where your team only met in person. All perfect, right?

I love being with people. There’s no substitute but …

Do we absolutely need to have our kick-off meetings shoulder-to-shoulder?

Should the “experts” continue drumming that we have to begin that way to be successful?

Thoughts?

 

Comments

[jessica lipnack]

From Facebook:

Steve: Steve Newberger
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, Jessica. I have had success for a dozen years or more working for my global employers as a member, and/or leading, small virtual teams, as well as teaching many thousands of adult learners in 1-2 hour virtual classrooms. Some of the teams were long-term, but limited in scale and scope, so that overseas travel ... See Morewas never countenanced, even over spans of a few years in a few cases.

In my experience, some participants have been more effective than others at making the unconscious commitment to fully invest in the virtual team process, to relax and be a team member without ever experiencing a face-to-face encounter. It's a personality issue: has one the ability to inject one's multi-dimensional persona into a telephone, or low-resolution video conference? Some do; but many in my field (IT) find focused extroversion of this kind foreign, and have needed to learn as they go. For me, virtual is my preferred mode. After all, people have always told me: I have a great face for radio!

[jessica lipnack]

From Alfred S. Gilman via Facebook:

JL: My hunch—which is also based on our experience studying teams that never meet face-to-face—is that beginning in person may be desirable but it is not necessary.

AG: yes. You could probably say 'highly desirable.'

JL: Should the “experts” continue drumming that we have to begin that way to be successful?... See More

AG: No. But that's just the matter of taking a strong qualitative matter-of-degree fact and coloring it black and white.

... more follows as separate comments

[Valdis Krebs]

In some software development teams I have been on, we meet mostly virtually, but occasionally need a F2F session to work through complex ideas/problems/issues. "F2F first" is not a requirement, but if work is complex, then "F2F eventually" makes sense.

"If a picture is worth a 1000 words, then a day F2F is worth a 1000 emails/tweets" IMHO

[jessica lipnack]

More from Al Gilman via Facebook:

Alfred S. Gilman
Once there was a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Tele-Rehabilitation. I was on their Advisory Board. At one State of the Science meeting (briefing on much of their research) there were two studies that came down on different sides of this question.

A hypnosis therapist worked physically present with one group of patients, and by phone with the other. There was no particular difference in the success of the therapy.

A program of service to families with autistic kids divided cases into two groups: one started with a F2F session and used telephone after; the other just used the phone. Here the group that started F2F was markedly more successful.... See More

My working hypothesis that squares with the over-sold CW in virtual teams is that high-touch contact builds affective connection, but that the hypnotist's medium of care was his voice, so being on the phone made difference nil. The autistic kids and their parents were at great risk of not establishing enough affective connection over the phone, and in that situation it was really needed.

So the bottom line is: F2F contact is good for what it's good for, and depending on the composition and mission of the team, it may be a nice-to-have or must-have.

[jessica lipnack]

Another from Al Gilman via Facebook:

Historically, off-site meetings have been a way to get people to focus on just the meeting agenda, away from their phones.

The recent _Frontline_ program on the chronically-connected lifestyle shows that it's not so easy to get people away from their side conversations these days. But I think that this is in large measure why the CW about virtual... See More teams is that you should start with a F2F. It is good in terms of building a shared understanding of the mission and plan, as well as a stronger web of trust among the participants. This doesn't mean it is irreplaceable. But if you don't have some face time early, you need to be more careful in attending to the group formation both as task and as team. You and Jeffrey know how to do that, so you don't find the F2F essential.

It's like the difference between 'effective' in the lab and 'efficacious' in public health. If you have to transfer how-to knowledge to novices and then they run the teams, it's a lot easier to say "start F2F" and have the teams succeed than to transfer enough subtle knowledge to assure a healthy launch w/out.

[jessica lipnack]

Oh, Valdis. This -- "If a picture is worth a 1000 words, then a day F2F is worth a 1000 emails/tweets" -- deserves its own post. Thank you.

[Nancy White]

Hey Jessica

I share your experience of people wanting to have F2F trainings for online facilitation, etc. If it is not AT LEAST a blend of F2F and online, I won't do it anymore.

I think the comments above surface the complexity of the question. Context matters - and contexts are diverse.

I love working with people who simply CAN'T be together, and with that motivation, amazing things are possible, including functioning, trust-ful teams. I've had situations where we had plenty of F2F, process support, etc and the teams failed. I bet they would have failed if they were all F2F because they were missing the bits that any team needs to succeed, including enough shared purpose, intention, attention and in most cases, enough slack from their "vertical" responsibilities to attend to the "horizontal" responsibilities of cross organizational teams.

Anyway, I'm wandering.

My data points? If a team is to primarily function at a distance and there are no extenuating situations (i.e. ZERO tech skills, language or whatever) that starting online FIRST is actually a success strategy.

People "test" their "online antennae" around relationship and trust building. They do small interrelated tasks to understand working styles. Then, IF THEY CAN, come together F2F to validate their online experience. They go "yeah this works, and no, we need to tweak that." They consider their online skills not as theory, but as practice.

These groups go online again faster and stay together easier than groups who start F2F, reaffirm all they KNOW about F2F then flounder online.

Hey, I'm jet lagged. Enough rambling but sufficient to say, I'm with ya, sistah!

[jessica lipnack]

From Gerry on Facebook:

I'm curious enough to ask about the alternative. My first thoughts would be to provide a read ahead to the assigned group to which they would prepare comments and their initial position ans situation statements to begin in wiki or discussion forums. Follow this with a video conference to glean some consensus on the way ahead. If a F2F is still desired it should be more immediately productive and provide a better value to the organization.

[Jack Vinson]

I think a big element of this is how the team is set up to begin with. I have seen so many teams sit in front of a telephone and listen to the discussion and get nothing done. _I_ have this problem myself.

As far as the team meetings go, if these don't work, there is no chance that the ongoing work of the team is going to have trouble too. As an observation, it seems like people put less thought into teleconferences than they do F2F conferences, when it should really be the reverse. You have to overcome the natural tendency to drift off or ignore the speakers - particularly if there are technical glitches. Engage people early and often. Get them talking and commenting and committing to take on responsibility.

[jessica lipnack]

Nancy, so much good stuff in your comment that I'm elevating it to a post too.

Gerry, completely with you on preparation being essential - and prep for virtual work enhancing face-to-face enormously.

Jack, absolutely! Why do we think we can wing it virtually when we'd be loath to do that for a face-to-face meeting.

All great points, folks. Thanks.