Business travel

Gulliver

Face-to-face meetings

You can't share a beer over e-mail

Feb 23rd 2011, 17:06 by A.B.

THE justifications for face-to-face meetings are manifold and well known. This article on the Harvard Business Review's blog offers one businessman's rationale for the expensive airfares and inconveniences to senior employees that resulted from his insistence on monthly management meetings in different locations.

By breaking down the geographic and psychological borders between subsidiaries and involving all of our senior managers in a regular, rigorous business analysis of each operation, we created a team that felt a sense of ownership not just of their P&L, but of the entire company.

The writer goes on to admit that such a pace was unsustainable—and indeed unnecessary once personalities had gelled—so the meetings were scaled back to quarterly affairs. And so to the nub of the article:

Big multinationals hold meetings like this as a matter of course, but in many ways I think they're even more valuable for small companies — even if they stretch managers' time and put demands on limited cash flow. Small companies tend to lack the infrastructure and controls of large companies, and our monthly in-person meetings helped overcome that.

I'm interested by the notion that smaller companies have a greater need for face-to-face meetings than bigger ones. I think that's what instinct tells us, though I do wonder whether workers in some faceless über-company would struggle to feel a sense of community without meeting distant colleagues. Answers, then, please to a very general query: which has greater need of face-to-face meetings, the smaller company or the bigger?

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please login or sign up for a free account.
1-15 of 15
Feb 23rd 2011 5:23 GMT

The smaller. Individuals (even the CEO) of a large company are less crucial to the companies health. Stick a yes/no octopus as the head of goldman sachs and it would probably do just as well as its doing now (if not better if you don't pay the octopus).

KitMarlowe wrote:
Feb 23rd 2011 6:02 GMT

A large company is more likely to have teams spread over long distances, but any size company can find itself in the same position these days. In my experience, the number one reason to meet face to face is to minimize the us-vs-them mentality that all to easily forms. To the extent that a small number of people are working towards something concrete, they can generally iron out their problems over the phone or through email. However, once layers of management get involved, things can quickly grind to a halt in the cloud of misunderstanding, office politics, finger pointing and ass covering that inevitably gets kicked up. In these cases, the sort of personal bonds formed over a beer can count for a lot. I don't think I need to say in which size company layers of management are likely to be found.

Feb 23rd 2011 10:26 GMT

Anecdote is not the same as data, but in my experience extensive travel was more important when we were a small company (35 employees) than it is now that we are 750 employees. Larger companies have policies, procedures and instituionalized mechanisms for coordination while small companies are very reliant on the contributions of each individual and the relationships between them.

Manly Horse wrote:
Feb 25th 2011 7:29 GMT

The simple answer is 'neither'.

A more complicated answer is that it depends on the company culture. The sort of company in which most meetings consist of 'death by Powerpoint' (especially if it's the boss hogging the microphone) should not waste money getting everyone in the same room. The sort of company in which discussion and debate is actively encouraged will benefit greatly from face-to-face interaction.

Feb 25th 2011 6:35 GMT

Actually, upon re-reading this post, I am reminded of a Facebook app I came across a while ago. Essentially, one can buy a discounted coupon for a beer at any of a number of participating bars and send the coupon via mobile device either to himself or any of his Facebook friends. The recipient can then redeem the coupon for a real beer. So yes, in a way it is now possible to share a beer over e-mail.

http://www.beer2buds.com/howitworks.php

Kristi Lu wrote:
Feb 27th 2011 4:57 GMT

small one.

Why face-to-face meeting? It's more than just dealing with the company's office stuffs or companies' strategies. These can all do well via remote conference or email. Face-to-face meetings is also a good time to get closer the relationship which small companies chief officers have better. Or, maybe it's a good time to have some under-table gossip talks which shouldn't be recorded by technology.

York Zucchi wrote:
Feb 27th 2011 8:01 GMT

Having worked in large multinationals (Goldman Sachs, Sal. Oppenheim, etc) in Dubai, Hong Kong, Frankfurt, London, Luxembourg and South Africa and now running my own company in South Africa I have a particular sensitivity to the topic raised.

I am a big fan of technology and use it extensively for catch up sessions with my partners around the world, but for business I find - and indeed would argue that always found - face to face meetings an absolute necessity, notwithstanding the amount of time the travelling would require.

In face to face meetings you can read each other's often barely noticeable signals and act on them immediately, be it just clarifying a point or trying to work out an acceptable solution. Face to face also adds a level of honesty to the dynamics of the conversation that the digital world does not yet capture. A bit like writing a letter or an email. An email may be rationally perfectly fine but a letter is still something that conveys a seriousness of purpose and intent that email does not capture yet.

But as with all things, it is a healthy balance of the two that works best. In my experience I find that both in large multinationals or smaller outfits like ours (www.yzp.ch, if I may be allowed a bit of free publicity) the best approach is a first meeting via telephone to determine if a first person meeting is required. Then we go for a real meeting. This is then followed up by skype meetings or calls and followed up by in person catch ups.

Petr Matous wrote:
Feb 27th 2011 9:46 GMT

Size of an organization does not affect the need for face-to-face meetings but their feasibility. While frequent in-person meetings are relatively easy to coordinate in small local organizations, getting together senior employees of organizations with global reach requires long-distance travel, which may not always by worthwhile.

roop the loop wrote:
Mar 1st 2011 6:06 GMT

Surely even in larger organisations such meetings would involve a relatively finite and close-knit group? In which case the dynamics, and indeed the needs & reasons, are probably similar whether it's the management team of a small company, or the (product line, departmental, project, etc.) management team of a larger company meeting up to 'gel'.

Big Bend wrote:
Mar 1st 2011 6:07 GMT

I own and lead a small high tech (wireless telecom infrastructure gear) company. My answer is that the need for frequent internal in person meetings is a function of the management team's familiarity and mutual confidence. As a serial high tech start up entrepreneur, I have brought much of my core team with me from company to company. As such, we already know our respective skill sets, strengths, weaknesses, and how to complement one another in advancing the business. At another company where the team is not so familiar with and confident in one another, internally focused travel and meetings will likely be a good investment for such time as is required to establish good mutual confidence, trust, and camaraderie - team "gelling" as the post mentions. After such time, the travel money would be increasingly better spent on seeing and supporting customers as opposed to internal drone-a-thons. Like in all things, the leader and team will determine the execution and success. If you find your company forever needs lots of internal meetings (travel requiring or virtual), then you've likely got the wrong leader and/or the wrong team.

Mar 1st 2011 6:29 GMT

The necessity for face-to-face business meetings is probably less a function of the size of the entire company than the size and physical displacement of the individual business units within the company. In small companies, few people do many things. In large companies, many people do few things. At large companies, face-to-face interactions between low-level marketing staff and middle-management procurement just aren't necessary, but interactions between business units with similar or overlapping objectives are important, no matter the size of the company.

Mar 1st 2011 7:29 GMT

I've managed in both large and small companies. My opinion is it depends on the people. Many are comfortable in face-to-face meetings versus teleconferencing or telephone conference calls. Others feel the need to see all the people in the room, observe facial and hand gestures and utilize optional means for presentation. Others are comfortable meeting long distance, especially those who are adept at interpreting points-of-view without observing the speaker. That said, a well-prepared meeting with a set agenda, and an effective facilitator can make it work either way. Also many of the earlier comments resonants with me.

Michele Alessandroni

Mar 2nd 2011 2:20 GMT

Conferencing and collaborating through technological means has a different feel than the usual way of meeting someone in person.

When conferencing on-line, there is a timeline. Most people do not want to be pressured to make a decision or follow a process of so many steps. It makes them feel like a machine.

Face to Face meeting gives both feeling on being connected, regardless of the differences of view. Sometimes, there is no timeline.

Conclusively, it is a trade off of being technically efficient and being politically connected.

#
Following is a note on a process on how to operate as a virtual team:
http://collaboration360.blogspot.com/2008/03/collaborate-without-borders...

Tom Silo wrote:
Mar 2nd 2011 11:50 GMT

Answer (c): Both. Big comapnies run business units and its just as important that these units (often bigger than small businesses themselves) have strong leadership and connected people all across the business.

Perhaps the real question is about number of people in a meeting and the fact that those meetings need to be face-to-face as often as possible. For this question here, to effectively manage remote teams you must have the right people connect personally to share ideas and gain commitments. This has nothing to do with company size as "it's personal".

Put another way, how useful is any meeting with more than a few people in the room? Othewise it's really just a training or a discovery process. One-to-one is ideal so the executive should do their duties for the "all hands" staff meetings, but then connect one-on-one with each of their team and then finish with a meeting of his/her direct team ONLY as a wrap up. empoer the team to acheive, gain their commitment and trust them to deliver - this cannot be done well enough through calls or video conferences.

Mar 3rd 2011 8:33 GMT

Sirs,
Surely there's more science to this than what size company you work in? Size is not everything although it must have wider implications on company culture and this, plus the role you play within your own business and wider business community, will determine how effective face-to-face is over virtual connections. In my own experience, running an SME of 7 employees and around 50 volunteers, there is a fine balance in getting face-to-face meetings right and understanding when using alternative means gets results. Some of our board meetings can be done by tele-conference. others must have that round-table eye-ball moment because the added value it brings in influencing decisions is key. The subject and context are everything here. As far as New Business is concerned, some contracts have been won only after a number of trips to the USA to meet the intended client, where there was a big trust/relationship element to solve. Others have been gained through tele-cons & webex only, where trust was gained through peer knowledge and reputation. The contract sizes in each were similar before anyone questions that. The key here is not whether technology replaces travel, but that businesses should be thinking much harder about why they travel, why they meet and what the architecture of that meeting is in relation to the objectives. We haven't consciously thought about this in business in the past, but in many instances we are now because of the technology available and people, planet and profit dictates. Some travel will be replaced but some new travel will come about because of efficiencies created through a more strategic application of face-to-face and technology. Surely it is the right mix which leads to business growth and a sense of corporate citizenship rather than "face to face good/technology bad" or vice versa!

1-15 of 15

About Gulliver

In this blog, our correspondents inform and entertain business travellers with news, views and reviews that help them make the most of life on the road.

Sign up for our weekly "Gulliver's best" newsletter to have the blog's highlights delivered to your inbox »

Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The mysteries of TripAdvisor
From Gulliver - 1 hrs 3 mins ago
Hong Kong too-y
From Asia view - 2 hrs 57 mins ago
Look at that
From Babbage - 3 hrs 0 mins ago
Either a borrower or a lender be
From Babbage - March 6th, 22:31
Back to the bush
From Baobab - March 6th, 22:16
Weekend link exchange
From Free exchange - March 6th, 20:01
More from our blogs »
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day

Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.


Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter


See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.

Advertisement